• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scott Adams: The Climate Science Challenge

Jack Hays said:
Please note that the research I cited was for Antarctica as a whole (as was your initial post). Your rebuttal covers only west Antarctica. Why would that be? Perhaps because that's where volcanoes under the ice are causing melting?

[h=1]New paper finds West Antarctic glacier likely melting from geothermal heat below[/h]Via the Hockey Schtick – A paper published today in Earth and Planetary Science Letters finds evidence that one of the largest glaciers in West Antarctica, the Thwaites Glacier, is primarily melting from below due to geothermal heat flux from volcanoes located along the West Antarctic Volcanic Rift System, i.e. not due to man-made CO2.…

October 12, 2014 in Antarctic.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know what you did versus what I posted. But, you know what?

Time will tell who is right or wrong. I'm betting on me.
 
Jack Hays said:
What is interesting to me regarding models is that observed temperatures are scraping the bottom of the forecast range.
Click to expand...

Not only at the bottom, but trending to break the model.
 
calamity said:
If and when a significant percentage of ice on Antarctica melts, S will definitely HTF. Can the models predict with certainty the when, what and where? Probably not. But, I suspect that they are going to be a lot closer to reality than you think.
Click to expand...

Yes it is easy to model the rate of melting or accumulation of land ice in Antarctica.

There is no possibility what so ever of all the ice melting. Indeed there is no possibility what so ever of any significant amout of ice melting that would lead to more than 10mm of sea level rise by 2100.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Yes it is easy to model the rate of melting or accumulation of land ice in Antarctica.

There is no possibility what so ever of all the ice melting. Indeed there is no possibility what so ever of any significant amout of ice melting that would lead to more than 10mm of sea level rise by 2100.
Click to expand...
:lamo
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Did you miss mine (more recent than yours)?

Chapter 11 of the IPCC AR5 Report focused on near term climate change, through 2035. Figure 7 compares climate model projections with recent observations of global surface temperature anomalies.
Click to expand...

Nope, didn't miss anything.... you did. That graph doesn't include several of the last few years. Even the updated graph from the same source didn't include 2016(why didn't you cut and paste the updated one?).

slide6.jpg

Mine includes an estimate for 2016.
 
Buzz said:
Nope, didn't miss anything.... you did. That graph doesn't include several of the last few years. Even the updated graph from the same source didn't include 2016(why didn't you cut and paste the updated one?).

View attachment 67211893

Mine includes an estimate for 2016.
Click to expand...

This one?

IPCC author Ed Hawkins, who originally created the above figure, has updated the figure with surface temperature observations though 2015:
 
Yes... that one. Why you felt the need to post it again I don't know.

Did you notice that current temps are not scraping the bottom of the forecast range any more? And that if it included an estimate for 2016 like mine did that it looks like temps might be catching up to what the models predicted.
 
Buzz said:
Yes... that one. Why you felt the need to post it again I don't know.

Did you notice that current temps are not scraping the bottom of the forecast range any more? And that if it included an estimate for 2016 like mine did that it looks like temps might be catching up to what the models predicted.
Click to expand...

They will fall again. Only the El Nino saved the modelers from utter embarrassment in 2016.
 
Jack Hays said:
They will fall again. Only the El Nino saved the modelers from utter embarrassment in 2016.
Click to expand...

Fall 'again'?

They're not falling. As I showed earlier, 2017 is predicted to be the third hottest year ever recorded. That's not a fall, it's natural variation increasing the moving averages.
 
Threegoofs said:
Fall 'again'?

They're not falling. As I showed earlier, 2017 is predicted to be the third hottest year ever recorded. That's not a fall, it's natural variation increasing the moving averages.
Click to expand...

We shall see.
 
Jack Hays said:
They will fall again. Only the El Nino saved the modelers from utter embarrassment in 2016.
Click to expand...

So... in other words... you were wrong!

:lamo

Damn Jack... don't you ever get tired of being proven wrong all the time?
 
Buzz said:
So... in other words... you were wrong!

:lamo

Damn Jack... don't you ever get tired of being proven wrong all the time?
Click to expand...

I love how AGW advocates leap to claim victory with no justification whatsoever. I was right, and will be right consistently into the future because the data are on my side.
 
Jack Hays said:
I love how AGW advocates leap to claim victory with no justification whatsoever. I was right, and will be right consistently into the future because the data are on my side.
Click to expand...

And this is why you are a denialist. You can't even acknowledge when the data proves you wrong. You just lie about the data.
 
Buzz said:
And this is why you are a denialist. You can't even acknowledge when the data proves you wrong. You just lie about the data.
Click to expand...

And that's another unattractive AGW advocate trait: easy use of the word "lie." You'll be ashamed of that one day.
 
Jack Hays said:
And that's another unattractive AGW advocate trait: easy use of the word "lie." You'll be ashamed of that one day.
Click to expand...

Oh... will I?? Your the one who just lied when you said I had "no justification whatsoever" for saying you were wrong. Yet I had just shown the data in two graphs(one of which you saw first and ignored)that proves your comment that temps are running at the bottom of the model predictions was wrong.

Now I know you hate being called a liar... so.... quit lying!
 
Buzz said:
Oh... will I?? Your the one who just lied when you said I had "no justification whatsoever" for saying you were wrong. Yet I had just shown the data in two graphs(one of which you saw first and ignored)that proves your comment that temps are running at the bottom of the model predictions was wrong.

Now I know you hate being called a liar... so.... quit lying!
Click to expand...

Sorry, but your graphs still put the observed temperatures near the bottom of the models' ranges for all but the El Nino anomaly.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but your graphs still put the observed temperatures near the bottom of the models' ranges for all but the El Nino anomaly.
Click to expand...

Oh... now your going to resort to this denialist misinformation? El Nino years don't count... except when it backs up your beleifs. Like the denialist lie that there has been no warming for 18 years and 8 months which is based on cherry picked data that has to start with the 1998 El Nino. Sorry Jack but this is just another example of you wanting to have it both ways. And you are doing it in two separate threads at the same time!

You are still wrong. Temps are not running at the bottom of the model predictions. Now if you want to make some stupid argument that 2014 through 2016 shouldn't count because of an El Nino... then make it. But don't tell me that I didn't have any justification whatsoever.
 
Buzz said:
Oh... now your going to resort to this denialist misinformation? El Nino years don't count... except when it backs up your beleifs. Like the denialist lie that there has been no warming for 18 years and 8 months which is based on cherry picked data that has to start with the 1998 El Nino. Sorry Jack but this is just another example of you wanting to have it both ways. And you are doing it in two separate threads at the same time!

You are still wrong. Temps are not running at the bottom of the model predictions. Now if you want to make some stupid argument that 2014 through 2016 shouldn't count because of an El Nino... then make it. But don't tell me that I didn't have any justification whatsoever.
Click to expand...

The thread is about model accuracy. There is nothing wrong with tracking temperatures from El Nino to El Nino (the Pause) but a defense of models cannot rely on an El Nino to make up deficiencies.
 
Jack Hays said:
There is nothing wrong with tracking temperatures from El Nino to El Nino (the Pause)
Click to expand...

There is if you have to cherry pick the temperature record to show there is still a pause while you ignore all the other records that show the slow down in warming is long over with.

Jack Hays said:
but a defense of models cannot rely on an El Nino to make up deficiencies.
Click to expand...

Says who? You? A denialist who resorts to lies and double standards when he is proven wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom