Actually, Frank....Frank: Yes Of course, otherwise the only way to reconcile what I have said is to conclude I am retarded, and we all know I am not retarded
Actually, Frank....Frank: Yes Of course, otherwise the only way to reconcile what I have said is to conclude I am retarded, and we all know I am not retarded
That's the conversation you would actually have.This is the conversion I imagine I would be having with frank if I were to meet him:
Me: FAR graph accuracy sucks
Frank: Check the IPCC for current and better graphs, stop using just the ones you get from whatsupdoc.com
Me: AR4 graph accuracy sucks
Frank: Nope, its really fucking accurate, check the last few dates that fall right on the money.
Me: That is why I used FAR
Frank: Of course, because you don't want accuracy, you want to claim the IPCC is wrong.
Me: So you are confident that AR4 after a few decades of wait will confirm AGW
Frank: Yes, AR4, according to the chart you posted, is dead on as of today.
Me: But there was one year when AR4 and FAR were both wrong so therefore I'm smarter then them all.
Frank: Because you expect the weather to be the same every day, and every month to be only slightly more or less then the next month, so that all graphs come out with straight lines only. You claim there is natural variation but don't accept it in real charts.
Me: So you are telling me you have a time machine, you went decades into the future and looked at the AR4 results and came back to this time
Frank: No need, today's date is today. And as of today the AR4 charts are 'spectacularly accurate'
Wow, I know you are stupid, but I didn't expect you to be that stupid.To be fair, Frankfooter and the other believers have set some clear criteria for measuring the impact of man-made greenhouse gases on the climate.
According to them, increases in man-made greenhouse gases will lead to the following:
-- An increase in the Earth's temperature (late 1970s to the late 1990s).
-- A decrease in the Earth's temperature (1940s to the 1970s).
-- No change to the Earth's temperature (the 21st century).
So, if you see an increase in the Earth's temperature, a decrease in the Earth's temperature, or no change to the Earth's temperature, you can be sure that anthropogenic global warming is real.
If you see any other result, you might want to question AGW. :thumb:
I know what the IPCC's predictions have been. And I know what the observed data show.You really have no clue what the predictions are, what the IPCC is predicting or what I've said, do you?
You have no backbone, when on cursory glance if the data supports your claim then you compliment it, when on closer examination the data does not support your claim you dismiss it without ever trying to reconcile your divergent views.That's the conversation you would actually have.
Your imagination isn't very smart.
Now you are saying that graph is BS?Exactly, Moviefan hasn't caught on to the fact that those charts are actually really quite accurate.
He can't read them well enough to understand that we are smack dab in the middle of the red bars of predictions right now.
That the very chart he accuses of being wrong is bang on the money.
Now the graph he posted is dead on the money when takling to movie, but when you talk to me you claim the same graphs are BS.Wow, I know you are stupid, but I didn't expect you to be that stupid.
You really have no clue what the predictions are, what the IPCC is predicting or what I've said, do you?
If that's what you really think I've said, you are just that stupid.
But then again, you did post an IPCC chart that is dead on the money and claim it was wrong.
You probably can't even read what those models are predicting for the climate, can you?
I added your name to post 159 above.But then again, you did post an IPCC chart that is dead on the money and claim it was wrong.
Lets see. The graph you posted (and still post) was showing the measured temperature variation compared to the main projections. When you include the measured values for temperature variation from the past 3 years (and in Celsius you clown), they fit right into the middle of the projections. Your only issue is you don't like what the measurements show.You're serious?? You genuinely didn't know that you can't take numbers from a graph and transport them to a different graph that is using a completely different set of numbers?
....
OMG!I know what the IPCC's predictions have been. And I know what the observed data show.
(And I mean the real data, not numbers that are transferred from one graph to another to create a phony illusion that the planet is warming.)
....
Actually, the most likely answer is that you just have a very confused mind.
Is English your first language?Now the graph he posted is dead on the money when takling to movie, but when you talk to me you claim the same graphs are BS.
We can talk about that after you confirm that the last three years the predictions have been right on the money.Since you insist that the IPCC chart is showing the NASA data set, confirm for us that you believe the IPCC chart below shows the temperature anomaly reading for 2005 as 0.66 degrees and the reading for 2010 as 0.67 degrees.
I am sorry I beat you down so hard that you have to resort to making fun of my spelling mistakes to save face.Is English your first language?
You are one of the dumbest people I have ever met.OMG!
Is that ever funny.
Now you are claiming that those darn NASA and IPCC type don't have the real numbers, but only you do?
Did you read your own post?I am sorry I beat you down so hard that you have to resort to making fun of my spelling mistakes to save face.
Oh my fucking god!You are one of the dumbest people I have ever met.
Let's see if you can get this.
Here are the NASA numbers. Notice that they don't show any statistically significant warming after 2002: http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img538/5980/HiFnTn.jpg
Yep. No noticeable warming unless you include the last 3 years. I find it amazing that you continue to post a graph even though you know that adding the last 3 years makes you claims complete trash.You are one of the dumbest people I have ever met.
Let's see if you can get this.
Here are the NASA numbers. Notice that they don't show any statistically significant warming after 2002: http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img538/5980/HiFnTn.jpg
Here are the IPCC numbers. Notice that they also don't show any warming in the 21st century: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/fig1_4.jpg
...
Take another look at the NASA graph, Basketcase. I did include the last three years.Yep. No noticeable warming unless you include the last 3 years. I find it amazing that you continue to post a graph even though you know that adding the last 3 years makes you claims complete trash.
Oh My God!As for the IPCC graph, if you were to accept the data and update the graph by plotting 2014 at the same level as 2010 (about 0.5 degrees Celsius on that graph), it would also show the planet isn't warming.
.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201506The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2015 was the highest for June in the 136-year period of record, at 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F), surpassing the previous record set just one year ago by 0.12°C (0.22°F). This was also the fourth highest monthly departure from average for any month on record. The two highest monthly departures from average occurred earlier this year in February and March, both at 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average for their respective months, while January 2007 had the third highest, at 0.89°C (1.60°F) above its monthly average.
Sure, it is.The planet is fine. Stop worrying about the planet and get some help for yourself.