President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist

basketcase said:

Good thing you and the 9% see the truth that the world is trying to keep from us.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's right Basketcase -- me, NASA, the IPCC, the NOAA, the Met Office, Berkeley Earth Sciences, the Japan Meteorological Agency, the University of Alabama in Huntsville ... we're all part of one giant conspiracy to produce data that contradict your "experts."

I'm sure your conclusion sounds entirely rational ... to Groggy. :crazy:

Moviefan-2 said:

It's not just the mainstream media. The IPCC also confirmed the predictions were spectacularly wrong.

For that matter, NASA and the others have also reported "flattening" temperatures in the 21st century (NASA's description), which everyone knows is not what was predicted.

The graphs I have posted -- including the IPCC graphs -- actually show the difference between the projections and the temperatures.

By contrast, Groggy/Frankfooter likes to post graphs that show microscopic changes in the temperature in the 21st century -- but his graphs don't show you how the temperatures compare with the predictions.

His NASA graph, for example, only shows temperature changes. It doesn't show how the observed data compare with the predictions, which is the true test of the AGW hypothesis.

Click to expand...

Thank you for this neat little recap of the ongoing debate here.

But I still think, whether it's AGW or not, that those 'microscopic changes' you cite, have caused significant changes in climate or weather patterns, and warming. I go by the physical observations (receding glaciers, snow caps, polar ice, extreme weather, etc. etc.)

@ Frankfooter, what's your simplest response to Moviefan-2's criticism that the predictions are too off to prove AGW?

Since we have two competing threads going on this subject, I thought I'd share the updated HadCRUT4 graph that I posted in the other thread.

This is a graph of the observed temperature anomalies that are being used in that big IPCC graph that Frankfooter keeps posting. This one goes to the end of 2014.




http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

As you can see, it clearly shows that temperatures have been stagnant in the 21st century.

basketcase said:

Yep. Those experts are always getting it wrong. Good thing you and the 9% see the truth that the world is trying to keep from us.

Click to expand...

Your delusional. This 9% you trumpet so much is a some sort of concoction in your head. The vast majority of climate scientists do not subscribe to AGW theory. A few very influential climatologists (notice how I didn't call them scientists) with political connections have been spinning the theory for 2 decades and now they are being called out on their fraudulent behaviour.

GPIDEAL said:

Thank you for this neat little recap of the ongoing debate here.

But I still think, whether it's AGW or not, that those 'microscopic changes' you cite, have caused significant changes in climate or weather patterns, and warming. I go by the physical observations (receding glaciers, snow caps, polar ice, extreme weather, etc. etc.)

@ Frankfooter, what's your simplest response to Moviefan-2's criticism that the predictions are too off to prove AGW?

Click to expand...

Did you watch that Dr Tim Ball lecture I posted a while back. It would answer some of your questions. For example extreme weather events are lower now than they were at many times in the past 150 years. Do yourself a favour and watch that if you haven't already.

Moviefan-2 said:

On a different note, you have to love this description on Mark Steyn's website today about Michael Mann and the "world of cartoon climatology":



http://www.steynonline.com/7144/day-of-disgrace

Click to expand...

Steyn is my favourite author. His new book comes out this week I think. I better check Amazon, dying to read it.

K Douglas said:

Steyn is my favourite author. His new book comes out this week I think. I better check Amazon, dying to read it.

Click to expand...

It officially came out today.

To get the soft cover version, you have to order it from Amazon in the U.S. or from Steyn's site. However, the Kindle version is available from Amazon in Canada.

I'm not a Kindle guy so I ordered mine from the States. I'm looking forward to it.

K Douglas said:

Your delusional. This 9% you trumpet so much is a some sort of concoction in your head.....

Click to expand...

Wow. The survey of experts that movie proudly posted said only 9% agree with his view that there has been no warming this century. That same survey said that only 9% of scientists don't see AGW as a major factor.

Moviefan-2 said:

Yeah, that's right Basketcase -- me, NASA, the IPCC, the NOAA, the Met Office, Berkeley Earth Sciences, the Japan Meteorological Agency, the University of Alabama in Huntsville ... we're all part of one giant conspiracy to produce data that contradict your "experts."

I'm sure your conclusion sounds entirely rational ... to Groggy. :crazy:

Click to expand...

Interesting. I took that HadCRUT4 data you linked to and threw the data for this century into a spreadsheet. Strange thing is that the trend line is a positive one. But why don't you and the 9% stick to your beliefs.

I also took their data from the past few years and added it too the IPCC graph you so proudly promote. Strangely those numbers fit well within the projected range.

But you can keep on going with your denials.

Moviefan-2 said:

...

Frankfooter said:

Ok, on your terms here is the final word.
HadCRUT 4 for 2015 = 0.684ºC

Click to expand...

I'm definitely leaning the toward the view that visiting a shrink might be the best option for you.
....

Click to expand...

Why, do you want groggy's shrink to give you a referral?

You posted that HadCRUT 4 data and their YTD global average is 0.684 and now you are saying it's wrong. It seems arguing against your own links is becoming a habit.

basketcase said:

Interesting. I took that HadCRUT4 data you linked to and threw the data for this century into a spreadsheet. Strange thing is that the trend line is a positive one.

Click to expand...

Nice try.

The survey showed that 46 per cent of your experts said warming had been the same or greater than the preceding decades.

Here's the graph with the HadCRUT4 data.





There's no possible way you can the trend line in the 21st century is the same as the trend line from 1980 to 2000.

---

basketcase said:

I also took their data from the past few years and added it too the IPCC graph you so proudly promote. Strangely those numbers fit well within the projected range.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe I was wrong ... perhaps you don't know the difference between the numbers 3 and 5.

Let's try again.

The IPCC graph from 2013 used the CMIP3 projections. At the time, it showed the predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

The current model runs are CMIP5. If you're going to compare current temperatures with the projections, you have to use CMIP5.

Based on the average of the CMIP5 projections, the predicted temperature anomaly for this year is about 0.85 degrees Celsius. Your El Nino anomaly of 0.68 degrees C is nowhere near 0.85 degrees C.

basketcase said:

You posted that HadCRUT 4 data and their YTD global average is 0.684 and now you are saying it's wrong.

Click to expand...

?????

I said no such thing. I said the reported 0.684 degrees C anomaly for 2015 is nowhere near the CMIP5 prediction of 0.85 degrees C.

It's the predictions that have been spectacularly wrong.

Moviefan-2 said:

The current model runs are CMIP5. If you're going to compare current temperatures with the projections, you have to use CMIP5.

Based on the average of the CMIP5 projections, the predicted temperature anomaly for this year is about 0.85 degrees Celsius. Your El Nino anomaly of 0.68 degrees C is nowhere near 0.85 degrees C.

Click to expand...

I agree, but you also have to use the current version of HadCRUT4 which is HadCRUT4.4.0
HadCRUT 4 says the year to date is 0.809ºC
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/...time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt

It's you that has been spectacularly wrong.
The IPCC has been spectacularly accurate.