Clearly, you don't know what the word "continuing" means.
And I'm assuming you have concluded that the people at NASA don't know what they're talking about. "Flattening" was their word, not mine.
October Smashes Temperature Records Practically Guaranteeing 2015 Will Be HottestYear
- Thread starter twizz
- Start date
Clearly, you don't know what the word "continuing" means.
And I'm assuming you have concluded that the people at NASA don't know what they're talking about. "Flattening" was their word, not mine.
And if you want to compare el nino years, the data sets can accommodate you as well.
82/83 was a very strong el nino. It's monthly temperature anomaly peaked at 0.431 (was 0.005 in October)
97/98 was a very strong el nino. It's monthly temperature anomaly peaked at 0.763 (was 0.554 in October)
2015/16 is another very strong one. Temperature anomalies so far is at 0.811 for October and climbing. It usually doesn't peak until Jan/Feb.
So you want to ignore the fact that the hadcrut data fits the projections because the NASA data also fits the projections. Damn you are entertaining.
God, you're dumb.
You genuinely want us to believe that you can't understand that you can't take numbers from two unrelated data sets and plot them on the same graph?
Seriously??
As for the HadCRUT data fitting the predictions, Franky's graph puts the 2015 anomaly at 0.71ºC and the IPCC's prediction at about 0.85ºC.
Yes or no: Is 0.71ºC less than 0.85ºC?
BULL SHIT,...
So in other words,...another of your useless charts simply shows some ... that some temps needed to be re-written up,...and some re-written down,...and the overall result is,...???
Are you saying that the end result of all that re-writing of history accomplished NOTHING,...nothing was revised because of the so called,...re-calibration.
Unless a chart has can produce a result,...it useless,...
Tell you what,...you posted the chart,...therfore YOU must know what the end result is,...what the hell is the bottom line here.
Does the chart indicate that the so called "re calibration" result in past temps. data being adjusted down,...or adjusted up.
If there was no adjustments made,...then the whole exercise was just another waste of time from the UNEMPLOYABLEs,...but was else is new.
FAST
Speaking of dumb, do you realize how dumb you are?
You can quite clearly use data from different sources if you adjust for the different baselines.
That's exactly what the IPCC did in the chart posted below, I'll even add in the legend from the IPCC report, for confirmation.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter01_FINAL.pdf
page 131
Sure. Except Basketcase didn't make those adjustments -- he simply plotted the different data sets on the same graph and then drew preposterous conclusions about the temperature anomalies in 2013 and 2014.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5301206&viewfull=1#post5301206
As I have said all along, the point isn't that he got his numbers completely wrong.
The point is that he doesn't know how to read a graph. And neither do you.
Stop right there.
You can't complain about what data basketcase used in reference since the chart you are referring to is itself pure bullshit.
That chart is not legit, you claim its an IPCC chart, but its not.
It was never published by the IPCC.
STOP USING THAT CHART AND LYING ABOUT IT!!!
You need to stop being so dishonest and lying your face off so often.
That chart was a leaked chart that was never published.
https://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/ipcc-wg1-leaked-graph-conspiracy/
You've been told this multiple times, this isn't a mistake its a deliberate attempt at fraud.
This is the legit chart that the IPCC published.
Yes, moviefan keeps trying to present that chart as if its an official IPCC chart, but its not, it was never published by the IPCC.
To keep trying to pass it off as legit when he knows it isn't is fraud.
His honesty and integrity are clearly suspect.
A footer
You have to understand footer,...if he doesn't like what the answer will be,...he just runs away,...or replies with more insults,...and still no answer.
FAST
You have to understand footer,...if he doesn't like what the answer will be,...he just runs away,...or replies with more insults,...and still no answer.
FAST
Here it is again Frank, in case you missed it:
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5412932&viewfull=1#post5412932
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5412932&viewfull=1#post5412932
The chart shows that we don't get much in the way of record cold days anymore.
During the 30's-40's we broke a lot of heat records as we warmed up, we aren't breaking as many, but we are still having record hot days.
Just pretty much no more record cold days.
Okay, I agree with all that. But it sounds like you're poo-pooing the lack of record hot days, while trumpeting the decrease in record cold days.
You would think if earth was drastically warming we would also see an increase in record hot days, and yet we're not. We are actually getting a lot less record hot days, which doesnt really support the global warming hypothesis
Not really, its just getting harder and harder to get record hot days.
Like when you break the 100 metre, it gets harder for the next record.
Isn't it sweet the way Franky keeps wanting to come to Basketcase's defence.
In the usual Franky manner -- by trying to change the subject.
The issue isn't what Franky thinks of the graph that the IPCC had initially circulated. The point I have been making is Basketcase was mixing and matching numbers from different data sets (without any adjustments) to create a fairy-tale depiction of warming.
Apparently, Basketcase had no idea that what he was doing was wrong. Judging from yesterday's post, I'm still not sure he realizes it.
And that's the real point. Basketcase doesn't know how to read a graph. He has no idea what the data tell us about the IPCC's predictions.
Last edited:
To be fair to Basketcase, we should remember that Frankfooter also doesn't know how to read a graph.
In September, the HadCRUT4 data showed the temperature anomaly for 2015 to be 0.68°C. It has increased slightly since then to 0.71°C.
And yet, Franky reported the following....
Sept. 5, 2015 -- He said the HadCRUT4 temperature anomaly for 2015 was 0.809°C: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ng-Scientist&p=5339893&viewfull=1#post5339893
Nov. 29, 2015 -- He said the HadCRUT4 temperature anomaly for 2015 was 0.79°C: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...imate-Change&p=5411834&viewfull=1#post5411834
Franky has no idea what he's talking about.
In September, the HadCRUT4 data showed the temperature anomaly for 2015 to be 0.68°C. It has increased slightly since then to 0.71°C.
And yet, Franky reported the following....
Sept. 5, 2015 -- He said the HadCRUT4 temperature anomaly for 2015 was 0.809°C: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ng-Scientist&p=5339893&viewfull=1#post5339893
Nov. 29, 2015 -- He said the HadCRUT4 temperature anomaly for 2015 was 0.79°C: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...imate-Change&p=5411834&viewfull=1#post5411834
Franky has no idea what he's talking about.
But you would think if climate got warmer every year it would be easier to get record hot days, would it not??
After all you have 365 days of the year, and 24 hrs per day to break your previous record
According to the oft posted IPCC graphs,...we should be setting new high temp. records ever day.
Its rather obvious that there is a pause in the so called global warming,...which is preceding the next little ice age.
FAST
Similar threads
