16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Check the chart again:
This is what you would describe as:
Which makes those projections accurate.
Hmm. You missed a few things in the quote you cited.
Here's the full quote:
What I said was that the graphs show the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong.
I know you're borderline illiterate but I can assure you that "spectacularly wrong" doesn't mean the same thing as "accurate."
Try to quote me a little more precisely, next time. :thumb:
Bullshit.
There is no metric or standard for the falsification of the man-made global warming hypothesis.
All data is somehow interpreted by the climate enforcers to support the hypothesis -- for example, even when the models show a 97% failure rate (IPCC's AR5 report in 2013).
Furthermore, your argument about an alternate hypothesis assumes there is something unusual that has occurred that needs to be explained. In fact, nothing unusual has occurred that requires any hypothesis.
Actually, I predicted the increase in the temperature anomaly in 2015 would fall short of the 0.15ºC increase that was needed to fulfil the IPCC's predictions.
NASA said:
I was right.
Still lying like a weasel, eh?
Deny, deny, deny.
That's all you've got left.
I don't know how legit the chart that you linked to, but I'll post it up here.
Because its really fucking funny that the chart you used to claim the IPCC projections aren't accurate shows a projection of 0.847º as the target, and we just hit 0.87ºC.
That chart shows the IPCC projections are accurate.
What a loser!
You used a chart that backs up this statement:
Loser!
Not at all. Last time I checked, 0.13ºC is less than 0.15ºC. I was right.
As for your fairy-tale claims about the bet, I'm not going to have the same debate in two competing threads. You can continue to get your ass totally kicked in the other thread.
God, you really are stupid. You still don't know the difference between NASA and the Met Office in the U.K., do you?
For your information, they use entirely different baselines for calculating the temperature anomalies. Try looking at your "updated" IPCC graph a little more closely (http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/files/2016/02/WGI_AR5_Fig1-4_UPDATE.jpg).
Your own "updated" IPCC graph put the Met Office's HadCRUT4 temperature anomaly for 2015 at 0.75ºC.
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2016/2015-global-temperature
Next time I update your "greatest hits," I assume you're OK with me including the fact that you thought 0.75 and 0.87 are the exact same number. :thumb:
And for the record -- the 0.75ºC temperature anomaly in 2015 is still well below the 0.85ºC IPCC prediction that you cited. The IPCC's predictions remain consistently and spectacularly wrong.
Talk about fairy-tale claims.
Last time I checked 0.87º is higher then 0.83ºC.
Loser.
Last time I checked, 0.74 + 0.15 doesn't add up to 0.83.
Keep your fairy-tale claims to the other thread, where you continue to get your ass completely handed to you.
You could have tried opening the links. The baseline used in your graphs was the average of the temperature anomalies from 1961 to 1990.
Let's review your numbers again, using the same baseline:
- IPCC prediction for 2015: 0.85ºC
- 2015 anomaly on the "updated" IPCC graph: 0.75ºC
And that was in a super El Nino year.
The IPCC's predictions remain consistently and spectacularly wrong.
I agree, I have no idea why you keep trying to make those numbers add up.
Talk about failing grade three math....
We were just talking about what you predicted 2015's temperature would be, 0.83ºC, vs what it hit, 0.87ºC.
I find it interesting from a psychological level how you look at a graph where all the data points are well within the predicted range but claim it is 'spectacularly wrong'.
Is it a fuji-like sense of stubbornness? A refusal to admit the world isn't the same as when you were a child? A paranoid belief that the authorities are really just out to get you?
Sorry, but NASA's reported increase of 0.13ºC is less than the 0.15ºC that was needed to fulfil the IPCC's predictions.
As for your fairy-tale claims about the bet, you can continue to get your ass completely handed to you in the other thread. I don't conduct the same debate in competing threads.
Aha! So you are saying that you believe 0.87 and 0.75 are the exact same number.
The graph you cited with the IPCC prediction is using a completely different baseline than your NASA anomaly.
This one's definitely getting added to your greatest hits.
Looks like you are up to the same tricks on this thread as well, loser.
Funny how you can't read a chart and can't read your own numbers now.
As you said:
Only a fool suffering from Dunning-Kruger effect wouldn't understand that he's been made to look like a fool with these posts.
Even your usual backers have abandoned you now.
