My use of quotation around necessarily was to make it easier for you to see the word, but the word was in the original quote. Nice try.
Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??
- Thread starter AK-47
- Start date
My use of quotation around necessarily was to make it easier for you to see the word, but the word was in the original quote. Nice try.
No, it doesn't say the 0.05 degrees Celsius change over that 15-year period is false. What it tries to argue is that you can't look at short-term trends.
Too bad the IPCC didn't think of that when it was making short-term predictions in its previous reports. In fact -- and I have said this before -- there is nothing improper about holding the IPCC to account for its predictions. Actually, good science demands it.
Coming from the guy that argued that the 1922 anomaly was an argument to disprove GW, that's rich.
If you believe the argument is that correlation can sometimes be sufficient to prove causation, you've got it wrong.
Correlation can point to trends that may ultimately be due to causation. But, in terms of proof, the correlation itself is never enough. You need evidence of causation.
Eznutz, that's a lovely chart of ice core temperatures in Greenland.
But you do realize its an ice core temperature chart of Greenland and not a chart of global temperatures?
If you do, what is it you'd like us to know about ice core temperatures in Greenland?
Your false claim is twofold:
1) that there was a pause
2) that the IPCC predictions were wrong
What they argue, and this is noted in the footnote on that page, is that you can cherry pick the data to falsely claim that the global surface temperature isn't still rising.
You claim is shot through by the very source you used to back it up.
Too bad you don't read your own links.
Still having problems with that short attention span?
You never did successfully read that chart, did you?
You made a claim that it was ridiculous, but what is ridiculous is that you couldn't even read it.
You were, as you like to say, spectacularly wrong.
You need to spend more time reading your propaganda websites. You've got the "cherry picking" spin all wrong.
The IPCC is not disputing there was a pause in surface temperatures. And, in fact, the part in the AR5 report where the IPCC concedes that the actual results are different from what was predicted has been quoted numerous times. The IPCC's argument is that it no longer believes it's OK to look at shorter time periods.
It's bad enough that you reject the empirical evidence and instead rely on propaganda. At the very least, you should try to quote your propaganda sites correctly.
Speaking of propaganda websites, can you tell me where you found this info?
Because its spectacularly wrong.
Page 6 of the IPCC report has a chart showing that we are experiencing 0.2ºC warming per decade right now, including up to the last decade.
You seem to be forgetting that 13 of 14 of the warmest years on record have been recorded since 2000.
You are still spectacularly wrong.
Please give us the sources for this claim, because its clearly not in the IPCC summary.
How many times has this been previously cited? Fine, it's on Page 15 of the Summary for Policy Makers in the IPCC's AR5 report:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
I'm sure you don't need me to cite the paragraph on Page 5 with the "natural variants" explanation, since you cited it yourself.
The IPCC is on record as acknowledging that the "simulated" (i.e., the predictions based on the computer models) and the "observed" (i.e., the actual empirical results) trends were different. The increase over the 15 years most recently recorded by the IPCC was only 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade (Page 5 of the Summary for Policy Makers).
The empirical evidence is what it is.
I see.
Your repetition of this point is based on two things.
1) the deniers dishonesty
2) your lack of understanding
Your bloggers and lobbyists know full well that the comment about the 15 year period is a statement against cherry picking the dates, they just take those lines out of context to fool you into thinking they mean the opposite. In layman's term, the line is wiggly but going up, when you pick an early high point and draw a line to a later low point on the wiggly line you are cherry picking the dates in full knowledge that the line is heading up. Just as they predicted.
And you, who can fooled by high school level manipulation of graphs, who can't read a graph or the full IPCC report, you just repeat those false claims from your bloggers without understanding how foolish it makes you look. You've been shown this graphic numerous times, but here it is again. It shows how you can pick those cherry picked dates. And yes, that is a legit chart of global surface temperature showing your blogger/lobbyist claims as foolish.
You are spectacularly wrong.
As usual, you are wrong because you can't understand the science or the reports.
You are an easy mark.
Funny, I dont remember you asking me to read some graph. I must've skimmed over your post
Tell you what, you admit you fell for my earlier ruse and I'll have another look at your stupid graph
In other words, if you start at 1997 or 1998 or 2005 and compare temperatures at that time with the temperatures now, you discover there has been no statistically significant increase at all.
Or, as the IPCC reported it (and as was cited throughout the international media and in journals throughout the world), the increase for the most recently recorded 15-year period (the IPCC report only goes to 2012) was only 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade.
That's despite the fact the IPCC predicted the increase would be 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade (even when you use 1997 or 1998 as starting points). In other words, the IPCC's predictions were off by 75 per cent.
Spectacularly wrong, you would have to conclude.
Yes, a population growth to from around 300 million to 7 billion during the reasonably flat bit of the last 700 years. Want to bet on how that will be affected by a peak?
Coincidentally this was in the news yesterday.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/g...ood-water-shortages-warns-un-report-1.2583368
If you start from '96 the IPCC is bang on with their prediction.
You are still cherry picking.
That is very dishonest arguing.
Why do you continue to use dishonest methods?
Why do you refuse to admit that 2013 was the fourth warmest year, and 13 of the last 14 warmest years occurred since 2000?
Because you are dishonest and trying to cheat.
Spectacularly correct if you check the full report and the graphs on page 6, I believe.
Its been 0.2ºC a decade since 1980 now, according to their records.
Now that you've had it explained to you, I have to assume that you are just being dishonest when you repeat these spectacularly wrong claims.
Wrong. The IPCC reported that in the period from 1998 to 2012, the increase was only 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade.
The fact that you refuse to accept the scientific facts (even Hansen admits there has been a pause) makes you a "denier."
(And, really, given some of the things you have posted in this thread, you're the last person who should be accusing anyone of being "dishonest.")
Fine. 2013 was the fourth warmest year since the Medieval Warm Period. Big deal.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...es-were-warmer-than-today-say-scientists.html
To use that as the basis for an argument that climate change has stopped or paused is dishonest given the fact that that you can ONLY make that argument with those sets of cherry picked dates.
And it ignores the fact that 2013 was the fourth warmest year and that 13 of the last 14 warmest years on record have been since 2000.
That is what makes it dishonest.
Cherry picking is dishonest arguing.
[/QUOTE]Fine. 2013 was the fourth warmest year since the Medieval Warm Period. Big deal.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...es-were-warmer-than-today-say-scientists.html[/QUOTE]
That article is 10 years old and wrong.
Studies show that the warming during the Medieval Warm Period were local, not global and we have far surpassed that temperature now.
Two recent studies that make that case:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
Your lobbyist and blogger talking points are out of date.
