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

[bishop]

There is a concept called a moving average which you are oblivious too. You should take a look at the graph you posted and tell me what the moving average shows, http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I do not have the patience to illustrate to you why a moving average should be used instead of picking the first and last points while ignoring points in the middle and drawing a conclusion from it.

Also I need to clarify post 822, I am not calling Jesus a retard, I am calling you a retard.

 

[basketcase]

Yes!

Because -- as the data have confirmed -- they got it wrong.
....

Ahh, back to the majority of the experts being wrong.

Seriously, you posted a link that shows that your opinion is supported by a measly 9% of the experts. Get real.

 

[Frankfooter]

There is a concept called a moving average which you are oblivious too. You should take a look at the graph you posted and tell me what the moving average shows, http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I do not have the patience to illustrate to you why a moving average should be used instead of picking the first and last points while ignoring points in the middle and drawing a conclusion from it.

I am aware of averages, and this debate should be about averages. However, moviefan doesn't listen to reason, and he and fast continue ridiculous claims, so answers to his cherry picking of dates tend to be tastes of his medicine, in this case using his 'cherry picked' 21st century claim, which he repeats ad nauseum to show both the ridiculousness of his argument and that his central claim is false.

If moviefan answered to reason, or understood the scientific process, this debate would have started by noting that IPCC predictions are long term, and measuring its accuracy on any 10 or 15 year is already too small a sample size for judgement. Realistically one should start from either of the two typical IPCC reference dates, 1880 or so (and the start of the industrial revolution's release of CO2) or 1950 (to use a 50 year sample size). Using either of those dates with the present data shows the IPCC predictions to be quite good, scarily so.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

Moviefan is convinced that by cherry picking dates (using the super el nino year of 1998 previously and now 2000) he can somehow disprove the work of the IPCC and all of anthropogenic climate change.

The chart above, from NASA, clearly shows a rise in temperature unprecedented in all of man's history.

 

[bishop]

I am aware of averages, and this debate should be about averages. However, moviefan doesn't listen to reason, and he and fast continue ridiculous claims, so answers to his cherry picking of dates tend to be tastes of his medicine, in this case using his 'cherry picked' 21st century claim, which he repeats ad nauseum to show both the ridiculousness of his argument and that his central claim is false.

If moviefan answered to reason, or understood the scientific process, this debate would have started by noting that IPCC predictions are long term, and measuring its accuracy on any 10 or 15 year is already too small a sample size for judgement. Realistically one should start from either of the two typical IPCC reference dates, 1880 or so (and the start of the industrial revolution's release of CO2) or 1950 (to use a 50 year sample size). Using either of those dates with the present data shows the IPCC predictions to be quite good, scarily so.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

Moviefan is convinced that by cherry picking dates (using the super el nino year of 1998 previously and now 2000) he can somehow disprove the work of the IPCC and all of anthropogenic climate change.

The chart above, from NASA, clearly shows a rise in temperature unprecedented in all of man's history.

Everything you say is just nonsensical, illogical, paradoxical, and imprecise.

 

[Frankfooter]

Everything you say is just nonsensical, illogical, paradoxical, and imprecise.

I'm sorry if its over your head, but its very clear that you can't read a chart, let alone parse data, otherwise you wouldn't make this claim while at the same time arguing about moving averages:

Well for one it supports Movie fan's claim that so far in the 21st century temperatures have become stagnant.

Only a fool looks at this chart and claims that temperatures are stagnant.

 

[bishop]

You have already admitted that you knowing used flawed and disingenuous methods to further your agenda and justifying it using child like reasoning that someone else did it to you so you can do it too.

There is no more argument to be had here with you, you have the same level of fidelity to science and truth as the climate scientists you hold so dear, this is not a compliment though I am sure you will take it as one.

 

[Frankfooter]

You have already admitted that you knowing used flawed and disingenuous methods to further your agenda and justifying it using child like reasoning that someone else did it to you so you can do it too.

There is no more argument to be had here with you, you have the same level of fidelity to science and truth as the climate scientists you hold so dear, this is not a compliment though I am sure you will take it as one.

Nonsense, I said nothing of the sort.
I answered moviefan in his language, using his dates and his flawed process.
Blame him for entering that into this debate.

Why do I get the feeling that you are really moviefan under a different id?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Ahh, back to the majority of the experts being wrong.

Absolutely, if you accept the findings of the IPCC, NASA, the NOAA, the Met Office, Berkeley Earth Sciences, and all the other sources that report on the data.

If all of the data that have been reported are correct, then the majority of your "experts" got it wrong.

That's the point that continues to go over your head.

If moviefan answered to reason, or understood the scientific process, this debate would have started by noting that IPCC predictions are long term, and measuring its accuracy on any 10 or 15 year is already too small a sample size for judgement. Realistically one should start from either of the two typical IPCC reference dates, 1880 or so (and the start of the industrial revolution's release of CO2) or 1950 (to use a 50 year sample size). Using either of those dates with the present data shows the IPCC predictions to be quite good, scarily so.

In other words -- the IPCC did a terrible job predicting future temperatures.

However, the IPCC has been "scarily" good at forecasting past temperatures where the results were already known before the models were run.

LMFAO.

I know it's outside of its mandate, but I wonder if the IPCC could predict who will win the Second World War? :thumb:

 

[Moviefan-2]

There is a concept called a moving average which you are oblivious too. You should take a look at the graph you posted and tell me what the moving average shows, http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Groggy will complain that the graph in his link has pre-adjusted data.

But the real reason he doesn't like that graph is that the horizontal axis showing the past 134 years and the vertical axis showing a one degree change in temperature are more proportionate (I still think it exaggerates the temperature increase, but no matter).

When you use the NASA graph that is more proportionate, you can clearly see that temperatures have been stagnant in the 21st century.

But as you say, Groggy doesn't understand trend lines. He thinks a horizontal trend line is the same as a "horizontal line."

 

[Frankfooter]

Absolutely, if you accept the findings of the IPCC, NASA, the NOAA, the Met Office, Berkeley Earth Sciences, and all the other sources that report on the data.
:

Take Berkely Earth Sciences out of that list, it was started up by the Koch Brothers to deny climate change, only it failed after its researchers found evidence of climate change. But its still suspect.

So now you think that NASA, NOAA, the MET and the IPCC are all wrong but lobbyists like Willie Soon are right?
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...nge-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

You really are a conspiracy theory kook.

 

[Frankfooter]

But the real reason he doesn't like that graph is that the horizontal axis showing the past 135 years and the vertical axis showing a one degree change in temperature are a bit more proportionate (I still think it exaggerates the temperature increase, but no matter).

This is the legit graph, linked directly from the source.
Of course you still think this is a flat line, don't you?

 

[Moviefan-2]

So now you think that NASA, NOAA, the MET and the IPCC are all wrong....

You are an F'N loon.

I said the data reported by all of those organizations show the majority of respondents in the Netherlands survey were wrong -- the data from all those organizations show the temperature trend was less than in preceding decades.

The "all wrong" business was just those mysterious voices talking in your head.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Of course you still think this is a flat line, don't you?

The phrase I used was horizontal trend line.

And despite the way the graph has been shaped to make microscopic changes look significant -- the answer is still yes, it shows a horizontal trend line in the 21st century. That's particularly true when you compare the trend line with the preceding decades.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Basketcase:

Please produce a graph that shows temperature trends in the 21st century being the same as or greater than the trends in the previous two decades.

 

[Frankfooter]

You are an F'N loon.

I said the data reported by all of those organizations show the majority of respondents in the Netherlands survey were wrong .

You mean the study that backed the consensus claim, the one you lied about already claiming it didn't?
You really should stop making such a fool of yourself with these ridiculous lies and claims.

 

[Frankfooter]

The phrase I used was horizontal trend line.

And despite the way the graph has been shaped to make microscopic changes look significant -- the answer is still yes, it shows a horizontal trend line in the 21st century. That's particularly true when you compare the trend line with the preceding decades.

That's a combination of cherry picking with choosing too small a sample size.
Only a totally dishonest person looks at this chart and claims it shows a horizontal trend line.

 

[basketcase]

Basketcase:

Please produce a graph that shows temperature trends in the 21st century being the same as or greater than the trends in the previous two decades.

Lets see. You posted a poll of experts that you thought supported your claims. When it turns out only 9% of the experts support your zero change belief, you try and distance yourself from it and revert to your usual claims of the experts being wrong or lying.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Lets see. You posted a poll of experts that you thought supported your claims. When it turns out only 9% of the experts support your zero change belief, you try and distance yourself from it and revert to your usual claims of the experts being wrong or lying.

Don't be absurd.

I'm not making a "claim" that the experts who said the temperature trends were the same or higher than preceding decades got it wrong. I am stating that as a fact, backed up by data from the IPCC, NASA, the NOAA, the Met Office, Berkeley Earth Sciences, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and others.

Prove me wrong. Produce a graph that shows temperature trends in the 21st century being the same as or greater than the trends in the previous two decades.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Only a totally dishonest person looks at this chart and claims it shows a horizontal trend line.

Nice try.

I said it shows a horizontal trend line in the 21st century.

That is exactly what your graph shows.

Let's see you post what I have actually said and try to claim that only a "totally dishonest person" would see it that way.

 

[K Douglas]

Yes, as NASA did showing that there has been a very large increase in global surface temperature this century.
Yet you continue to lie and claim the opposite.

You need to answer to this:

You picked the dates.




You claimed that there was no warming in the 21st century, 2000-2015.
You cherry picked the dates, as usual, you didn't do any research first.

Now its time for you to admit your claim is wrong.
Here's the data since 2000:

2015 0.81°C
2014 0.70°C
2013 0.67°C
2012 0.69°C
2011 0.63°C
2010 0.73°C
2009 0.64°C
2008 0.58°C
2007 0.53°C
2006 0.63°C
2005 0.66°C
2004 0.48°C
2003 0.54°C
2002 0.62°C
2001 0.56°C
2000 0.40ºC

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Since 2000 the global temp has gone up 0.41ºC in only 15 years.
Those are the actual measurements.

Not only are your numbers wrong and don't match the graph you referenced, these numbers are manipulated by gov't paid scientists to support a political agenda. Furthermore your claim of global temperatures going up by 0.41C in 15 years is just plain wrong math - you're only looking at 2 end data points. The mean of the anomalies presented is 0.62C so in reality it has warmed about 0.21C over the 15 years (0.62-0.41). Your deficiency in logic shows you don't even have grade 9 math proficiency.
For those of you with rational logic I will say this - the # of temperature stations on Earth have been reduced by an alarming rate since 1990's. 70% of the Earth is water and the temperature measurements of those are relatively new and face many challenges. Futhermore, of the 30% Earth that is land surface, approx 2/3 is forest, mountains and desert where the are no weather stations. And in cold areas (for example in the Canadian arctic, which in volume is a land area in excess of the United States) there is 1 weather station. That's right....1!!!! You cannot rely on this data if it is incomplete and inaccurate. The best and most accurate measurement of weather is the UAH & RSS datasets which measure temperature in the troposphere since 1979. Their data explicitly shows a warming trend from 1979 to 1997 and no warming trend since. This is independent scientists with no agenda - a much more trustworthy source than NASA/NOAA.