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

[Frankfooter]

Not only are your numbers wrong and don't match the graph you referenced,

Stop right there.
These numbers are from the most recent data set and come with a direct link to their NOAA source.
They are legit.


Here's the data since 2000 (source NOAA):

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://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

these numbers are manipulated by gov't paid scientists to support a political agenda.

Bullshit.
This is just conspiracy theory bullshit.

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.

This is a rebuttal to moviefan's cherrypicking techniques, using his claim and poor math skills to show he doesn't know what he is talking about.

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.

I agree that this is the more accurate way to portray the numbers, but until you can get moviefan to commit to it, we have to use the stupid method for him.

And thank you for confirming that the increase in warming is actually higher then the IPCC predicted.

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.

What a stupid argument, to claim that the best way to measure surface temperature is to measure atmospheric temperatures and then to go ahead and use the same cherry picking of dates that moviefan uses.
Ridiculous, twice.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And thank you for confirming that the increase in warming is actually higher then the IPCC predicted.

Bullshit!

Produce a graph comparing actual temperatures with the IPCC's predictions.

 

[GPIDEAL]

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.

It begs the question. Which government? Obama? Is this a conspiracy started by the Obama Administration?

 

[Frankfooter]

It begs the question. Which government? Obama? Is this a conspiracy started by the Obama Administration?

It would have to be by over 100 governments, primarily the UK and US (who run NASA, NOAA and the UK running MET).
But the work is replicated and reported on by scientists in over 100 countries through the IPCC reports.
That's a might big conspiracy, all for lousy grant money?

 

[basketcase]

Don't be absurd.
....

Absurd is you proudly posting a survey of experts that shows only 9% support your views. Even more absurd is to turn around and claim the scientists in the survey you posted are wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

Bullshit!

Produce a graph comparing actual temperatures with the IPCC's predictions.

Ok.

(that one is from 2010, will find a more recent one when I have more time)

 

[Moviefan-2]

Ok.

(that one is from 2010, will find a more recent one when I have more time)

Tamino. LMFAO.

I meant a real graph from a credible source. Keep trying.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Absurd is you proudly posting a survey of experts that shows only 9% support your views. Even more absurd is to turn around and claim the scientists in the survey you posted are wrong.

I assume this means you're conceding that you can't find any data that support your "experts."

 

[GPIDEAL]

It would have to be by over 100 governments, primarily the UK and US (who run NASA, NOAA and the UK running MET).
But the work is replicated and reported on by scientists in over 100 countries through the IPCC reports.
That's a might big conspiracy, all for lousy grant money?

Absurd is you proudly posting a survey of experts that shows only 9% support your views. Even more absurd is to turn around and claim the scientists in the survey you posted are wrong.

These threads are similar to debates about the Kennedy Assassination. The lone nutters on one side (usually right wing) vs. the pro-conspiracy side (or I'd rather say, the conspiracy realist side - who are liberal or moderate conservatives). What's amazing is the SPIN used by lone nutters. I've found that Lone Nutters are also AGW deniers.

 

[Frankfooter]

Tamino. .

Prove that source is less reliable then wattsupwith that.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Prove that source is less reliable then wattsupwith that.

I wouldn't cite a graph by Anthony Watts. I provided graphs from the IPCC, the National Post (using the HadCRUT numbers that are confirmed in the direct link to HadCRUT data) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Find a credible source.

 

[Moviefan-2]

These threads are similar to debates about the Kennedy Assassination. The lone nutters on one side (usually right wing) vs. the pro-conspiracy side (or I'd rather say, the conspiracy realist side - who are liberal or moderate conservatives). What's amazing is the SPIN used by lone nutters. I've found that Lone Nutters are also AGW deniers.

"Spin"?

Here are a variety of graphs comparing the predictions with the observed data:

- IPCC: http://skepticalscience.com//pics/DvDFmodel-data.png

- National Post, using data from the Met Office: http://financialpostbusiness.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/fe0617_climate_c_mf.jpeg?w=620&h=552

- University of Alabama in Huntsville: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/michaels-102-ipcc-models-vs-reality.jpg

In Chapter 9 of its AR5 report in 2013, the IPCC confirmed that 111 of 114 of the models got it wrong. As the graphs show, the predictions based on the average of the models were spectacularly wrong.

The University of Hamburg concluded that more than 98 per cent of the models got it wrong.

The facts -- the observed data -- show the Earth's temperature in the 21st century has been stagnant and nowhere near what was predicted.

That's not spin. Those are facts.

 

[Frankfooter]

"Spin"?

Here are a variety of graphs comparing the predictions with the observed data:

- IPCC: http://skepticalscience.com//pics/DvDFmodel-data.png

- National Post, using data from the Met Office: http://financialpostbusiness.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/fe0617_climate_c_mf.jpeg?w=620&h=552

- University of Alabama in Huntsville: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/michaels-102-ipcc-models-vs-reality.jpg

Wow, the same three graphs again?
1) from a leaked version of an IPCC report - its not an official IPCC chart, it was never published.
2) The Post claims that chart is from the IPCC chapter 9, but its not there - more faked charts.
3) a chart comparing surface temperature projections with atmospheric measurements - its bullshit

3 for 3 in dodgy charts!
Congrats, you are outdoing yourself both in repeating bullshit over and over again and not learning that you've been caught out trying to pass bullshit.

 

[Frankfooter]

I wouldn't cite a graph by Anthony Watts. I provided graphs from the IPCC, the National Post (using the HadCRUT numbers that are confirmed in the direct link to HadCRUT data) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
.

Wow, you are stupid.
You posted this statement and then in the very next post you posted a link to a faked chart from wattsupwiththat, from Anthony Watts.
Congrats, you really are outdoing your usual bullshit.

This is the chart you linked to, did you even read the link?
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/michaels-102-ipcc-models-vs-reality.jpg

 

[SkyRider]

I don't want to start a new thread so I'll post it here. Speaking of presidents, President Obama (a Democrat) wants to remove President McKinley's (a Republican) name from Mount McKinley.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Wow, you are stupid.
You posted this statement and then in the very next post you posted a link to a faked chart from wattsupwiththat, from Anthony Watts.
Congrats, you really are outdoing your usual bullshit.

This is the chart you linked to, did you even read the link?
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/michaels-102-ipcc-models-vs-reality.jpg

The link to the image is from Watts. The graph is from the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

As I explained to you in another thread, it was also published in the Wall Street Journal.

http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/02/20/wsj-to-kerry-flat-earthers-were-the-consensus-position/

Talk about "conspiracy theorists" -- Groggy has now accused both the Wall Street Journal and the National Post of fabricating graphs.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Wow, the same three graphs again?
1) from a leaked version of an IPCC report - its not an official IPCC chart, it was never published.
2) The Post claims that chart is from the IPCC chapter 9, but its not there - more faked charts.
3) a chart comparing surface temperature projections with atmospheric measurements - its bullshit

3 for 3 in dodgy charts!
Congrats, you are outdoing yourself both in repeating bullshit over and over again and not learning that you've been caught out trying to pass bullshit.

Spin happens when you use bullshit to baffle brains.

 

[GPIDEAL]

I don't want to start a new thread so I'll post it here. Speaking of presidents, President Obama (a Democrat) wants to remove President McKinley's (a Republican) name from Mount McKinley.

Poor McKinley was assassinated too. WTF?

 

[GPIDEAL]

The link to the image is from Watts. The graph is from the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

As I explained to you in another thread, it was also published in the Wall Street Journal.

http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/02/20/wsj-to-kerry-flat-earthers-were-the-consensus-position/

Talk about "conspiracy theorists" -- Groggy has now accused both the Wall Street Journal and the National Post of fabricating graphs.

I don't know enough about this, but don't always believe in the MSM.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I don't know enough about this, but don't always believe in the MSM.

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.