So what were the dominant factors for the increase between 1910 thru 1945,...???
FAST
415000 years of temperature change.....true or false?
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
FAST
As much as I hate to get into this in yet another thread, that's not actually what the data show.
The data show the "very scary" predictions have been spectacularly wrong. There is no evidence that the warming that occurred in the last two decades of the previous century was unprecedented or anthropogenic.
I hope you're right. In any event, nothing we do today will matter.
We have no idea how energy will be produced in the future and trying to predict the future is an exercise in futility. As Michael Crichton has said, the future is unknowable.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/...arming-a-caltech-lecture-by-michael-crichton/
That chart has two problems.
First, you can't provide an original link to prove that it hasn't been tampered with by one of your lobbyist deniers.
Second, Hadcrut 4's latest readings for 2015 put the global anomaly at 0.809ºC, which makes even your dodgy chart look accurate.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/...time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
You can't provide a link to this chart through the MET office, can you?
Because its not legit, is it?
Here's a link to the latest HadCRUT numbers, which had been adjusted slightly since the graph that I posted had been produced:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
The adjustments don't matter, though.
The adjustments are immaterial. The current HadCRUT4 data show the anomaly for 2014 (about 0.57 degrees C) was statistically the same as 2005 and 2010 and nowhere near the 0.85 degrees C that what was predicted. Even with the El Nino increase this year, the global temperature so far in 2015 -- about 0.68 degrees C -- is nowhere near the 0.85 degrees C that what was predicted.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
The adjustments don't matter, though.
The adjustments are immaterial. The current HadCRUT4 data show the anomaly for 2014 (about 0.57 degrees C) was statistically the same as 2005 and 2010 and nowhere near the 0.85 degrees C that what was predicted. Even with the El Nino increase this year, the global temperature so far in 2015 -- about 0.68 degrees C -- is nowhere near the 0.85 degrees C that what was predicted.
Cherry picking dates again?
If you look through the data, available here on your site (my reference previously was directly through the MET office):
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4-gl.dat
That shows an increase of about 0.4ºC from 2000-2015 (your cherry picked dates for your 21st century claim).
Now despite this 15 year period being too small a sample size to judge the IPCC predictions on, it still shows that both a) you are spectacularly wrong to claim there is no increase and b) you continue to use old sources and not check the legit sources which contradict your previous claims.
And at present, the global temp for 2015 is at 0.83ºC for NOAA, 0.80º for NASA (unless I reversed those, thats by memory) and 0.684ºC for CRU, which I believe uses a different baseline.
Global temp in 2015 is predicted to beat all records by a record amount, unless we have a volcano the size of Krakatau or similar catastrophic event in the next few weeks.
HadCRUT most definitely uses a different baseline. It's the same baseline that was in the graph I cited.
Therefore, we can dismiss your NOAA and NASA numbers in our comparison with the CMIP5 predictions, as the baselines are entirely different.
Comparing apples to apples, the 0.68 degrees C anomaly so far for 2015 -- brought about by El Nino -- is nowhere near the 0.85 degrees C prediction.
The predictions have been spectacularly wrong.
It would be a shame if posters like Sophie were to be fooled by your lies. It does make me wonder, though, why the defenders of anthropogenic global warming feel the need to constantly lie. Can't you find any honest data to back your claims?
So what were the dominant factors for the increase between 1910 thru 1945,...???
You are continuously making claims about your superior understanding, and knowledge of "global warming",...
Answer the question,...if you can't,...or don't have the guts,...then STFU.
FAST
You are hopeless.
Hadcrut4 uses 1961-1990 as their baseline period, whereas NASA/NOAA use the average of the 20th century as baseline.
By the way, have you found the original source for that chart you claim is from the MET yet?
Until you do, I'm calling bullshit on it, since its come through at least two iterations and is likely to be a decade or so older, knowing your sources.
Until you find a source from the MET office for that chart, its officially considered fake, since you've lied about two studies and continue to lie about temperature changes in the 21st century.
Got it?
I've provided you with the sources before -- they can all be found at the bottom of the graph.
The graph appeared in the National Post. The sources are the Met Office and KNMI Climate Explorer.
As for a "decade or so older" ... I hate to break this to you, but 2014 was just last year. :frusty:
By the way, I can produce other graphs -- including graphs from the IPCC -- that confirm the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.
IPCC:
University of Alabama in Huntsville:
In fact, in Chapter 9 of the IPCC's AR5 report in 2013, the IPCC confirmed that only three of the 114 model projections were correct (those were the three that projected stagnant temperatures). The remaining 111 got it wrong. See Page 769:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
Now, it's Frankfooter's turn.
Produce a graph that compares current temperatures compare with the predictions.
IPCC:
University of Alabama in Huntsville:
In fact, in Chapter 9 of the IPCC's AR5 report in 2013, the IPCC confirmed that only three of the 114 model projections were correct (those were the three that projected stagnant temperatures). The remaining 111 got it wrong. See Page 769:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
Now, it's Frankfooter's turn.
Produce a graph that compares current temperatures compare with the predictions.
That chart isn't coming from the MET or the Post, though I traced it to a Post article.
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/the-global-warming-hiatus
That article claims it comes from IPCC chapter 9, but its not there.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
That means the chart is a fake.
Stop using that fake chart.
That's an older chart, sourced from a skeptical science article that exposes the chart as from a leaked draft from the IPCC.By the way, I can produce other graphs -- including graphs from the IPCC -- that confirm the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.
IPCC:
Its not a legit chart, its not a published chart.
You know that and you keep using it.
And note that it even proves that the IPCC's predictions are right on the money in the chart on the right, since the 2015 temp of 0.83ºC is at the top of the red bar, and last year's 0.68ºC is smack dab in the middle. Fucking accurate predictions, thanks for confirming that the IPCC is really quite good.
The present temp puts us at the high end of the predictions in the chart on the left, but still quite good.
That's a faked chart, from your dodgy lobbyist Watt.University of Alabama in Huntsville:
It combines surface temp predictions with atmospheric readings, an out and out fake combing apples and oranges.
You keep using it despite this being pointed out to you, which means you are either really stupid or really dishonest.
Not until you can come up with a real chart, not the two faked charts you posted here.
That's two faked charts to go with your two studies you lied about.
Everything you claim is a lie, it appears.
Bullshit.
The HadCRUT data being used in the graph put 2014 at 0.56 degrees C., right at the bottom of the graph. Even the 0.68 degrees temperature so far for this year -- an El Nino year -- is still far below the 0.85 prediction based on the CMIP-5 averages and still at the bottom portion of the graph.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf
In fact, your own NASA graph shows you're full of crap.
According to you, 2014 was 0.12 degrees C warmer than 2010. However, your NASA graph shows 2014 was only 0.03 degrees warmer than 2010.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
You see, when you stick with the same data set, you keep getting the same answer -- the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.
Nonsense. The link to the image came from Watts but the chart itself was produced by the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
And the current evidence shows the lower troposphere readings are more reliable than the surface temperatures you're using.
HadCRUT uses a different baseline, 1961-1990, if memory serves me correct.
Comparing it to CMIP-5 projections is comparing apples to oranges.
Try again.
You are making things up.
I never said such a thing.
That is just yet another lie.
Do you ever stop lying?
I think its bullshit, as everything from Watts is.
Prove it by providing a link to the original document or admit its bullshit.
You lied about everything else.
More bullshit.
Try reading pages 768 and 769 of Chapter 9 of the IPCC's AR5 report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
The IPCC compares the CMIP5 projections to the HadCRUT4 data. You don't know what you're talking about.
I'll deal with this one tomorrow. I can only handle so many of your lies in one evening.
