Remind us again which one of those charts was reviewed by the IPCC's scientists and experts.
I'll give you a hint: It's the one on the left.
President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
I'll give you a hint: It's the one on the left.
Wrong again. The average of the CMIP5 models is 0.85 degrees Celsius. When I went to school, we were taught that 0.68 is less than 0.85.
Your "experts" were wrong about the rate of warming in the 21st century and they were wrong about how the temperatures compare with the models.
You really are stupid.
Follow the link to the skepticalscience page that chart is from, there you will find the chart posted in an article stating that its from a prerelease of AR5 and is not a legit IPCC chart, the chart on the right is the one that you can find on the IPCC site, as you will note in the url of the image I'll post here.
No wonder you are such an easy mark for the denier lobbyists, you can't even fact check the most basic things.
Nope.
You are quoting that figure from a chart that is bullshit, that comes only from your denier sites.
Don't quote that figure unless you can find a direct link to a legit source.
You are such an easy mark for those denier claims, aren't you?
Skeptical science is John Cook's website. He of the bogus 97% consensus. Tries to make it seem like an independent and credible source, but it's nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the alarmist crowd.
groggy you can post all the graphs you want, they all have one important theme - they're based on inaccurate, incomplete and adjusted data.
I've stated it and will continue to state it - the best global temperature data out there is the satellites from UAH and RSS. Both show little to no warming since 1997. End of story.
I've stated it and will continue to state it - the best global temperature data out there is the satellites from UAH and RSS. Both show little to no warming since 1997. End of story.
Yes, I forgot about your claim that the Wall Street Journal and the National Post have been fabricating false graphs. We're still waiting to see what evidence you can produce to support that claim.
And while we're at it, we haven't seen you produce anything that challenges the calculation of the CMIP5 average. Until such time, 0.85 degrees C stands.
More significantly, he failed to find a graph that supports his bogus claim that the temperatures align with the IPCC's predictions.
The best he could do was post an IPCC graph that goes to 2012, and then add his own fairy-tale analysis of how he thinks an updated version would magically make the IPCC's predictions come true (complete with ever-changing HadCRUT4 numbers).
Can you explain why the projections are wrong when 0.68 for fits well withing the graphs' ranges?
Can you explain why only 9% of the experts agree with your belief? (your source)
Sure, there are dodgy writers on climate change at those rags, that's well known.
Shall we confirm that you absolutely can't find an original to that chart?
That makes it bullshit in this argument.
The last IPCC report with a relevant graph was 2013.
What I find totally laughable is that you posted a dodgy version of the chart, and when I posted the correct version, with link, from the IPCC you call it a 'fairy tale'.
Then when you post old HadCRUT numbers and I give you the latest version, with a link again to the sources, you again call it a 'fairy tale'.
You make a mockery of your own sources, lets add this to the third laugh from you today.
Here's the most recent charts and the numbers, with links to the original sources, once more for you.
Ok, on your terms here is the final word.
HadCRUT 4 for 2015 = 0.684ºC
Data available here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4-gl.dat
Enter that dot on this chart from AR5, direct link to the IPCC chart.
That gives you a dot that is smack dab in the middle of the projections.
End of debate.
You just reiterated my post only much less eloquently and prefaced it with the word "Nonsense". How does your post counter my post rather than confirm my post to be accurate?
Because I answered moviefan's charges first correctly then with his terms. You just entered the debate later when I was answering moviefans cherry picking with cherry picking designed to show him the flaws of cherry picking.
Even post #892, with links to the most recent and legit data/charts has to be simplified into 'can you plot a single dot on a chart' language for him.
But in post 892 you do see a chart that shows the IPCC predictions have been quite good, with links to the direct sources, which is all that would be needed in an honest debate.
Childish reasoning.
You keep thinking that your post proves otherwise but each post just confirms the obvious.
Now that you mention it, how's the search going for a data set that shows temperature increases in the 21st century being the same or greater than the two preceding decades?
I'm guessing the IPCC, NASA, NATO, the Met Office, and countless others were no help -- their data sets all contradict what your "experts" believed.
Great, as you know.
Its right here:
Ok, on your terms here is the final word.
HadCRUT 4 for 2015 = 0.684ºC
Data available here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4-gl.dat
Enter that dot on this chart from AR5, direct link to the IPCC chart.
That gives you a dot that is smack dab in the middle of the projections.
End of debate.
So you are happy that only 9% of experts support your view? Must be tough living in a world where you are one of the few who see the truth and the powers that be are trying to keep you down.
Maybe you can take Roddy Piper's role in the remake of this movie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096256/
You seem to be evading the fact that 46 per cent of respondents got it wrong when they answered the question about how temperature trends compared with preceding decades.
Even worse, more than 70 per cent of respondents got it wrong answering the question about how temperature levels compared with the predictions.
Don't take my word for it. I keep proposing that you look at the data for yourself.
(I'm not even going to bother trying to determine how you calculated that 100 minus 66 equals nine.)
Time for you to visit an optometrist or a shrink (or maybe both). Your NASA chart does not show temperature increases in the 21st century that are the same or greater than the preceding decades. It actually shows the temperature in the 21st century to have been rather stagnant.
I'm definitely leaning the toward the view that visiting a shrink might be the best option for you.
Among your many issues, your powers of recollection are rather poor. My terms were that you produce an actual graph that shows temperatures aligning with the predictions.
Your IPCC graph only goes to 2012 and provides no comparisons beyond 2012. The actual graph -- not your re-imagining of it -- shows the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong, as the IPCC's own stats confirmed elsewhere in the report.
On a different note, you have to love this description on Mark Steyn's website today about Michael Mann and the "world of cartoon climatology":
http://www.steynonline.com/7144/day-of-disgrace
