And now you are back to denying AGW's impact. Too bad that your own survey shows your view is only held by a small percent of the experts; 9.6% IIRC.
415000 years of temperature change.....true or false?
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
If that's your trend line for the 21st century, you plotted it wrong.
Once you get past the La Nina years, the temperature is stagnant. For example, if you look at the comparable peak years, the difference between 2005 and 2014 is only 2/100ths of a degree -- statistically, the temperature anomalies are the same.
The changes in the 21st century are microscopic and nothing at all like what was predicted.
Why don't you take the global HadCRUT4 you posted for and throw it into spreadsheet and tell me the slope you get? Mine says 0.0104 per year.
2000 0.295
1 0.44
2 0.496
3 0.509
4 0.45
5 0.544
6 0.505
7 0.493
8 0.395
9 0.506
10 0.559
11 0.442
12 0.47
13 0.499
14 0.567
15 0.684
Ah, I see. If we ignore all the years where there was warming then your conclusion is justified.
I have a better idea. Since you and Groggy like to include the first seven months of this El Nino year in your calculations, let's do an apples-to-apples comparison of the first seven months of 2015 with the first seven months of 1998 (the previous big El Nino year).
I haven't seen the HadCRUT4 monthly numbers for 1998 so we'll use NASA's newly inflated anomaly numbers.
NASA now reports the average for the first seven months of 1998 was 0.707 degrees Celsius.
NASA now has the average for the first seven months of 2015 at 0.802 degrees Celsius.
That's a difference of 0.095 degrees Celsius over 17 years, or an average of 0.0056 degrees Celsius per year. If you want to convert that to a per-decade average, it's less than 6/100ths of a degree per decade.
A meaningless difference.
I haven't seen the HadCRUT4 monthly numbers for 1998 so we'll use NASA's newly inflated anomaly numbers.
NASA now reports the average for the first seven months of 1998 was 0.707 degrees Celsius.
NASA now has the average for the first seven months of 2015 at 0.802 degrees Celsius.
That's a difference of 0.095 degrees Celsius over 17 years, or an average of 0.0056 degrees Celsius per year. If you want to convert that to a per-decade average, it's less than 6/100ths of a degree per decade.
A meaningless difference.
Are you really that desperate for excuses that you want to exclude El Ninos? But I'm sure that your logic want to include the La Nina years.
You mean you are now happy to use the NASA numbers since you think they help your argument. Again, desperate. Besides, the source you linked has ALL of the monthly HadCRUT4 data going back to 1850.
Convenient of you to suddenly forget your own source and suddenly accept NASA's numbers.
And if you are so keen on changing your mind and discussing from 1998 instead of this century, a spreadsheet gives a gradient of almost 1/100 per YEAR. (0.00918/a)
I do appreciate your tactics now. You used to argue that AGW wasn't significant. You later (and still do occasionally) argued that scientists are manipulating their data for political purposes. You then claimed that there was warming but it's stopped this century. Now you've gone to the very scientific view 'it's not really too bad'.
As a side topic, NASA has recently been involved in a major project about Greenland ice and rising sea levels.
https://www.nasa.gov/subject/3127/climate/
Seas around the world have risen an average of nearly 3 inches since 1992, with some locations rising more than 9 inches due to natural variation, according to the latest satellite measurements from NASA and its partners
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-science-zeros-in-on-ocean-rise-how-much-how-soon
I guess that argument from the other thread about sea levels only rising a few hundredths of an inch can be put to rest.
https://www.nasa.gov/subject/3127/climate/
Seas around the world have risen an average of nearly 3 inches since 1992, with some locations rising more than 9 inches due to natural variation, according to the latest satellite measurements from NASA and its partners
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-science-zeros-in-on-ocean-rise-how-much-how-soon
I guess that argument from the other thread about sea levels only rising a few hundredths of an inch can be put to rest.
S
**Sophie**
Wow are you 3 ever stubborn. Can't believe you are still going on about the charts Lol. Good to know there are people so passionate about it I must say.
No, actually, I included the El Nino years. Unlike Groggy, I don't get bent out of shape when people include the El Nino and La Nina years, provided they aren't just cherry picking years to create an imaginary illusion of man-made "warming."
Wrong. It's time for you to go buy a 2015 calendar.
While I'm glad to hear you enjoyed your Christmas break, this is actually only September. The calendar year 2015 hasn't ended yet and the current results for 2015 only go to July 2015. If you want to do an apples-to-apples comparison of 1998 with the updated 2015 data, you compare the average for the first seven months of each year.
The difference in average temperature anomalies between then and now works out to less than 6/100ths of a degree per decade. Meaningless.
(By the way, after your famous July prediction -- in three different threads -- that results for 2014 would be at least 0.18 degrees C higher than 2010, you're probably the last person on TERB who should be challenging other people's numbers.)
It's a very important issue because it affects us so much. Green energy policies based on AGW theory is costing us hundreds of billions and is partially responsible for the economic malaise the world is facing. There is no crisis we need responsible people in govt to tell the truth instead of lining their own pockets. Down with the IPCC.
It's also important because of the impact that political agendas are having on "science."
This isn't the first time an agenda has been pushed in the name of "science" and it won't be the last. If the people pushing the agenda are going to argue the "science is settled," I want to see the evidence.
This isn't the first time an agenda has been pushed in the name of "science" and it won't be the last. If the people pushing the agenda are going to argue the "science is settled," I want to see the evidence.
Absolutely. Every person who supports good science should agree that the IPCC should be abolished.
Shit. Your desperation smells. Instead of arguing with the actual data or taking the time to plot the data yourself, you spend your time coming up with excuses. I'm sure in your mind, the last 4 months of the year will globally be so much colder that the results so far completely change.
Or should we talk about your 'statistically significant' topic? The data is missing 4 months out of 214 months of data so those 4 months represent only 0.019 of the data. According to your logic, small difference can be ignored.
And once again he returns to claiming that the scientists are lying for political purposes.
I won't comment on movie2's claim,...but mine is that they are lying for a basic human trait,...for their own benefit.
The problem here is,...there is just too much inertia in their "movement",...how are the three scientist clubs going to save face,... and get out of the mess they created,...really difficult.
At this point,... they are really just hoping this will all just fade away,... like so many other bull shit predictions made by groups of unlicensed self proclaimed "experts".
In the mean time,...its a mob mentality,... when anybody dares question the three clubs stance.
A recent example of self sustaining bull shit,...was a scientist at TO U,...studied icicle formation for 15 years,...just what the hell is this leach going to do next,...???
So its really not too difficult to imagine ANY self fulfilling organisation to consider "creative accounting",...for their survival,...nothing new,...done all the time.
FAST
I did plot the comparable numbers and found the difference is less than 6/100ths of a degree per decade.
Proper analysis is not "desperation." That's what saves people from drawing embarrassing conclusions like the preposterous claim that results for 2014 would show it was 0.18 degrees C higher than 2010. :thumb:
The IPCC's charter makes it clear that the IPCC's agenda is political. Interpret that however you like.
Says almighty fuji, the greatest poster on TERB. Just ask him, he'll tell you
Particularly funny when he posts this while doing business in,... China,...
FAST
Last edited:
Still using the old models, eh?
All your arguments run on old data, old models, old info all filtered through dubious sites.
The most recent version of HadCrut4 is HadCRUT4.4.0
HadCRUT 4.4.0 lists the global anomaly at 0.809ºC.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/...time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
That makes the IPCC look spectacularly accurate.
