Wow, a whole bunch of meaningless blather followed by quoting some random starlet. Yep, science at it's best.
Whatever measurements you want to plot on that IPCC graph for the past 3 years all fit well within the range of the projections.
415000 years of temperature change.....true or false?
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
Whatever measurements you want to plot on that IPCC graph for the past 3 years all fit well within the range of the projections.
These are the things that amuse me. Movie posts a graph and when he realizes that it actually weakens his argument, he disavows it.
Take the last official IPCC graph, plot the values for the past few years and, voila,
So you accept that fact that the margin of error is LARGER than the difference of the three temperatures that footer continuously spams,...???
A simple yes or no will suffice.
And that probabilities,...is something that you would associate with actual MEASUREMENTS,...???
Earths temp has been setting records at a regular intervals since 1880,...why is the probability of a minuscule increase since 2000 something new.
There is ABSOLUTELY no way science can test to confirm that mans addition of CO2 is effecting the natural increase in temp,..and anything different than the records set in 1947.
If science can't produce results through testing,...its all just opinions,...!!!
FAST
Last edited:
Nonsense.
Your prediction about the increase from 2010 to 2014 was seven times greater than the actual increase.
Let's go through the HadCRUT4 anomalies again:
-- 2010: 0.54 degrees C
-- 2014: 0.56 degrees C
-- Basketcase's prediction for 2014: 0.68 degrees C (https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ng-Scientist&p=5300753&viewfull=1#post5300753)
You were completely wrong because you don't know anything about the science and you don't know how to plot the correct numbers on a graph.
Nonsense. That's just another in your endless series of lies.
I have no issues with the graph and its confirmation that the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong.
I took issue with Groggy's statement that it is an "up to date" graph with the most current data. I have provided graphs with more current data.
Frankly, what amuses me is that you keep insisting the world's scientists agree with you, but the only source you can find to support your fairy-tale claim that the models got it right is Groggy. Now, that's funny!
Bullshit.
The HadCRUT anomaly for 2014 was 0.56 degrees C. The current anomaly for 2015 -- an El Nino year -- is 0.68 degrees C.
The current average of the CMIP5 models (not the CMIP3 run that was in that graph) is 0.85 degrees C. The current temperatures, even in this El Nino year, are nowhere close to what was predicted.
The predictions have been spectacularly wrong. Deal with it.
Thanks. It's a compliment that you are putting me in the same category that you put the experts.
No matter how you want to run things, YOU initially posted that 'leaked' IPCC graph, you stopped posting that graph when I identified how it correlates to measurements of the past few years, and now you call it lies when I ask you to actually use that graph.
What I find most laughable about your arguments is how inconsistent they are. You complain that people are using different numbers sets and insist that we can't use certain values because they have a margin of error. Now here you are trying to mix different data sets and insisting that we ignore the margins of error in the projections.
Most laughable is if you plot the 0.57 for 2014, (not 0.56 as you claimed - either you or the source you copied doesn't know how to round off), 0.50 for 2013, 0.47 from 2012, and the 0.68 this year to date and they quite clearly fit within the projected ranges.
That is the most recent chart with the most recent projections from the most recent IPCC report.
If you want to read the most recent temperature readings, that's another matter.
If you can find another more recent IPCC chart, post it.
I won't hold my breath.
Still using old data?
The latest is HadCRUT 4.4.0
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/...time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
2010 0.650ºC
2014 0.658ºC
2015 0.809ºC
Meanwhile, you are losing the bet on 2015 temperatures.
S
**Sophie**
Nonsense.
The graph is fine and confirms that the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong. What I have rejected are the fairy-tale attempts to claim that an updated version of the graph somehow confirms the models' predictions.
I repeat my point: You keep claiming that all of the world's scientists agree with you but the only sources you can find to support your claims are yourself and Groggy. None of the real graphs that plot current temperatures against the models show any correlation at all.
http://financialpostbusiness.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/fe0617_climate_c_mf.jpeg?w=620&h=552
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/michaels-102-ipcc-models-vs-reality.jpg
?????
I think someone's gone off his meds.
Gee, what happened to your claim that the HadCRUT anomaly for 2014 is 0.68 degrees C? :biggrin1:
As for how the current data compare with the models, the current model run is CMIP5 -- not the CMIP3 run that was in the IPCC graph. And the current average of the CMIP5 models is 0.85 degrees C. I'm afraid your 0.68 degrees C anomaly for 2015 falls well short of 0.85 degrees C.
The predictions continue to be spectacularly wrong.
I was hoping you would figure this out for yourself.
You're a big boy now, Groggy. Get your mommy to explain to you the difference between left and right.
What you keep repeating are two bullshit graphs, over and over again.
1) Chart from Ross McKitrick in the financial post - a known spokesman for the fossil fuel lobbyist group 'Heartland Institute'.
McKitrick is hack who posted a paper in which he claimed 'literacy and eductational stats' were a factor in temperature readings.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/jgr07/M&M.JGRDec07.pdf
He was one of two involved in hacking climatologist emails, posted idiotic claims about the 'hockey stick' graph and his work is shoddy and wrong.
For a history of his work:
http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/04/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-part-1-in-the-beginning/
But the best is this line from his sourcewatch page:
In other words, this is a chart from the Heartland Institute, courtesy of Ross McKitrick.
Bullshit.
2) Chart from wattasupwiththat.
First off, its a chart from wattsupwiththat, which hits a 10 on the bullshit meter just for its source.
Second, the bullshit is easy to spot for anyone with a brain (sorry you can't see it Moviefan and FAST), it compares surface temp projections with atmospheric temp readings. Apples and oranges, seriously stupidly bad chart that fools only idiots without a brain (moviefan, you win the award for stupidity for posting this chart about 10 times with this criticism after it each time. stupid)
In short.
You are full of shit.
Fact: All of the graphs, including the University of Alabama in Huntsville graph that was published in the Wall Street Journal (http://hotair.com/archives/2014/02/20/wsj-to-kerry-flat-earthers-were-the-consensus-position/), show the models have been spectacularly wrong.
Fact: Frankfooter and Basketcase have produced nothing to support their claims, other than their fairy-tale interpretations of how current data would compare with an older version (CMIP3) of the models.
The evidence is clear and irrefutable. The predictions have been spectacularly wrong.
Fact: Frankfooter and Basketcase have produced nothing to support their claims, other than their fairy-tale interpretations of how current data would compare with an older version (CMIP3) of the models.
The evidence is clear and irrefutable. The predictions have been spectacularly wrong.
Yeah, it's really tough to find any scientist who would support McKitrick's conclusions about the hockey stick graph and the fake "Nobel laureate" who helped create it. :thumb:
http://www.amazon.com/%22A-Disgrace...&sr=1-1&keywords=a+disgrace+to+the+profession
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Can't you pick up on the difference between comparing surface projections with atmospheric readings.
Are you really so stupid you think those are the same things?
NASA, IPCC, AAAS sources you now call 'fairy tail' sources.
You really can't tell the difference between a legit scientific source and a graph with made up data, can you?
As for evidence, start with the NASA page, its pretty clear.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Then follow it with the page on the AAAS, which represents the vast majority of scientists (not just climatologists) in the US.
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/
Read those.
Not at all. The satellite readings of the lower troposphere have proven to be far more credible.
The challenge was for you to produce a graph that supports your fairy-tale claim that current temperature anomalies are consistent with the predictions.
You have produced nothing.
All of the graphs that compare the observed data with the predictions have confirmed the predictions were spectacularly wrong.
All of them. There are no exceptions.
There seems to be some confusion in the AGW ranks.
One guy says the current HadCRUT anomaly for 2015 is 0.809 degrees C, the other guy says it's 0.68 degrees C.
That's quite a difference.
Once they figure out what a margin of error is and what the words "statistically significant" mean, perhaps they should sort out which number they're going with. :biggrin1:
Credible?
Both surface and atmospheric readings are credible, but only one is relevant when you are in a discussion about surface temperature.
Comparing surface projections to atmospheric readings is both dishonest and really, really fucking stupid.
At least if you're going to be dishonest you shouldn't pick such an easy and stupid tactic.
Once you figure out that Basketcase is quoting HadCRUT 4 (the old version) and I'm quoting HadCRUT4.4.0 (the latest version) you might be able to understand why there is a difference.
