Here you go.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-right-in-line-with-climate-model-predictions
(there are two charts in this article from the guardian, which won't allow direct linking and won't link here as images)
From here:
415000 years of temperature change.....true or false?
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-right-in-line-with-climate-model-predictions
(there are two charts in this article from the guardian, which won't allow direct linking and won't link here as images)
From here:
Except when the graph is updated to show the past few years.
Oh, you mean the HadCRUT 4.0 data you posted ISN'T a valid source? According to it, the data for the past 3 years fits well into the projections of the IPCC graph.
Translation. He likes what some of those readings say therefore they are more credible.
I'm quoting 4.0 because that source, posted by movie, still shows a correlation with the range of projections.
Why do you need a graph? Are you incapable of plotting the numbers from your source onto a graph?
Your insistence on using pictures makes me think that I should be communicating in cartoons for your benefit.
And while we're at it and since margins of error are so important to you, why don't you discuss the margins of error included with the projections?
The IPCC graph you posted includes them. Are you avoiding them because even the data set that you want to use fits into those projections?
Nice try.
The current temperature anomalies are well below the solid black line, which shows the average of what the CMIP5 models actually predicted. According to your own graph, the temperature anomalies are nowhere near what was predicted.
The dotted line is an "adjusted" version, which was adjusted on the assumption that the models have been spectacularly wrong. I fully support that assumption.
Nonsense. Try plotting the numbers against the CMIP5 average.
They're not even close. The predictions have been spectacularly wrong.
Make up your minds.
Is the HadCRUT anomaly for this year (so far) 0.68 degrees C or 0.809 degrees C?
Still can't read a chart, can you?
The chart in that article shows that present temperatures are within IPCC predictions (big grey area, for those like moviefan and fast who can't read charts).
You asked for a recent chart and now you've got one.
Both of those charts show that the IPCC projections are spectacularly good.
I prefer the most recent version, HadCRUT 4.4.0 which rates 2015 as 0.809ºC.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/...time_series/HadCRUT.4.4.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
No, according to the charts in this article they are really very accurate.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-right-in-line-with-climate-model-predictions
Why can't you read a chart?
This is hilarious -- it takes me back to some of Lovehobby's old posts, where he would provide links to articles he clearly hadn't read.
The solid black line in the graph is the CMIP5 average. The updated temperature anomalies are nowhere near that solid black line. In fact, there's been a clear divide between the CMIP5 average and the actual temperatures going back to 1999.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIRz_2PVEAAf8QX.jpg:large
The graph confirms exactly what I've been saying and the same thing as the graphs that I provided. Even when it's updated to include data from this El Nino year, the temperature anomalies in the Gavin Schmidt graph are nowhere near what was predicted.
The predictions have been spectacularly wrong -- Frankfooter's own source confirms it. :thumb:
(By the way, has anyone besides me ever noticed that whenever the AGW crowd wants to make it look like the temperature anomalies aren't too far removed from the predictions, the horizontal axis is suddenly lengthened and the vertical axis is reduced. Frankfooter's latest graph by Gavin Schmidt shows a horizontal axis dating back to 1950 that is longer than the usual NASA-produced graph dating back to 1880.)
Make up your minds.
The HadCRUT temperature anomaly for 2015 (to the end of July) was either 0.68 degrees C. or 0.809 degrees C.
We need the two of you to reach a "consensus" on the answer. We'll then determine whether or not you know what you're talking about.
Last edited:
You really don't get it, do you?
The IPCC projections were a range, the solid black line is the average, but the large grey area is where the IPCC projected the temperature would sit, somewhere within that bar.
And that's where it is.
The present temperatures are exactly within the projection range of the IPCC.
Even more impressive is that 2015 is looking like it will be right on your 'black line', as the article notes.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-right-in-line-with-climate-model-predictions
And the predictions were based on the average.
In fact, there's no substantive difference between the graph that was in the Guardian and the one from last year from the National Post.
National Post: http://financialpostbusiness.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/fe0617_climate_c_mf.jpeg?w=620&h=552
The Guardian: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIRz_2PVEAAf8QX.jpg:large
They both show the same thing. The temperature anomalies are nowhere near the average of the CMIP5 model runs.
All of the graphs confirm the same point: The predictions have been spectacularly wrong.
And I continue to look forward to a final decision from the AGW believers on whether the HadCRUT anomaly for 2015 (to the end of July) is 0.68 degrees C or 0.809 degrees C.
Nonsense. Try plotting the HadCRUT4 you posted or since you want the more up to data the HadCRUT4.4.0 data on the graph that you originally provided.
Oh, I forgot, you don't understand how to.
Seriously? Have your arguments sunk so low that you can't even argue with your own data? Both the HadCRUT4 you posted and the more up to date HadCRUT4.4.0 show your claims are a farce....
The HadCRUT temperature anomaly for 2015 (to the end of July) was either 0.68 degrees C. or 0.809 degrees C.
We need the two of you to reach a "consensus" on the answer. We'll then determine whether or not you know what you're talking about.
Obviously IPCC and AGW believers need it explained,...along with a couple of AGW supporters here.
FAST
I'm afraid the difference between the two numbers is well outside the margin of error -- unless you believe the margin of error is actually much larger than what NASA has claimed (I might back you on that one).
But this really has nothing to do with the margin of error. I just want to see how well you two can read your own sources.
Recognizing we're going with HadCRUT4's reported mean temperature anomaly (so far) for 2015 -- has it been reported as 0.68 degrees C or 0.809 degrees C.
We need a "consensus" on this. Sort it out with Frankfooter and tell us which number you believe is correct.
