Wow. You once again argue with the graphs you posted. The data fits withing that spread.
This would be end of story if you had a shred of honesty on this topic.
415000 years of temperature change.....true or false?
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
This would be end of story if you had a shred of honesty on this topic.
Yep, scientists are unreliable. That must be why moviefan posted him as a source. Then again, he has a long history of posting sources that refute his claims.
You, movie, and K really should move to the 9/11 thread.
On this particular subject, you are totally clueless.
The observed anomalies may fit within the bottom of the range of projections but they are nowhere near the CMIP5 average that was the basis for the predictions. The Guardian graph shows the same thing as the National Post graph -- that the predictions were spectacularly wrong.
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
I'm not arguing with the graphs. Quite the opposite -- the graphs confirm what I have been saying all along.
By the way, if you had any manners, you would have thanked me for providing the answer about the 2015 anomaly for HadCRUT4, since you and Groggy clearly weren't able to figure it out.
Thank you for confirming in this post that the present temperatures fit within the range of projections made by the IPCC.
That confirms that the IPCC projections are accurate, even according to you.
Wrong.
The temperature anomalies fit within the range of the models. More specifically, the models that projected that huge increases in man-made greenhouse gases wouldn't lead to any significant warming were correct.
However, the IPCC's predictions -- such as the 2007 prediction of a 0.2 degrees C per decade increase -- were based on the average of the models.
The IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong. The graphs confirm it:
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
This is amusing. The guy who doesn't know the difference between the words "flat" and "flattening" is calling for others to use coherent English (and managed to spell "English" wrong while he was doing it).
I'm still trying to understand what your claim is.
You now think that the oceans are rising as a result of climate change and there is no way to stop it?
Which means you accept that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and is drastically changing the planet.
Correct?
You need to check your sources.
Post - Ross Mckitrick, not credible.
Guardian - your link doesn't go to the graph from the Guardian article, here is the Guardian article. This just proves that you really can't read a graph if you think its the same.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-right-in-line-with-climate-model-predictions
Meanwhile, the argument should end with this statement by you:
In other words, the IPCC projections are accurate.
My link goes to the graph that was used in the article, rather than linking to the article itself. That's because the article has a headline and some statements that are detached from reality.
The actual graph confirms the predictions were spectacularly wrong without the misleading editorial content.
Because you know nothing about science or how to read a graph (eg., 0.809 degrees
), you don't understand what you're talking about.Indeed, you're so obsessed with trying to defend the IPCC and the models that you've completely lost sight of the big picture. Since you seem to have forgotten, the debate is whether or not there is any evidence of anthropogenic global warming.
The reality is that both of these statements are true:
1) The Gavin Schmidt graph shows most of the temperature anomalies are within the full range of model projections (actually, some of the recorded anomalies are below the bottom end of the grey area).
2) The Gavin Schmidt graph shows the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.
It's not a case of one or the other. Both statements are true, as the models cover an enormous range of projected outcomes while the IPCC's predictions were based on the average of those model projections (you continue to evade this fact, but it is a fact nonetheless).
However, when it comes to the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, it is only the second point that matters.
You test a hypothesis by measuring how well the predictions align with the observed data.
Based on the average of the models, the IPCC predicted that increases in man-made greenhouse gas emissions would lead to significant increases in the Earth's temperature. The Schmidt graph confirms the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.
The fact that a few models correctly projected that increases in man-made greenhouse gases wouldn't lead to warming does nothing for the AGW argument.
More comedy gold.
You ask me for an updated chart, I link you one in the Guardian article.
Then, what do you do but link to an older version of the chart and claim the it isn't up to date.
Comedy gold.
Here is the chart and info showing that the IPCC predictions are accurate.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-right-in-line-with-climate-model-predictions
They are accurate, as you also admitted.
By the way, NOAA says that August had an 0.88ºC anomaly and that the year to date is now 0.84ºC.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201508
You are still losing the bet.
Nonsense. You haven't provided any link to that graph other than linking to the article itself, which is useless because of its rubbish headline and some of the erroneous statements in the article.
I linked to the most recent graph available on Gavin Schmidt's Twitter page. If there's a more recent version (without the bullshit headline and article), go ahead and link to it. It makes no difference to me, as it shows the same thing.
The graph confirms the temperature anomalies are nowhere near the CMIP5 average that was the basis for the IPCC's predictions. The IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.
NOAA has the year to date at 0.84ºC, NASA doesn't publish one.
I can wait until the end of the year for the final number.
The Guardian doesn't allow linking just the graphic, you have to link to the article.
The headline isn't 'misleading' its totally accurate and it contains the charts and info to show it.
The IPCC is accurate, as you stated:
Right. So the most up-to-date graph that can be posted without the rubbish article is the one I provided.
Exactly what I said.
And it shows the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong.
NASA publishes monthly anomalies. It's easy to calculate who won and who lost.
We can settle the bet now if you want. Put up or shut up.
We can settle now with the NOAA published year to date average, if you like.
Otherwise we wait until NASA republishes their chart with 2015, as per the bet.
No, the most up to date chart is the one I gave you.
The Guardian is the only one that has 2015 to date included.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-right-in-line-with-climate-model-predictions
Its just as the article says:
And just as you admit.
We can calculate the NASA numbers now.
What's the matter? Are you feeling a little scared?
It sure looks like somebody lost his bravado rather quickly.
