CBC report - Most Canadians don't think humans are the main cause of climate change

[canada-man]

 

[Frankfooter]

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/65_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.jpg

Canada-man, did you read the IPCC FAQ's I posted, that answered all your claims?
Can you not understand them, is that why you only communicate with pictures?

 

[canada-man]

Canada-man, did you read the IPCC FAQ's I posted, that answered all your claims?
Can you not understand them, is that why you only communicate with pictures?

IPCC are climate alarmists that ignore the geological and paleontologist history of the earth

 

[Frankfooter]

IPCC are climate alarmists that ignore the geological and paleontologist history of the earth

Wrong, they are actually known for making their projections quite conservative, they are the opposite of alarmists.
And claiming that they ignore geology and paleontology is just ignorant.
As previously noted, they have very carefully researched everything you claim they ignore.

Everything you claim they ignore is answered, for instance most of your questions are answered here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1.html
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-2.html
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6-3.html

Please read those responses and then tell us what you think they missed or got wrong.

 

[Moviefan-2]

OMG!
Its so hard to keep track of which lie you are on. So now you're not trying to change the bet to 0.86ºC, 0.89ºC or 0.76ºC, now you think that NASA reported 0.745ºC as the 2015 anomaly and we bet on 0.85ºC?

Don't take this too hard, but your problem is that you are insane.

No one said a word about the bet. The discussion -- initiated by you -- was about how the IPCC's prediction of 0.85ºC temperature anomaly for 2015 compared with the actual HadCRUT4 result (using the same baseline) of 0.745ºC.

You're confusing all these things because your brain is a piece of dog shit.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Hotwhopper has a good take down of the wattsupwiththat talking points that moviefan is repeating.
If you really need to know, read that.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/02/global-surface-warming-continues.html

Nice try. The article I cited came from the Feb. 24 edition of Nature. I'm sure you remember the reference to that journal in the Climategate email about "Mike's Nature trick."

The Nature article is called: Global warming ‘hiatus’ debate flares up again:

http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414#/b2

Here are some select quotes from climate researchers, including the lead author of the paper:

“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. “We can’t ignore it.”

Susan Solomon, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, says that Fyfe’s framework helps to put twenty-first-century trends into perspective, and clearly indicates that the rate of warming slowed down at a time when greenhouse-gas emissions were rising dramatically.

“It’s important to explain that,” Solomon says. “As scientists, we are curious about every bump and wiggle in that curve.”

 

[basketcase]

To the surprise of no one, ....

Do you care to test another hypothesis against AGW? If you have a theory that produces better predictions then lets hear it.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Do you care to test another hypothesis against AGW? If you have a theory that produces better predictions then lets hear it.

A hypothesis for what?

Nothing unusual has occurred. The Earth's climate changes, as it has for the past 4.5 billion years. Nothing unusual has occurred in recent times. So what is it that requires a hypothesis?

 

[jcpro]

average global temps where higher during the medieval warming period. and ice ages occurred milllions of years ago when CO2 levels were higher than today



0.04% is not a high that's a trace gas

The last Ice Age did not occur millions of years ago. It ended 12K-15k years ago. There were several ice ages, with periods of warming in between that melted all the ice but at the highest latitudes. That's why the idea of fighting "climate change" is so preposterous. What are we going to fight next, the continental drift?

 

[Moviefan-2]

What are we going to fight next, the continental drift?

Don't give them ideas.

 

[basketcase]

A hypothesis for what?

Nothing unusual has occurred. The Earth's climate changes, as it has for the past 4.5 billion years. Nothing unusual has occurred in recent times. So what is it that requires a hypothesis?

Yep, plug your ears. No need for science.

 

[Frankfooter]

Don't take this too hard, but your problem is that you are insane.

No one said a word about the bet. The discussion -- initiated by you -- was about how the IPCC's prediction of 0.85ºC temperature anomaly for 2015 compared with the actual HadCRUT4 result (using the same baseline) of 0.745ºC.

You're confusing all these things because your brain is a piece of dog shit.

You still don't understand how baselines work and when and how you can compare them.
As explained, very carefully here:
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5475131&viewfull=1#post5475131
If you want to compare different sources with different baselines, do it here:
http://www.moyhu.blogspot.ca/p/climate-plotter.html

Its an excellent source.

Here, since you claim to know so much better, tell us what the baselines used for are for:
HadCRUT4
IPCC AR4

Go prove how much you know.

 

[Frankfooter]

Nice try. The article I cited came from the Feb. 24 edition of Nature. I'm sure you remember the reference to that journal in the Climategate email about "Mike's Nature trick."

The original article came from Nature, however, it doesn't say what you claim it says. Those talking points come from a wattsupwiththat blog post.
And note that even the quotes you used do not claim there was a 'pause' or 'hiatus', the quote you used says only that the amount of warming slowed a bit, in other words the global temp was still increasing.

the rate of warming slowed

It didn't stop and there was no 'hiatus'.

Learn to read what you are quoting.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You still don't understand how baselines work and when and how you can compare them.
As explained, very carefully here:
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-change-yet&p=5475131&viewfull=1#post5475131
If you want to compare different sources with different baselines, do it here:
http://www.moyhu.blogspot.ca/p/climate-plotter.html

Its an excellent source.

Here, since you claim to know so much better, tell us what the baselines used for are for:
HadCRUT4
IPCC AR4

Go prove how much you know.

See the first sentence in post 65.

Meanwhile, the fact remains that when you compare figures that use the same baseline, you see that the observed anomaly of 0.745ºC for 2015 is well below the IPCC prediction of 0.85ºC.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The original article came from Nature, however, it doesn't say what you claim it says. Those talking points come from a wattsupwiththat blog post.
And note that even the quotes you used do not claim there was a 'pause' or 'hiatus', the quote you used says only that the amount of warming slowed a bit, in other words the global temp was still increasing.

It didn't stop and there was no 'hiatus'.

Learn to read what you are quoting.

The word "hiatus" appears in both the headline and the article: http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414#/b2

And no one is saying it slowed down "a bit." The researchers said there is a mismatch between what was predicted and what has been observed and that the temperature increase slowed at a time when man-made emissions increase dramatically.

 

[AK-47]

Hiatus =/= "slowing down a bit"

 

[Moviefan-2]

Hiatus =/= "slowing down a bit"

In the Hotwhopper post that Frankfooter provided, Hotwhopper says the following:

I'm not aware of anyone who disputes the fact there was a short term slowdown in surface warming, or the scientific explanations.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/02/global-surface-warming-continues.html

Hotwhopper has clearly never met Frankfooter or Basketcase.

 

[AK-47]

LOL......I didnt even read your link, I was just going by Webster definition of hiatus.

Webster defines it as a complete stop:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hiatus

 

[Frankfooter]

See the first sentence in post 65.

Meanwhile, the fact remains that when you compare figures that use the same baseline, you see that the observed anomaly of 0.745ºC for 2015 is well below the IPCC prediction of 0.85ºC.

You are stupid.
Tell us what baseline is used by:
a) HadCRUT4 (where your 0.745ºC number comes from)
b) IPCC projection (where your 0.85ºC comes from)

You can't answer those questions, can you?
Not smart enough, eh?

 

[Frankfooter]

In the Hotwhopper post that Frankfooter provided, Hotwhopper says the following:



http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/02/global-surface-warming-continues.html

Hotwhopper has clearly never met Frankfooter or Basketcase.

Slowdown in surface warming - its still warming, but at a slightly lower rate
hiatus - warming has stopped.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hiatus
(thanks AK)

As noted, you are repeating talking points from wattsupwiththat without noting that you repeating a false accusation.
As usual.