NASA said:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
The Six attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts'
:thumb:
CBC report - Most Canadians don't think humans are the main cause of climate change
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
The Six attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts'
:thumb:
Denial 101 (Updated with the very latest in denials.)
Hotwhopper, meet Frankfooter and Basketcase.
:biggrin1:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/02/global-surface-warming-continues.htmlHotwhopper said:
Hotwhopper, meet Frankfooter and Basketcase.
In fairness, I should repeat that what Hotwhopper probably meant is that he's never met anyone who actually knows how to read a graph "who disputes the fact there was a short term slowdown in surface warming."
:biggrin1:
You're making progress. Now, try this one.
NASA reported:
- 2014 anomaly: 0.74ºC
- 2015 anomaly: 0.87ºC
The difference is?: _____
Still failing basic English.
A slowdown in warming means that the warming continued, just at a lesser rate.
That is not a 'pause' or a 'hiatus'.
Basic English fail.
The difference between 0.87ºC and 0.83ºC, the number we bet on, is 0.04ºC.
You lost the the bet.
Hey, I was thinking, why should I let moviefan have all the fun.
Why don't I try a post based off of re-arranging partial quotes to make it look as if they meant something else.
Its so easy, why anyone can also try this.
Lets just call it the 'moviefan form of quoting'.
An Example of the Moviefan style of partial quotes re-arranged to infer a different meaning.
(to be used only when you have run out of arguments, as moviefan has).
????
Could you show us where the IPCC predicted a "slowdown in warming," with warming occurring at "a lesser rate."
:thumb:
The math question I put to Frankfooter must be a tough one, as I didn't see the answer in Frankfooter's response.
Let's try again.
NASA reported:
- 2014 anomaly: 0.74ºC
- 2015 anomaly: 0.87ºC
The difference is?: _____
Let's try again.
NASA reported:
- 2014 anomaly: 0.74ºC
- 2015 anomaly: 0.87ºC
The difference is?: _____
Yes, but lets use the NASA reference that you used earlier, not a chart from a paper that is still in contention.
According to the chart you posted from NASA, the one that shows you lost the bet, there has been no slowdown or hiatus.
You do trust your own sources, don't you?
Irrelevant to the discussion or the bet.
As you recall, this his how you described the bet:
And as you just noted:
The difference between 0.87ºC and 0.83ºC?
Come on, moviefan, I know you can do it.
Frankfooter:
You were challenged to produce evidence to support your claims that the IPCC predicted a "slowdown" in the Earth's temperature.
Show us the source for that claim.
You were challenged to produce evidence to support your claims that the IPCC predicted a "slowdown" in the Earth's temperature.
Show us the source for that claim.
Sure. Right after you show us where the temperature stopped rising.
Your thesis is that there has been no 'statistical' temperature increase this century. Why do you refuse to defend your claims? More importantly why do you keep using sources that contradict your thesis?
p.s. As usual you have chosen a graph that excludes the past year or two. Try plotting the observed data of 0.87 or 0.74 against that predicted curve. Just another case of you arguing against yourself.
Sorry but what were the anomalies for 2014 and 2015? To me they sure look pretty close to the mean projection....
The current graph that maps temperature anomalies against the predictions confirms that temperatures in the 21st century have been stagnant. Certainly, we can all agree that the anomalies are well below what the IPCC predicted.
Page 225: http://www.nature.com/articles/ncli...trZLMnaUyec=&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com
They do?
The graph goes to the end of 2014: http://www.nature.com/articles/ncli...trZLMnaUyec=&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com
You think the coloured lines look "pretty close" to the solid black line? Get your eyes checked.
The paper says the evidence supports the claims of a "slowdown or hiatus." I assume you dispute that.
Sure thing.
If you accept that there was a "slowdown" while at the same time believing "there is no mismatch" between the projections and the results, then you must believe the IPCC projected the slowdown.
Produce the evidence to support that claim.
Or, alternately, admit the IPCC did not predict the "significant" difference between the observed results and the temperatures from the preceding decades.
You said this:
I never made such a claim.
You lied.
Now lets get back to your math:
Is 0.87 higher then 0.83?
Come on moviefan, you love math challenges, can you do this one?
