So, now you're treating February 2016 as if February is a year, rather than a month?
Hilarious.
I assume you're OK with me adding this to your list of greatest hits.
Blast of Global Warming in Early April
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Hilarious.
I assume you're OK with me adding this to your list of greatest hits.
What's do hard to understand? The world has been through more extreme temperatures in the distant past but we caused the current warming. It seems like a spectacularly simple concept, it's unclear to me how you could have any trouble understanding.
The predictions have fit the data better than any alternative explanation. Is there a better model? Yes, but not one we have yet created.I see. In other words, this is like Frankfooter's assertion that you said Israel is an apartheid state. You didn't quite put it that way .... :biggrin1:
The reality is I said nothing at all that bears any resemblance to your claim.
Furthermore, I didn't say the observed data "failed to exactly match the prediction." That's another imaginary quote.
I said the predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong -- in the 21st century, they haven't been close at all.
Your spectacularly wrong claim is spectacularly wrong.
Alternate explanation for what?
Nothing unusual or unprecedented has occurred that requires an explanation.
No, I don't. You're just doing spin.
I don't need to produce an "alternate explanation" when there is nothing that has occurred that requires an explanation.
Bishop may be on to something. Do you really believe that changes in the climate are unique to the past 65 years?
The climate changes. Always has. Always will. Nothing unusual or unprecedented has occurred post-1950 that requires an "explanation."
In fact, for the majority of that period, significant increases in man-made greenhouse gas emissions have led to either a "big hiatus" or a "warming slowdown." Quite different from what should have occurred according to the hypothesis.
---
Meanwhile, here's your morning smile (admittedly, delivered in early afternoon, since I slept in this morning). Mikey's upset that voters in the U.S. don't seem to care about climate change.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...sue-but-election-campaign-tells-another-story
Aw, shucks.
The chances that you are correct in this statement have been calculated to be 0.01%.
That's the odds that the climate change we are seeing is 'natural' or 'nothing'.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...possible-without-manmade-climate-change-study
That is, the chances that you are not a total idiot and totally clueless on this issue are next to nil.
Defending computer models with more computer models (and from a guy who's more of an extreme alarmist than Mann).
Meanwhile, the real-world evidence shows nothing unusual or unprecedented has occurred post-1950.
The climate changes. Always has. Always will.
Yes you do, otherwise you are just spewing nonsense and not responding in a rational way. Your models are EVEN WORSE and MORE WRONG than these models.
You can also pick holes in the theory of gravity and show that it doesn't even remotely explain quantum effects. You say it is wrong because there's some data it doesn't explain--but at the end of the day the best models we have say that if I drop a bowling ball on your foot it's going to hurt, and that the planet is warming up due to human activity.
Jackson had a good point that we don't know if this is a big problem or a little problem and that in future we are likely to be as adaptable as we have been in the past. The sky may not be falling, but it's warmer.
Last edited:
You are a total idiot.
February 2016's global temperature was over 1ºC warmer then the 1950 temperature.
Never in the history of mankind has the planet warmed up almost 2ºC (as it has since the start of the industrial revolution) so quickly.
CO2 levels haven't risen this fast in 66 million years.
14 of the 15 warmest years ever recorded happened this century.
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/record-warmest-february-global-2016
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...record-for-hottest-year-final-figures-confirm
Only a total idiot would think that this is normal or natural.
The temperature records go back 135 years and they show an increase of about 1ºC.
Given the warming that has occurred since the Little Ice Age, there's nothing indicating anything unusual has happened. Certainly, we know the planet hasn't warmed the way the IPCC predicted.
Your analogy shows the exact problem with the hypothesis of global warming.
If you drop a bowling ball -- and your foot is below the bowling ball -- you know what's going to happen. The bowling ball is going to land on your foot and it's going to hurt.
You know that's what will happen.
The law of gravity would have some serious problems if there wasn't that certainty. For example, if you release the bowling ball and it floats up in the air, rather than dropping on your foot, then you might think there is a problem with the law of gravity.
Now, consider the hypothesis of man-made global warming. What happens when there is an increase in man-made greenhouse gases?
The answer:
-- Sometimes the Earth's temperature increases (the late 20th century).
-- Sometimes the Earth's temperature decreases (the period from about 1940 to 1970).
-- Sometimes the Earth's temperature remains stagnant (the 21st century prior to El Nino).
It's not nearly as predictable as your bowling ball.
Indeed, the climate researchers can't even agree about whether there was a significant temperature increase in the 21st century prior to the recent El Nino. Karl and (presumably) Schmidt say there was no slowdown and that warming continued unabated, while Mann, Hawkins and others say there was a slowdown.
Wrong, as usual.
What is the baseline for you claim of 1ºC, and please show us supporting links.
You repeatedly make incredibly basic mistakes, really incompetent mistakes.
More incredibly basic mistakes.
Mann reported only a slowdown in the increase of temperatures, indicating the globe was still warming, yet you still think that means warming stopped.
Incredibly basic and incompetent mistake.
Earth to Frankfooter: I used your "slowdown" language. I said they can't agree on whether there was a slowdown.
Next time, before you reply to one of my posts, try reading it first. Slowly, in your case, because you are functionally illiterate.
The New York Times, March 22, 2016. Link provided:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/s...-sea-level-carbon-dioxide-emissions.html?_r=0
I assume that you're disputing that half of 2ºC is 1ºC. Can I add this one to your list of greatest hits? :thumb:
Your argument is a fundamental fallacy. You think because our current best theory of planetary warming isn't as accurate as our currently best theory of gravity that it isn't our current best theory.
But it is our current best theory, and it predicts the data we have better than EVERY known alternative theory. It makes much better predictions than your theory does.
It's not a theory, it's a hypothesis.
And it's a hypothesis that remains unsupported by real-world evidence. Computer-model runs are not evidence.
Welcome to Fuji's Casino. My casino features a rigged roulette wheel (of course). Since I'm a classy guy my wheel is a single zero wheel, with 37 pockets. But since I'm a slimeball, my wheel is rigged. It's not truly random.
Some have been studying my wheel recently trying to learn the pattern. Jackson says he has a theory and on the last 1000 spins he correctly predicted my wheel 40% of the time. Pretty good!
His pal MoFa also has a theory, but MoFa has only been right 3% of the time, only slightly better than pure luck.
MoFa however has started a thread on terb in which he highlights the many errors Jackson has made. He says Jackson's theory is wrong, nothing like our theory of gravity which is right 99.999% of the time. He points out that Jackson had a couple of losing streaks although overall he's 40% and lately he has been winning again.
The wheel is spinning. Jackson predicts it's going to land on 23. MoFa says no way, it's going to land on zero. You have been given $1000 to wager with…
How do you place your bet?
