Blast of Global Warming in Early April
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Incredibly stupid.
That is an article warning about increases in the future.
You were asked what baseline and where your claim that there was 1ºC of warming so far.
Total failure, as usual.
Fuji may be worse at math than Frankfooter.
I have 4.5 billion years of evidence that the Earth's climate changes naturally.
Fuji has about 20 years where there was a correlation (but no evidence of causation) between increases in the Earth's temperature and increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
At Fuji's casino, Fuji has apparently calculated that 20 is a significantly larger number than 4,500,000,000.
If that's how Fuji calculates odds, I don't think his casino will stay in business for very long.
I have 4.5 billion years of evidence that the Earth's climate changes naturally.
Fuji has about 20 years where there was a correlation (but no evidence of causation) between increases in the Earth's temperature and increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
At Fuji's casino, Fuji has apparently calculated that 20 is a significantly larger number than 4,500,000,000.
If that's how Fuji calculates odds, I don't think his casino will stay in business for very long.
Wrong again.
This page on Bloomberg shows the different forcings on our climate, including man made and all the 'natural' forcings you seem to think have caused the planet to warm up. It clearly shows that its idiotic to claim that there is no evidence.
Idiotic.
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Nice try. That's a different quote than the one you responded to. In my description of the disagreement between the Karl crowd and the Mann crowd, I used their "slowdown" language.
Learn to read.
Unreal. I even provided you with the direct quote, and you're still disputing it.
From the 13th paragraph in the article: "In 2009, nations agreed to try to limit the planetary warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 2 degrees Celsius, above the preindustrial level. The Earth has already warmed by about half that amount."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/s...-sea-level-carbon-dioxide-emissions.html?_r=1
It's now a matter of record that you're disputing that half of 2ºC is 1ºC. This one's getting added to your list.
That's as exact as you could find, 'about half that amount'?
And what baseline was used, can't answer that either can you?
Incredibly stupid.
For instance, February hit 1.35ºC from the 1951-1980 average. That's not from pre-industrial temperatures, that's only a few decades ago.
Michael Mann has argued that if you use a pre-industrial baseline of 175-1850, February 2016 hit 2ºC.
http://mashable.com/2016/03/14/record-warm-february-five-implications/#FMM7uvPD4Pqu
In the 21st century, the man-made global warming hypothesis has been right 0% of the time. Get with the times.
(And no one really wants to open up this can of worms again -- but I can assure you I have no reservations about betting against the IPCC. :thumb
This is all a lot of noise, signifying nothing.
There's nothing magical about the 2ºC number. If you go back further than Mann did, to the Little Ice Age, you would get an even bigger number.
So what?
Meanwhile, it is now a matter of record that Frankfooter is disputing that half of 2ºC is 1ºC.
(And since it seems to matter so much to you, the baseline for the pre-industrial age calculation is the period from 1850 to 1900: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2015/global-average-temperature-2015. It's not the year 1990, as you were claiming a few months ago. :biggrin1
No, you're confusing your record with that of legit science.
Typically incompetent statement.
You are a total idiot, and your personal and incompetent ideas about climate sensitivity are as stupid as much of what you post on this board.
2º has been given as the warning point where climate change could become much more serious.
http://www.climate-change-emergency-medical-response.org/2-degree-target.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/03/un-2c-global-warming-climate-change
https://smartershift.com/energymix/2015/07/24/2oc-warming-is-highly-dangerous-hansen-warns/
http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/12/two-degrees-climate-risk
That we touched 2ºC in February (using Mann's 1750-1850 baseline, as there was 0.2ºC of change after that) shows that you are a total idiot for saying its 'a lot of noise' and a total fool for saying 'so what'.
What else should one expect from someone who posts charts from a paper then lies about the papers findings and who continues to not admit that 0.87 is higher then 0.83.
Canada man, you do realize that humans didn't exist during those older more extreme climates?
If your point is that the climate has changed before you need to note that those extreme changes were also known as mass extinctions.
The point you are really making is that extreme climate change leads to mass extinction, correct?
If your point is that the climate has changed before you need to note that those extreme changes were also known as mass extinctions.
The point you are really making is that extreme climate change leads to mass extinction, correct?
Sorry but that is false, the warming trend had resumed, and the hypothesis has correctly predicted much data that has been collected. In any case, it has much more predictive power than your hypothesis.In the 21st century, the man-made global warming hypothesis has been right 0% of the time. Get with the times.
(And no one really wants to open up this can of worms again -- but I can assure you I have no reservations about betting against the IPCC. :thumb
You basically aren't even debating the substantive issue. You want to go back to pointing out the holes in a hypothesis that has fewer holes than your own does.
That is exactly like refusing to believe in gravity because it doesn't handle quantum cases. Every scientific hypothesis we have--all of them in every field of science--is wrong. Every one. Being wrong isn't an argument against a scientific hypothesis if it's right more often than every alternative theorem.
You simply lose this point, and if you are forced into a debate of which hypothesis has made better predictions overall, you will lose that debate too.
Horrible analogy.
In would be made better if MoFa doesn't have a theory but instead pretends the wheel isn't spinning at all.
Nope, you claimed that:
Now you are claiming that there was only a 'slowdown' in the rate of warming, totally different.
Time for you to retract that statement, since you are now stating it was wrong.
Typical moviefan, contradicts himself repeatedly.
True it changes by itself as well.
But that doesn't mean that makes it ok or a good idea for us to change it.
Avalanches also happen naturally, but that doesn't make it ok to be setting of explosives in a snow filled valley either.
