Blast of Global Warming in Early April

[AK-47]

Where did those charts come from?
Are they from legit sources or did you copy and paste from some denier site like WUWT?

Second graph which shows a decrease in hurricanes and only a ~3% increase in strength (which is NOT statistically significant) is right from the governments website:

www.aoml.noaa.gov

Look bro, I really dont wanna get into a heated debate on GW. My official position is I'm not entirely convinced GW is real or as bad as the experts said it would be, but I keep an open mind that I might proven wrong in the future

 

[Frankfooter]

Second graph which shows a decrease in hurricanes and only a ~3% increase in strength (which is NOT statistically significant) is right from the governments website:

www.aoml.noaa.gov

Look bro, I really dont wanna get into a heated debate on GW. My official position is I'm not entirely convinced GW is real or as bad as the experts said it would be, but I keep an open mind that I might proven wrong in the future

An open mind is good. Next is upping your bullshit detector so you can tell the difference between legit research and nonsense.
That's where moviefan and FAST fail continually.

And one of the first steps is to do your own research correctly. So when you post up charts provide direct links to the charts and reports so that they can be read and checked.
That's one of the easiest ways to detect bullshit, the deniers don't provide any trustworthy sources for their claims.

Give it a try, post the direct links to those charts and we'll have a little discussion about what they mean.

 

[AK-47]

An open mind is good. Next is upping your bullshit detector so you can tell the difference between legit research and nonsense.
That's where moviefan and FAST fail continually.

And one of the first steps is to do your own research correctly. So when you post up charts provide direct links to the charts and reports so that they can be read and checked.
That's one of the easiest ways to detect bullshit, the deniers don't provide any trustworthy sources for their claims.

Give it a try, post the direct links to those charts and we'll have a little discussion about what they mean

You mean to tell us you dont even know you can quote my post and see the direct link in that quote??

 

[Frankfooter]

You mean to tell us you dont even know you can quote my post and see the direct link in that quote??

The 'direct link' goes to aoml front page of a rather large site, not to the chart you linked to.
Big difference.

That doesn't prove that's where that chart came from, what they said about it and how recent it is.
Try again.

 

[AK-47]

The 'direct link' goes to aoml front page of a rather large site, not to the chart you linked to.
Big difference.

That doesn't prove that's where that chart came from, what they said about it and how recent it is.
Try again

Are you on drugs?? Here is the link, which you couldve found yourself by quoting my post:

www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/fig4.jpg

 

[Frankfooter]

Are you on drugs?? Here is the link, which you couldve found yourself by quoting my post:

www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/fig4.jpg

It leads to that chart, but doesn't say what the context to that chart was. That is what I'm asking for.
Was it from a study?
Was it from an older modelling, or newer version of the models?
Which version of CO2 output did they use for the projection?
The chart says it represents projections based on models, but without knowing what they were modelling, its not clear it says what you claim it was saying.

 

[Moviefan-2]

An open mind is good. Next is upping your bullshit detector so you can tell the difference between legit research and nonsense.
That's where moviefan and FAST fail continually.

My bullshit detector says that a guy who doesn't know the meaning of the word "data" (that would be Frankfooter) and who can't solve Grade 3 math equations is no expert on research. :thumb:

 

[AK-47]

It leads to that chart, but doesn't say what the context to that chart was. That is what I'm asking for.
Was it from a study?
Was it from an older modelling, or newer version of the models?
Which version of CO2 output did they use for the projection?
The chart says it represents projections based on models, but without knowing what they were modelling, its not clear it says what you claim it was saying

Its a study by Bender et al from the year 2010.

I'll see if I can dig it up

 

[Frankfooter]

Its a study by Bender et al from the year 2010.

I'll see if I can dig it up

Thanks.

In the meantime, new studies show that the melting in Greenland is happening much faster then the models predicted. There have been exceptional heat waves in the arctic, with the North Pole going above zero a couple of times during winter.

Arctic heat waves cause exceptional Greenland melt, says new study
Influxes of warm air from lower latitudes may be causing highest melt rates

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/greenland-ice-sheet-exceptional-melts-1.3520547

That same melting of glaciers is leading to more freshwater in the thermohaline current, or AMOC. That leads to a slowing down of the AMOC which gave Eastern Canada cold winters the previous two winters (before we were hit by El Nino).

http://www.reportingclimatescience....highly-variable-and-declining-says-study.html

So our winters may be colder here while the rest of the planet gets warmer.

 

[Frankfooter]

My bullshit detector says that a guy who doesn't know the meaning of the word "data" (that would be Frankfooter) and who can't solve Grade 3 math equations is no expert on research. :thumb:

Mr Dunning-Kruger speaks.

Still won't admit that 0.87 is higher then 0.83, loser?

That was the bet you lost, talk about someone who won't look at the 'data' and can't do basic math......

 

[Moviefan-2]

Mr Dunning-Kruger speaks.

Still won't admit that 0.87 is higher then 0.83, loser?

That was the bet you lost, talk about someone who won't look at the 'data' and can't do basic math......

The issue is your repeated assertion that 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83. If you knew how to do math at even a Grade 3 level, you would know that your calculation is wrong.

Actually, the Ontario government's announcement of new funding to improve math education may prove to be a double-edged sword for Frankfooter.

If it works, the good news is that Frankfooter may get a chance to finally pass Grade 3 and advance to higher grades.

The bad news for Frankfooter: If he actually masters Grade 3 math, he'll be forced to concede that I won the bet.

 

[Frankfooter]

The issue is your repeated assertion that 0.74 + 0.15 = 0.83.

Typical Dunning-Kruger effect claim.
Nowhere have I made such a statement.
Total lie coming from you.

The only number we bet on was 0.83.
Yet you keep trying to 'retroactively change the numbers' as you once said and claim that the bet should be changed, despite giving your word in June that you would honour the bet in its original terms. That's just yet another lie coming from you.

The bet was simple, and you simply lost yet won't admit it.

In May, 2014, we bet whether or not the IPCC projection of 0.2ºC was accurate, from 1995-2015, based on the reported 1995 global temperature anomaly of 0.43ºC.
We bet whether 2015 would hit 0.83ºC.
2015's global temperature anomaly came out as 0.87ºC.
You lost.

So in order to win the bet, all the temperature has to do is hit 0.83ºC anomaly for the year of 2015, correct?

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.

NASA reported:
- 2015 anomaly: 0.87ºC

The issue is that you won't admit that 0.87 is higher then 0.83 and you lost the bet.

 

[Madalina Estrella]

This is why the vegan craze has its evolutionary purpose. I for one am going pescetarian. As long as I'm avoiding red meat 80% of the time, I feel like I'm helping out.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Total lie coming from you.

Prove it. Tell us what 0.74 + 0.15 equals.

Don't try to evade the question by using old quotes from the pre-adjusted data. The link you keep using says the 2014 anomaly was 0.74ºC.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

You keep posting that the answer you get when you add the 0.15ºC increase that we bet on to 0.74ºC is 0.83ºC.

Then, when when I call you on it, you say that you're not claiming the number is 0.83ºC.

Make up your mind. If you can do it, tell us what number you get when you add 0.15ºC to 0.74ºC.

 

[fuji]

Hilariously you both lost this debate. Groggy lost on a technicality over the numbers. Moviefan lost because the numbers really do show global warming.

 

[bishop]

In the meantime, new studies show that the melting in Greenland is happening much faster then the models predicted. There have been exceptional heat waves in the arctic, with the North Pole going above zero a couple of times during winter.

If that is the case then these climate models are not accurate. Error in one direction is no different than error in the other direction. If Greenland is melting at a slower rate than the models predict, it is equivalent to Greenland melting at a faster rate than models predict, that is if your agenda is a scientific one; finding the correct model.

Of course your agenda is not a scientific one, hence you see error in the direction complimentary to your agenda as a strength and not the weakness it actually is.

Anyways, you are going to yell; Dunning-Kruger, that I do not believe in gravity or evolution, and science is the burden to prove a theory incorrect rather than proving it is correct, as a distraction to cover your insecurity over your mental retardation, so go ahead and yell it as you always do like a broken record.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Groggy lost on a technicality over the numbers.

The apparent "technicality" being that the temperature increase in the super El Nino year of 2015 was less than the minimum increase that he bet on.

Where I come from, that's not a technicality. That's just losing.

 

[Frankfooter]

The link you keep using says the 2014 anomaly was 0.74ºC.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

We didn't bet on what NASA would report as 2014's temperature, so I really don't care what they say that number is.
We bet on what 2015's temperature would be.

So in order to win the bet, all the temperature has to do is hit 0.83ºC anomaly for the year of 2015, correct?

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

If that's the chart you're saying will hit 0.83 at the end of 2015, we definitely have a bet.

NASA reported:
- 2015 anomaly: 0.87ºC

Typical Dunning-Kruger mistake, can't even get the right year.
Instead he insists that we bet on the outcome of a year that was already reported.
So ignorant.

 

[AK-47]

The whole world is heating up and falling apart, Franky!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Frankfooter]

The apparent "technicality" being that the temperature increase in the super El Nino year of 2015 was less than the minimum increase that he bet on.

Where I come from, that's not a technicality. That's just losing.

Another Dunning-Kruger effect mistake.
We bet on an IPCC projection based on the time period 1995-2015, not the difference between 2014-2015.
As you clearly stated:

Therefore, the bet is from 1995 to 2015 -- you won't have to wait, as we'll know the winner by early 2016.

Do we have a bet?