Nope. The planet hit 2ºC from pre-industrial times in February.
You keep using numbers with the wrong baselines.
The new official climate change thread
- Thread starter K Douglas
- Start date
You keep using numbers with the wrong baselines.
No, he wasn't. He was talking about the actual temperature anomalies in the 21st century, the ones that were stagnant prior to the recent El Nino weather phenomenon.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/image_asset_11015.jpg
Talk about moving the goal post (and total denial). The IPCC made predictions about changes in the Earth's temperature, not "rolling averages." The IPCC and the climate researchers don't use rolling averages to measure the predictions.
The actual temperature anomalies show the predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong.
That was for the single month of February, not for the year. In case you haven't noticed, 2016 hasn't ended yet.
And, assuming the guesses about the February temperature 200 years ago are right, that month-to-month comparison was over a 200-year time period (the "pre-industrial" time period that climate researchers have been using refers to 135 years ago).
He was wrong, just as you are wrong.
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/files/2016/01/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2016-panela.png
Gavin Schmidt posts that he is 99% sure that 2016 will be yet another record breaking year, even though the El Nino effect is now pretty much over and we are likely entering an La Nina.
https://criticalangleblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/2016-05-14_17-06-03.jpg
That would make 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 four of the 5 warmest years on record, with a string of 3 record breaking warm years in a row.
You are as wrong as your spectacularly wrong predictions can be.
Once again, that just shows that you are spectacularly wrong, you claim we've only warmed 1ºC.That was for the single month of February, not for the year. In case you haven't noticed, 2016 hasn't ended yet.
.
Earth's temperature peaked at 2ºC in February, but the real average anomaly is now about 1.5ºC.
You are spectacularly wrong, again.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/99-percent-chance-2016-will-be-the-hottest-year-on-record/
And as for your claim that the record was only due to El Nino:
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-change-behind-the-run-of-record-temperatures
Its amazing how wrong you can, and how many times in one post.
We'll see. The more reliable satellite data showed the anomaly for April 2016 was less than the anomaly for April 1998.
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/2016/05/04/690/
There's no point wasting a lot of time explaining that a month is different than a year. I'm assuming most people already know that.
Quick rebuttals:
- The 2ºC figure and the 1.5ºC figure both refer to anomalies for a single month, not annual anomalies.
- The 2ºC figure is supposedly over the past 200 years, not the 135-year time frame that is commonly used in the references to the "pre-industrial" period (and the 135-year time frame that was clearly cited in my quote).
- Nobody cares what Mann says.
Over the past 135 years, the Earth's temperature has increased by about 1ºC.
Actually, you just don't know what you're talking about. The predictions were about an increase in the Earth's actual temperature.
Prior to the El Nino months, the temperatures in the 21st century were stagnant. There was no statistically significant warming.
And when you look at the graph from Nature, there's simply no way that you can look at the coloured lines for the observed data in the years after 2000 and claim that every year showed an increase over the previous year:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/image_asset_11015.jpg
Clearly, annual temperatures and 30-year rolling averages are two entirely different things.
The predictions were about the Earth's actual temperature, as measured through annual temperature anomalies. The predictions remain spectacularly wrong.
Oh, look -- here's the IPCC's famous spaghetti graph from its 2013 AR5 report:
http://m5.i.pbase.com/o9/10/152510/1/152647365.VGKk7kJX.IPCC_AR5_W_13jun7.PNG
For some reason, the IPCC is comparing the model projections with the observed temperatures using annual temperature anomalies.
I guess someone forgot to tell the big shots at the IPCC that they're supposed to be using 30-year rolling averages. :biggrin-new:
http://m5.i.pbase.com/o9/10/152510/1/152647365.VGKk7kJX.IPCC_AR5_W_13jun7.PNG
For some reason, the IPCC is comparing the model projections with the observed temperatures using annual temperature anomalies.
I guess someone forgot to tell the big shots at the IPCC that they're supposed to be using 30-year rolling averages. :biggrin-new:
Foolish man
Explain how you can replace 100 MM bbls of oil per day or shut your cake hole
You are basing one of counter arguements on 10 years and another on recored history.
That is infestimal relative the history of the earth
Or:
Too bad I just do not take any numbers you provide seriously & there are some unanswered questions.
Questions which require more than a lame assed attempt to discredit a scientist by a uncomprimising zelot
Satellite data measures the upper atmosphere data and is less reliable.
Its not relevant to the discussion.
We have been discussing surface temperature, not the temperature in the clouds.
No.
The 2ºC was for Feb, 2016 but the 1.5ºC was not.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/99-percent-chance-2016-will-be-the-hottest-year-on-record/
The 2ºC figure uses a proper pre-industrial baseline.
Correction, nobody cares what you say.
Mann is an internationally recognized scientist.
You are just a troll.
Repeating the same lie over and over again isn't arguing, its just troll tactics.
15 of the 16 warmest years on record happened since 2001, that is not statistically insignificant.
As noted repeatedly here, the odds of your claim that these changes are 'natural' have been calculated as 0.01%.
Statistics show that the odds are that you are full of shit.
Once again, the only prediction here that was spectacularly wrong came from your prediction that 2015 wouldn't hit 0.83ªC, which you made half way through the year.
We don't need to replace it all, its been explained to you multiple times before.
Don't blame me if you can't follow the arguments.
No, that was a 10 year long study on the effects of CO2 increases in the atmosphere, it wasn't a study that needed any more time.
You really can't follow anything technical can you?
You can't tell the difference between a study on CO2 increases and research on historical temperatures, can you?
Are you still trying to defend the work of the shyster who pulled one over on you?
The idiot who tried to switch between surface temperature and stratosphere temperatures as a way of hiding surface temperature increases?
Are you really so daft that you couldn't confirm this yourself?
You provided a link and you really are totally unable to look into whether you were played for a fool by deniers or are backing a credible source?
If you can't even look into such an incredibly simple question, how the fuck do you think you are smart enough to judge the real science?
Actually, the satellite data measure the lower troposphere.
Satellite data don't have the enormous unreliability of the sea surface temperatures in the ground measurements.
OK, the 1.5ºC was the average of the anomalies for three El Nino months: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/world-flirts-with-1.5C-threshold-20260
The point remains that that number isn't an annual anomaly. Overall, the Earth's temperature is about 1ºC warmer than 135 years ago.
John can you also look into the 3 cents per kwhr story and tell me if you think the deal is legit. I still have a hard time accepting that figure and would like a 2nd opinion.
With regards to sucking cock for gasoline, please consider that a econobox car can get maybe 600 km per tank of gas, which right now costs maybe 50 bucks to fill up. Imagine you had to walk 600 km, you might be able to do that in 2 weeks time if you put alot of effort into walking. Imagine you had to walk 600km while pushing 2000 lbs, that might take you the better part of a year. The energy density in gasoline is incredible, if energy becomes expensive or barriers are put into place to stop the explotation of energy, it will end our civilization.
But that is exactly what the UN wants to happen, DE-industrialize the advanced countries of the world is what that slime have proposed.
And your point about the energy density of gasoline, will make other forms of energy storage for individuals transportation a very long way off.
But if and when it is replaced, it will be because, as you have already stated, but ignored by our resident anarchist, by something developed by the the free enterprise system, NOT some death wish by some self appointed experts at the UN.
FAST
Except:
1980 -0.9
1981 0.8
1982 1.3
1983 2.0
1984 2.9
1985 3.7
1986 4.8
1987 5.9
1988 6.8
1989 7.8
1990 9.1
1991 10.3
1992 11.5
1993 12.3
1994 12.9
1995 14.9
1996 16.5
1997 17.8
1998 19.8
1999 21.8
2000 22.9
2001 24.5
2002 26.8
2003 28.3
2004 30.3
2005 32.2
2006 34.6
2007 37.0
2008 38.3
2009 40.1
2010 41.7
2011 42.8
2012 44.1
2013 45.5
2014 47.0
2015 49.2
2016 51.9
That is statistically significant in the extreme. Would you like me to calculate the degree of significance?
You are hilariously, totally wrong.
