The new official climate change thread

[Frankfooter]

Oh Boy are you ever stunned
That is not Dr Carters chart

That is a completely different study by a different scientist, showing a very long term look at temperature & CO2 levels

Well excuse me.
You posted the link, and as you noted it doesn't mention who wrote it, during your long rants about this dead Dr Carter.
My apologies if its not from your dead Dr Carter.
The only link to Dr Carter on this thread is in the OP, which links to a youtube video, not to any charts.
So forgive me in thinking that the unnamed scientist that you linked to was actually on topic and by Dr Carter, I really should have known better I expect.

Now that we've cleared up that you don't even know who published the dodgy charts you used later, you could see if you could actually find a published chart by dead Dr Carter.
Or is there only a youtube video to represent his sum work in the field?

 

[JohnLarue]

Well excuse me.
You posted the link, and as you noted it doesn't mention who wrote it, during your long rants about this dead Dr Carter.
My apologies if its not from your dead Dr Carter.
The only link to Dr Carter on this thread is in the OP, which links to a youtube video, not to any charts.
So forgive me in thinking that the unnamed scientist that you linked to was actually on topic and by Dr Carter, I really should have known better I expect.

What a fool you are (again)
You attacked Dr. Carter based upon a chart by someone else.
Funny how you were so absolute that the chart was displaying "trickery", and you had no qualms about accusing Dr. carter of this trickery

Now that we've cleared up that you don't even know who published the dodgy charts you used later, you could see if you could actually find a published chart by dead Dr Carter.
Or is there only a youtube video to represent his sum work in the field?

Like that matters.
as I have said many times before
Dr. Carter raise some serious questions about the time reference used to arrive at your absolute position
Since you are absolute , you should have no problem answering those questions, unless of coarse you are just a propaganda spewing machine who really does not understand the science involved at all

Given you attacked the character and competency of a man with a doctorate based upon your interpretation od someone else's chart, the latter is far more likely

Knock your self out researching Dr. Carter & his work
I do not do searches on demand and most certainly would never for you

 

[K Douglas]

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.

Gavin Schmidt has proven himself to be a dishonest broker and intellectual fraud. Even many of his colleagues are perplexed by the stagnation in warming in the 21st century. The so called "pause". Give it up already.

 

[K Douglas]

Only climate deniers talk about "the AGW hypothesis". The only thing you could call "the AGW hypothesis" is that humans have caused warming, and that's proven.

Beyond that there are numerous hypotheses but nobody other than loons on anti scientific climate denier website tries to talk about it as a single hypothesis.

Now let's talk about who has been more wrong. Your hypothesis was that there has been no warming, but:

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

I note that you are absolutely running from this data which utterly proves you wrong and shows you whole worldview to be a sad joke.

This data is a product of tampering and adjustment. Do you know how the raw data is accumulated and reported? Do you think it's smart to have weather stations in urban areas or by airports (like we have in Toronto)? Does it concern you that weather stations have been closing at alarming rates? Does it concern you that only about 30% of the earth's land surface has a weather station? Does it concern you that the earth is covered 70% by water and that a vast majority of that surface area is not measured? You can use all the fancy statistical techniques to come up with a data set but at the end of the day it's smoke an mirrors. The surface temperature data we have is not nearly as accurate or as reliable as the satellite data. Plain and simple.

 

[fuji]

This data is a product of tampering and adjustment. Do you know how the raw data is accumulated and reported? Do you think it's smart to have weather stations in urban areas or by airports (like we have in Toronto)? Does it concern you that weather stations have been closing at alarming rates? Does it concern you that only about 30% of the earth's land surface has a weather station? Does it concern you that the earth is covered 70% by water and that a vast majority of that surface area is not measured? You can use all the fancy statistical techniques to come up with a data set but at the end of the day it's smoke an mirrors. The surface temperature data we have is not nearly as accurate or as reliable as the satellite data. Plain and simple.

Deny deny deny deny deny.

You previously tried the satellite argument but then fell silent when it also showed consistent warming.

 

[Frankfooter]

What a fool you are (again)
You attacked Dr. Carter based upon a chart by someone else.
Funny how you were so absolute that the chart was displaying "trickery", and you had no qualms about accusing Dr. carter of this trickery

Like I said, my mistake, I foolishly thought you were going to stay on topic.
Regardless, the only chart you supplied used trickery, trickery that fooled you and continues to be over your head, even though its very simple.

Dr. Carter raise some serious questions about the time reference used to arrive at your absolute position

Given that we've shown you can't judge credible sources, by the shoddy chart you did supply, whoever wrote it, its time to challenge you on this question.

What question(s) did Carter raise that have not ever been addressed?
What research did you do to confirm that the haven't been answered?
How does it specifically call to question the work of NASA and the IPCC?

This is your argument, but so far you can't answer even a single question.

 

[Frankfooter]

Gavin Schmidt has proven himself to be a dishonest broker and intellectual fraud. Even many of his colleagues are perplexed by the stagnation in warming in the 21st century. The so called "pause". Give it up already.

Nonsense, Schmidt is still director of the Goddard NASA institute for space studies.

2013, 2014, 2105 and soon 2016 will all be in the top 5 warmest years.

Your claims are nonsense.

 

[Frankfooter]

This data is a product of tampering and adjustment. Do you know how the raw data is accumulated and reported? Do you think it's smart to have weather stations in urban areas or by airports (like we have in Toronto)? Does it concern you that weather stations have been closing at alarming rates? Does it concern you that only about 30% of the earth's land surface has a weather station? Does it concern you that the earth is covered 70% by water and that a vast majority of that surface area is not measured? You can use all the fancy statistical techniques to come up with a data set but at the end of the day it's smoke an mirrors. The surface temperature data we have is not nearly as accurate or as reliable as the satellite data. Plain and simple.

Satellite data requires much more data manipulation, is much less reliable and only goes back to 1979.
And on top of that it doesn't measure surface temperatures.
Its only really useful for those fools who live in the clouds.

Accusing NASA and NOAA of fraud, or 'data tampering' is ridiculous. Their work is backed up by findings by the MET Office, Japan met and denier funded Berkely.
There is zero evidence of fraud, as opposed to people like you who read slander published on sites funded by Exxon and the Koch brothers.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I totally agree, those numbers don't add up.
Good thing they weren't part of the bet.

Actually, they were. I'm glad to see you have finally acknowledged the reality that your numbers "don't add up."

Of course, we shouldn't be surprised that you once again tried to derail my point with your fairy-tale claims. This is becoming a common tactic for you.

Let's remember the original point: The Met Office's prediction of a 0.3ºC temperature increase from 2004 to 2014 was completely wrong -- even worse than the IPCC's predictions.

The reason these people keep making such horribly wrong predictions is that they have too much faith in their beliefs and aren't paying close enough attention to reality.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Funny how you were so absolute that the chart was displaying "trickery", and you had no qualms about accusing Dr. carter of this trickery

No surprise. He recently said that graphs produced by NASA's Gavin Schmidt were "dodgy" -- before he knew who created them. Once he learned who created them, he insisted the graphs were accurate. :biggrin1:

 

[Moviefan-2]

The earth's average temperature has shown consistent and undeniably warming.

No, it hasn't.

Here's the graph in Nature. It shows the Earth's average temperature in the 21st century (prior to El Nino) has been stagnant: http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/image_asset_11015.jpg

If you want to understand why you keep getting this completely wrong, read post #243. I shouldn't need to repeat myself.

 

[Frankfooter]

Actually, they were. I'm glad to see you have finally acknowledged the reality that your numbers "don't add up."

Those are your numbers, I've never used them and you've been challenged on this point repeatedly on this board.
Those are your numbers that don't add up.
Typical lying troll move, what else do we expect from you?

Let's remember the original point: The Met Office's prediction of a 0.3ºC temperature increase from 2004 to 2014 was completely wrong -- even worse than the IPCC's predictions.

The original point is that midway through 2015 you were so sure that the year's temperature wouldn't hit 0.83ºC that you made a bet on the matter.
And that you are such a sore loser that you are down to accusing NASA and NOAA of fraud in order to avoid paying up and admitting that you aren't that smart.

 

[Frankfooter]

No, it hasn't.

Here's the graph in Nature. It shows the Earth's average temperature in the 21st century (prior to El Nino) has been stagnant: http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/image_asset_11015.jpg

If you want to understand why you keep getting this completely wrong, read post #243. I shouldn't need to repeat myself.

Speaking of repeating yourself, you continue to post this one chart from one disputed study as if it were the consensus view.
Yet you refuse to answer to these points:



Because as long as you are backing the findings of this study you are also backing what one of the lead authors of the study says about its results:

“So we have every reason to believe that the warming of the planet and the detrimental impacts of that warming will continue unabated if we do not dramatically reduce our emissions,” Mann said.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-global-warming-slow-down-in-the-2000s-or-not/

Though I am glad to hear that you are now supporting Michael Mann, author of the hockey stick chart, and his work enough to quote it here as support for your positions. That's a start.

Tamino has a really smart discussion of the Fyfe paper and the faults with its premise, that of using 'broken' trend lines.
Here's a chart showing how Fyfe looked at the data vs non-broken trend lines.
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/figure01.jpeg?w=1000&h=998

And again, Tamino shows that Fyfe's paper itself relies on cherry picking, and here shows trend lines for 2001-2014 vs 2000-2015.
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/fig3.jpeg?w=1000&h=664

In short, Fyfe's paper is interesting, but its findings aren't as solid as moviefan would like. Not that it will stop him from quoting it.
But it does show how weak his argument is getting. Now he's given up on claiming that there is no warming, now he's just claiming that the warming is continuing but its a little bit slower over his cherry picked years.

Moving goal posts, eh?

Here's the full Tamino article, its very good if your'e interested.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/05/21/record-global-warming-or-warming-slowdown/sted.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Those are your numbers, I've never used them and you've been challenged on this point repeatedly on this board.

And I have repeatedly produced the evidence that shows that all of those numbers are yours.

Furthermore, you've reaffirmed my bigger point. Though no one wants to hear about it, you keep trying to reheat the discussion about the bet to distract from the fact that the Met Office -- even more so than the IPCC -- doesn't know what it's talking about.

The Met Office needs to stop dreaming about the AGW hypothesis and start paying attention to reality. Only then is there a chance it might make predictions that have some connection to the real world.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And again, Tamino shows that Fyfe's paper itself relies on cherry picking, and here shows trend lines for 2001-2014 vs 2000-2015.
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/fig3.jpeg?w=1000&h=664

That's hilarious.

Tamino -- the propagandist -- had to cherry pick years using the La Nina and El Nino weather phenomena to create the phony illusion that warming has occurred. And, of course, Tamino wouldn't do anything that shows how the temperature trends (even using his cherry-picked years) compare with the predictions.

The fact is that temperatures in the 21st century have been stagnant and the predictions remain spectacularly wrong. The Met Office's predictions even more so than the IPCC's.

 

[JohnLarue]

Like I said, my mistake, I foolishly thought you were going to stay on topic.
Regardless, the only chart you supplied used trickery, trickery that fooled you and continues to be over your head, even though its very simple.
Given that we've shown you can't judge credible sources, by the shoddy chart you did supply, whoever wrote it, its time to challenge you on this question.
What question(s) did Carter raise that have not ever been addressed?
What research did you do to confirm that the haven't been answered?
How does it specifically call to question the work of NASA and the IPCC?
This is your argument, but so far you can't answer even a single question.

Yeah, get back to us when you are clear on who you are shamefully discrediting.
If you can not keep track of a simple thing like whos chart you are discrediting , you may want to consider less difficult subjects to troll.
Somehow you do not inspire the confidence that you are the defining word on Atmospheric chemistry
Franken fool strikes again

 

[Moviefan-2]

Now he's given up on claiming that there is no warming, now he's just claiming that the warming is continuing but its a little bit slower over his cherry picked years.

"Little bit slower"?

I never said that. I said the Earth's temperature in the 21st century (prior to El Nino) has been stagnant. There wasn't any statistically significant warming prior to the El Nino.

 

[Frankfooter]

And I have repeatedly produced the evidence that shows that all of those numbers are yours.
.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!
:blabla::blabla::blabla::blabla::blabla::blabla::blabla::blabla::blabla:

Dude, the bet was really fucking simple.
You didn't think 2015 would hit 0.83ºC, it did and then you went all denier weirdo and blamed it all on your NASA/NOAA conspiracy theories.

You are just like Copy and Paste man, blaming it all on conspiracies and hidden math problems that never existed.
You're a total kook.

You made a prediction/bet, it failed.
Deal with it.
You're not as smart as NASA or NOAA, no big deal, most people aren't.

 

[Frankfooter]

That's hilarious.

Tamino -- the propagandist -- had to cherry pick years using the La Nina and El Nino weather phenomena to create the phony illusion that warming has occurred.

You don't understand the concept of cherry picking, despite your continual use of the technique.

Fyfe's paper only works from that one specific time range 2001-2014.
His claims don't work from other years, if it was robust, it would.
Tamino shows this by giving you a chart with multiple other time selections and data sources, none of which show any 'slowdown'.
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/figure01.jpeg?w=1000&h=998

The fact is that your claims are as accurate as your prediction that 2015 wouldn't hit 0.83ºC.

 

[Frankfooter]

"Little bit slower"?

I never said that. I said the Earth's temperature in the 21st century (prior to El Nino) has been stagnant. There wasn't any statistically significant warming prior to the El Nino.

Then you are lying about the paper you keep quoting.
Fyfe's cherry picking paper said there was evidence of a 'slowdown in warming' not stagnant temperatures.