415000 years of temperature change.....true or false?

[basketcase]

Nonsense. My argument remains the exact same....

That is the pathetic part. Your own sources have repeatedly disagreed with you, the scientific community widely disagrees with you, yet you still stubbornly stick to your claims.

 

[Moviefan-2]

...you're changing your argument again.

...you still stubbornly stick to your claims.

With all of the evidence having gone against his baseless beliefs, Basketcase just hurls mindless insults for the sake of being insulting.

The problem with me is that I keep changing my mind. No, wait...the problem with me is that I stubbornly won't change my mind....

Pure idiocy. :crazy:

 

[Moviefan-2]

...the scientific community widely disagrees with you....

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t." - Kevin Trenberth email to Michael Mann et al, Oct. 12, 2009.

https://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/kevin-trenberths-real-travesty/

And let's not forget what the "scientific community" -- including Michael Mann's buddies, Keith Briffa, Phil Jones and Raymond Bradley -- thinks about Mann and the so-called "science" at the heart of the AGW fearmongering:

http://www.steynstore.com/product133.html

http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/13/mark-steyns-new-book-on-michael-mann/

 

[basketcase]

With all of the evidence having gone against his baseless beliefs...

:crazy:

Yes it is crazy that you think that the evidence backs your views.

Can you explain why the survey YOU posted said only 9% of scientists don't believe in AGW or are you back to claiming they're all a bunch of liars?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Yes it is crazy that you think that the evidence backs your views.

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t." - Kevin Trenberth email to Michael Mann, copied to Gavin Schmidt, Phil Jones, James Hansen, Tom Karl, etc., Oct. 12, 2009.

https://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/kevin-trenberths-real-travesty/

 

[basketcase]

I see. Your spamming an out of context quote is supposed to make me ignore YOUR SOURCES that say only 9% of scientists agree with you.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I see. Your spamming an out of context quote is supposed to make me ignore YOUR SOURCES that say only 9% of scientists agree with you.

I have to go away for a few days (and won't be on TERB), so that will give you some time to explain how a grown man came to the conclusion that 100 - 66 = 9.

I suspect it's the same math that led you to believe the HadCRUT anomaly for 2014 was 0.68 degrees C (https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ng-Scientist&p=5300753&viewfull=1#post5300753), or your willingness to believe Frankfooter's idiotic claim that the HadCRUT anomaly for 2015 was 0.809 degrees C (https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...rue-or-false&p=5347293&viewfull=1#post5347293).

You are forever getting your numbers completely wrong and you still don't know how to read a graph at a high school level.

For your information, 100 - 66 = 34, not 9.

Furthermore, I provided a link to the full context for the Kevin Trenberth quote: https://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/kevin-trenberths-real-travesty/

You keep making the fairy-tale claim that the data don't support my conclusions. Apparently, Kevin Trenberth held a different view:

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t." - Kevin Trenberth email to Michael Mann, copied to Gavin Schmidt, Phil Jones, James Hansen, Tom Karl, etc., Oct. 12, 2009.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Here are graphs that confirm the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

IPCC: http://skepticalscience.com//pics/DvDFmodel-data.png

University of Alabama in Huntsville: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/michaels-102-ipcc-models-vs-reality.jpg

National Post: http://financialpostbusiness.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/fe0617_climate_c_mf.jpeg?w=620&h=552

Gavin Schmidt (NASA): https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIRz_2PVEAAf8QX.jpg:large

---

Meanwhile, the number of graphs that show the IPCC got it right?

Zero.

 

[drgeox]

You're making a fundamental error here by assuming that climate can only be driven by one thing at a time. Of course solar activity influences climate. So does the geometric relationship to the sun (look up Milankovic cycles). Problem is, the latter operates over time scale too long to explain the warming of the last few decades, and the former just hasn't changed recently, or at least it hasn't changed enough to produce the effect size we're seeing (personally, I calculate that about 25% of the warning since the late 1970s is due to solar cycling, and most of this contribution occurred in the '80s and '80s). In addition, if the culprit for warming really is increased solar flux, we would see a signature for this in the vertical structure of atmospheric temperatures. We don't. However, observed tropospheric temperature profiles do match the predictions made assuming increased CO2 and other GHGs as the temperature drivers.

 

[basketcase]

I have to go away for a few days (and won't be on TERB), so that will give you some time to explain how a grown man came to the conclusion that 100 - 66 = 9.....

Um. Your survey said explicitly how small a percentage of those surveyed felt anthropogenic CO2 had no effect on climate.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-Change-Nobel-Prize-Winning-Scientist/page31

Some of your sources from that thread:
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph/psychology/consensus/pbl-1a.jpg
5% of those surveyed thing GW is mostly natural.

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
0.2% see GHG have no affect on climate while 66% see AGW as the majority factor.
9% believe as you do that there has been no increase in temperature this century.

So why is it so few scientists support your views?


And you run back to those IPCC graphs that (like the other graph you disavowed) make clear the data from the past several years fits within the projections.

 

[basketcase]

You're making a fundamental error here by assuming that climate can only be driven by one thing at a time. ...

Of course many factors have an influence. The evidence as far as the scientific community is concerned (a bunch of liars according to moviefan) shows that a majority see AGHG as the LARGEST factor.

At one point I thought the solar forcing theories as an interesting theory but studies of late see solar forcing only has a small impact on climate change.