NASA said:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
The Six attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts'
:thumb:
Blast of Global Warming in Early April
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
The Six attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts'
:thumb:
All it takes is getting called out for lying about a study and you are back into your Dunning-Kruger type partial quotes, arranged as if they meant something all put together.
But all it takes is to look at the image of the NASA site you posted to show that you lost the bet, you did after all bet that the temp wouldn't hit 0.83ºC.
You are lying about the bet just like you are lying about the Fyfe study.
Too bad your own ignorance keeps you from understanding how incompetent you are.
NASA said:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
The Six attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts'
:thumb:
How sad, moviefan went full on Dunning-Kruger (so ignorant he can't understand how incompetent he is) and is so ashamed all he can do is copy and paste random quotes.
I caught him lying twice in the same thread and then he's back to the same nonsense.
Very sad.
I caught him lying twice in the same thread and then he's back to the same nonsense.
Very sad.
Interesting. Actual data showing the past 16 years have been the hottest since measurements were taken is anti-scientific? Shit you're excuses get more and more laughable.
I'll let you and groggy get back to your infantile arguments.
Jackson has it right. Human caused global warming is indisputable but what is not clear is how bad it will get and whether it will be something we just adapt to. The world has been much hotter and much colder in the past. We are making it hotter for sure, and it will cause a lot of problems, but maybe we just deal with it.
Absolutely. It's just political rhetoric to try to evade the fact that the Earth's temperature has been stagnant in the 21st century.
And I didn't see a response to my question: Are you saying the temperature increase from the last few months wasn't due to El Nino?
NASA said:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
The Six attempts at 'Moving the Goal Posts'
:thumb:
Thanks for the graph showing global temperature continuing to climb. I mocked you before for claiming that anything other than a perfectly linear chart proved global warming wrong, and I would be happy to do so again.
Your argument belongs back in the 90s where it was still possible to claim we didn't have the data. Now we have the data.
Man, have you got that backwards.
In the 1990s, there was a strong correlation between increasing man-made greenhouse gas emissions and increasing temperatures. At that time, the argument that there's a connection between the two seemed more plausible.
Since then, the data have become far less convincing -- particularly since the predictions about future trends were completely wrong.
Not in any statistically significant way, they haven't.
More importantly, the temperature anomalies in the 21st century have been nowhere near what was predicted. As the researchers said, there is a significant mismatch between what was predicted and what has actually been observed.
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414#/b2
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncli...trZLMnaUyec=&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com
In the 21st century, the predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong. That confirms the climate researchers have no idea what impact -- if any -- man-made emissions have on the climate.
Yes you did. You claimed the nonlinear nature of the temperature change disproved the models because they failed to exactly match the prediction. You didn't put it this way, you had some more ignorant way of expressing the idea, but the crux of it was the models didn't exactly fit the data because they made linear predictions.
I see. In other words, this is like Frankfooter's assertion that you said Israel is an apartheid state. You didn't quite put it that way .... :biggrin1:
The reality is I said nothing at all that bears any resemblance to your claim.
Furthermore, I didn't say the observed data "failed to exactly match the prediction." That's another imaginary quote.
I said the predictions have been consistently and spectacularly wrong -- in the 21st century, they haven't been close at all.
Actually,...he did NOT say that,...in fact he brings up a very good point that the sky is falling clubs conveniently ignore,...because it would not be to their benefit.
Read his post again, without blinders on.
FAST
I am trying to reconcile how you can say "Human caused global warming is indisputable" and in the next sentence say "The world has been much hotter and much colder in the past".
You are saying that temperature has in the past risen and fallen without the involvement of AGW and yet you believe that AGW is the sole cause of our current temperature rise. How does that make sense?
We do not know why in the past temperature changed the way it did, it is a blackhole of uncertainty, yet you are able to pull out a certainty that AGW is real from that blackhole?
Bloomberg has a very clear graphic that answers your question.
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Take a look at all the possible 'natural' factors and what we know is happening.
Its very clear.
This is what you call static?
You really are an idiot.
And this is what you call spectacularly wrong?
Idiot.
