Once more:
Here's how the data is formatted:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
Year, 12 entries of monthly values, annual value.
Your position is wrong.
Just read the legend.
October Smashes Temperature Records Practically Guaranteeing 2015 Will Be HottestYear
- Thread starter twizz
- Start date
Once more:
Here's how the data is formatted:
Year, 12 entries of monthly values, annual value.
Your position is wrong.
Just read the legend.
With 4 of the 5 warmest years happening in 2011-2015, there is no need to rely solely on this years record.
https://www.wmo.int/media/content/w...est-record-2011-2015-warmest-five-year-period
No need to rely only on this years El Nino.
Don't worry.
You're mixing data sets again and using projections and measurements with different baseline dates.
You should know better, but you don't seem to learn.
I posted what I thought was a fairly easy question to answer -- and you still haven't responded.
Yes or no: Is the 0.71ºC anomaly well below the prediction of 0.85ºC?
Surely, you're not going to tell us that you can't count that high. I would like to know your answer to the question.
I'm not "mixing" anything, Bullshit Boy.
The data came from one graph -- and it was the graph that you posted (several times :thumb
.Your graph of "projections vs reality" puts the IPCC prediction for 2015 at about 0.85ºC and the HadCRUT4 anomaly for this year (so far) at 0.71ºC.And for bonus, here's a chart of projections vs reality, which you still claim are 'spectacularly wrong'.
The 2015 anomaly -- even in this super El Nino year -- is far below what the IPCC predicted.
Obvious conclusion: The IPCC's predictions continue to be spectacularly wrong.
Funny enough, when you look at the HadCRUT4 graph, the global temperatures in the 21st century are clearly stagnant prior to 2015:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf
If you are claiming its the IPCC projection, then you must source it out to an IPCC report.
And the latest report with projections is the one I'll link to at the bottom this point.
Claiming that the chart from hotwhopper is an IPCC chart is just yet more lying coming from you.
Its typical, trying to mix data sets to claim false points.
I eat only roadkill (and only when I can kill it with my bicycle, cars are evil). Forage locally in parks for salad and greens. Walk everywhere if I can't bike. Use no electronics at all, with the exception of my pedal power laptop. Cook all means in my solar oven. Don't heat my yurt, just wear lots of clothes. Don't have kids, they just breed and use more fossil fuels.
Why, what do you do?
I usually walk to my nearest incall on barefoot.
I also make sure that I use synthetic rubber condoms, and not from plants so not to hurt the environment.
And then I make sure I beat the living fucking crap out of the concierge sitting at front desk who never minds his own fucking business, and uses up a lot of electomagnetic field energy on his keyboard, which uses up a lot of Pickering based nuclear power, which hurts the environment.
I end the whole session by taking a crap on condominium's building grass, since that will fertilize their lawn which it desperately needs
Sometimes, it's difficult to know if you are lying or just displaying -- even by your standards -- an astonishing level of stupidity.
I didn't say the hotwhopper graph was an "IPCC chart." I said it provides an accurate description of the IPCC's predictions.
It correctly puts the prediction for 2015 at about 0.85C and the HadCRUT4 anomaly at 0.71C.
Confirming, yet again, the predictions remain spectacularly wrong.
Actually, this is the HadCRUT4 graph: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf
When you look at the global temperatures, they are clearly stagnant in the 21st century prior to this year's big El Nino.
Interesting. So we can conclude that you would reject any attempt to "mix data sets to claim false points"?
And I say it again.
That's not an IPCC projection, that's a chart with probably an updated version of CIMP5, not the data used in the IPCC projections.
Stop mixing data sets, its dishonest.
Use this chart.
Follow the link, this is the chart you are referring to.
Its more detailed and more up to date.
I've made mistakes, and admitted them.
The difference here is that you've been shown your mistakes yet you keep posting them as legit, which makes the repeated use dishonest.
The IPCC's predictions are derived from the average of the CMIP model runs, you twit. Try taking a closer look at the legend in your IPCC graph.
Or you may want to try reading your own post about how the hotwhopper graph shows the "projections vs reality": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=5405140#post5405140
Better yet, try reading this post from Nov. 27, where you explicitly said the hotwhopper graph shows the "IPCC's projection": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5410384&viewfull=1#post5410384
No, but a quick look at the globes temperature and the IPCC's projection should make you look seriously at their claims.
Your hotwhopper graph puts the IPCC prediction for 2015 at about 0.85ºC. The only reason you have abandoned that graph is that you now realize it confirms what I have been saying all along about the IPCC's predictions.
