October Smashes Temperature Records Practically Guaranteeing 2015 Will Be HottestYear

[Frankfooter]

You were caught telling a blatant lie.

The graph you posted did not come from the Met Office and it did not "present" HadCRUT4 data.

http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/

You were lying. There's no debate on that point.

My mistake, that page is just bookmarked as a source.
It is most definitely the most up to date and accurate presentation of the data, posted by a very well reputed Climatologist, Makiko Sato, he maintains the most up to date charts around.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/

The Met presents their data, but they don't post up to date, handy to link to, charts that are suitable for these arguments, which is why I was posting Hotwhopper charts. Hotwhopper charts are legit and more up to date as well.
I'm sure that's why you only refer to them, and not to NASA or NOAA.

Just to avoid confusion, I'm now only going to refer to NASA and NOAA data, since they both also generally agree with the Met's readings.

The point still stands, according to our bet, the IPCC projection we bet on is only 0.005ºC off, which is spectacularly accurate.

 

[Moviefan-2]

My mistake, that page is just bookmarked as a source.

Another "mistake." Sure.

In fact, you explicitly said the graph came from the Met Office and presents HadCRUT4 data -- a transparent lie.

This Met office chart presents the Hadcrut4 data with more detail, and is also just as up to date.

However, now that we're agreed that the HadCRUT4 graph that I posted is the most current, we can also agree that it shows temperatures in the 21st century were stagnant prior to 2015.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf

 

[Moviefan-2]

I'm sure that's why you only refer to them, and not to NASA or NOAA.

Nonsense. I'm happy to use any graph that accurately compares the current temperature anomalies with the IPCC's "projections," as they all show the "projections" have been spectacularly wrong.

Graphs that simply plot temperature anomalies without providing comparisons to the predictions -- such as the NASA and NOAA graphs -- are useless.

Indeed, I'm quite happy to use your Hotwhopper graph that compares the IPCC's "projections" with the actual temperature anomalies. You're the one that is now questioning your own graph.

 

[Frankfooter]

However, now that we're agreed that the HadCRUT4 graph that I posted is the most current, we can also agree that it shows temperatures in the 21st century were stagnant prior to 2015.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf

Only when you stick to the five year average, black line.
If you read the red bars you'd understand your claims are garbage.

 

[Frankfooter]

Nonsense. I'm happy to use any graph that accurately compares the current temperature anomalies with the IPCC's "projections," as they all show the "projections" have been spectacularly wrong.

Great, I'll get back at this for you later.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Only when you stick to the five year average, black line.
If you read the red bars you'd understand your claims are garbage.

I read both. The graph confirms that temperatures were stagnant in the 21st century prior to 2015.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Let's update our list of the many ways in which Frankfooter doesn't know what he's talking about:

Nov. 10 -- He calculated that the "pre-industrial age" refers to the year 1990: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609. He repeated that claim on Nov. 21: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5404144&viewfull=1#post5404144

Nov. 20 -- He claimed it was "conspiracy thread business" to assert that NASA's pre-adjusted data showed there wasn't a single month in 2015 that was a record breaker (https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5403467&viewfull=1#post5403467). He spent an entire weekend making that argument until he was finally forced to concede that I was right.

Nov. 29 -- He said the current HadCRUT4 anomaly for the year 2015 is 0.79ºC: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...imate-Change&p=5411834&viewfull=1#post5411834. It is actually 0.71ºC.

Nov. 27 -- He posted a graph that he said shows the "IPCC's projection": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5410384&viewfull=1#post5410384. Then, on Dec. 4, he said it's "not an IPCC projection" but an updated version of the CMIP5 simulations (https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5416739&viewfull=1#post5416739). He followed up on Dec. 4 by claiming the IPCC doesn't use the CMIP5 runs (https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5416739&viewfull=1#post5416739). In fact, the IPCC clearly stated in its 2013 report that it is using CMIP5 for its current projections.

Nov. 29 -- He said NASA and NOAA don't use sea surface temperatures in their calculations of the global temperature anomalies: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...imate-Change&p=5411862&viewfull=1#post5411862. Apparently, he doesn't know what SST stands for.

Dec. 1 -- My new favorite. He said the ninth month of the year is "March": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5414060&viewfull=1#post5414060

Dec. 5 -- He posted what he said is a Met Office graph that shows updated HadCRUT4 data (https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-HottestYear&p=5416886&viewfull=1#post5416886). In fact, the graph came from Columbia University and uses the entirely different NASA data.

 

[Frankfooter]

Let's update our list of the many ways in which Frankfooter doesn't know what he's talking about:

Nov. 10 -- He calculated that the "pre-industrial age" refers to the year 1990: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609. He repeated that claim on Nov. 21: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ing-Point%92&p=5404144&viewfull=1#post5404144

Lets just start there.
You are full of shit.

You don't understand the different baselines used and get confused easily about the dates. There was no 'calculation' about 'pre-industrial times', the only thing was you getting confused about the correct baseline.


And there is no need to even answer the rest of your questions after exposing the first one as total bullshit.

 

[Frankfooter]

I read both. The graph confirms that temperatures were stagnant in the 21st century prior to 2015.

Still can't read a chart, can you?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Lets just start there.
You are full of shit.

You don't understand the different baselines used and get confused easily about the dates. There was no 'calculation' about 'pre-industrial times', the only thing was you getting confused about the correct baseline.

LOL.

Here's the Toronto Star on the 1ºC increase in the Earth's temperature:

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that the Earth’s temperature went up 0.85°C from 1880 to 2012. The average temperature is expected to go beyond a 1°C rise from pre-industrial levels for the first time this year, according to the U.K.’s Met Office.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/12/02/is-earth-just-2-degrees-from-disaster.html

The timeline is clear. We're talking about the stretch from 1880 to 2015.

And just how long a period is that? According to Frankfooter, the "pre-industrial levels" go back "25 years", to the year 1990:

1ºC = 1/4 of 4ºC (median worst case scenario).
25 years (1990-2015) = 1/4 of the 100 year projection timeline.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609

This must have been one of those endless number of "mistakes." :biggrin1:

 

[Frankfooter]

LOL.

Here's the Toronto Star on the 1ºC increase in the Earth's temperature:



http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/12/02/is-earth-just-2-degrees-from-disaster.html

The timeline is clear. We're talking about the stretch from 1880 to 2015.

And just how long a period is that? According to Frankfooter, the "pre-industrial levels" go back "25 years", to the year 1990:



https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609

This must have been one of those endless number of "mistakes." :biggrin1:

Nope, this is you being a total pedant.

The IPCC makes their projections based on the 1850-1910 (I think, this is my memory of their baseline, won't check right now) baseline.
They project that temperatures will rise 1-4ºC or so (depending on mitigation) over the next century.
They made that projection in 1990 or so (again by memory).

So they made a projection in 1990 using 1850-1910 as the baseline temperature.
We are now at about 1ºC increase about one quarter of the way through their projection period.

How are you so stupid you don't understand that?
Are you really so stupid that you're trying to claim that the IPCC made that projection in 1880?
What an idiot.

 

[AK-47]

You guys are never gonna convince each other who's right.

Franky thinks the world is doomed and will end soon.
People with a bit more common sense know the planet will most likely end up being OK.

Neither side is probably 100% right. The planet might go through some earth changes, but I dont think it will be the end of the world. The planet in the end will be fine

 

[Frankfooter]

The planet might go through some earth changes, but I dont think it will be the end of the world. The planet in the end will be fine

I agree, the planet will be fine.

Humanity, on the other hand will have to live through some major changes.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Nope, this is you being a total pedant.

The IPCC makes their projections based on the 1850-1910 (I think, this is my memory of their baseline, won't check right now) baseline.
They project that temperatures will rise 1-4ºC or so (depending on mitigation) over the next century.
They made that projection in 1990 or so (again by memory).

So they made a projection in 1990 using 1850-1910 as the baseline temperature.
We are now at about 1ºC increase about one quarter of the way through their projection period.

How are you so stupid you don't understand that?
Are you really so stupid that you're trying to claim that the IPCC made that projection in 1880?
What an idiot.

How sad. Now, Franky is just throwing a lot of bullshit around to try to defend the indefensible.

The contrast is clear.

The Toronto Star quotes the Met Office as predicting the temperature in 2015 will be 1ºC warmer than the temperature in 1880: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/12/02/is-earth-just-2-degrees-from-disaster.html

Franky said the temperature this year will be 1ºC warmer than the temperature in 1990: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609

The Star says the starting year is 1880. Frankfooter says it's 1990.

One of them is clearly wrong, and we all know which one of them has got it wrong. :thumb:

 

[Moviefan-2]

Neither side is probably 100% right. The planet might go through some earth changes, but I dont think it will be the end of the world. The planet in the end will be fine

Actually, I don't dispute that the climate will change. Always has. Always will.

My issue is that I am unconvinced that man-made emissions have been the primary cause of warming since 1950, as the IPCC and others in the Al Gore crowd have claimed. Their viewpoint isn't supported by evidence.

 

[FAST]

The frankie yard stick

How sad. Now, Franky is just throwing a lot of bullshit around to try to defend the indefensible.

The contrast is clear.

The Toronto Star quotes the Met Office as predicting the temperature in 2015 will be 1ºC warmer than the temperature in 1880: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/12/02/is-earth-just-2-degrees-from-disaster.html

Franky said the temperature this year will be 1ºC warmer than the temperature in 1990: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609

The Star says the starting year is 1880. Frankfooter says it's 1990.

One of them is clearly wrong, and we all know which one of them has got it wrong. :thumb:

Its also very clear that the farther frankie digs his hole(s),..he includes more childish insults than actual content.

FAST

 

[AK-47]

Actually, I don't dispute that the climate will change. Always has. Always will.

My issue is that I am unconvinced that man-made emissions have been the primary cause of warming since 1950, as the IPCC and others in the Al Gore crowd have claimed. Their viewpoint isn't supported by evidence

And for the most part I agree with you. I'm not an expert on GW but I do have common sense, and it tells me humans have had a slight influence over last 100 years on warming of earth, but its nowhere near the degree of warming the "experts" predicted.

Having said that, its not just warming CO2's cause, its also disgusting, filthy smog. Go to Bangkok or Beijing sometime if you havent been. Bangkok smells like battery acid 24/7, and in Beijing you can barely see 100 ft in front of you.

So we need to get off oil eventually. We need something cleaner.
I've always been a big fan of Brazil and their ethanol Flex cars. Why arent we going in same direction??

 

[Moviefan-2]

And for the most part I agree with you. I'm not an expert on GW but I do have common sense, and it tells me humans have had a slight influence over last 100 years on warming of earth, but its nowhere near the degree of warming the "experts" predicted.

Having said that, its not just warming CO2's cause, its also disgusting, filthy smog. Go to Bangkok or Beijing sometime if you havent been. Bangkok smells like battery acid 24/7, and in Beijing you can barely see 100 ft in front of you.

So we need to get off oil eventually. We need something cleaner.
I've always been a big fan of Brazil and their ethanol Flex cars. Why arent we going in same direction??

I've never had any issue with reducing the number of coal-fired plants (although the world is heading in the opposite direction, despite what is being said in Paris) and I have no real issue with responsible improvements to energy policies.

My perspective is similar to what columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote last year. While there are probably good reasons to reduce our emissions, I remain skeptical of the "white-coated propagandists" who claim they can predict the future.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html?tid=pm_pop

It's the bastardization of science by people with political agendas that upsets me. If they're going to insist the "science is settled," I want to see the evidence.

 

[FAST]

And for the most part I agree with you. I'm not an expert on GW but I do have common sense, and it tells me humans have had a slight influence over last 100 years on warming of earth, but its nowhere near the degree of warming the "experts" predicted.

Having said that, its not just warming CO2's cause, its also disgusting, filthy smog. Go to Bangkok or Beijing sometime if you havent been. Bangkok smells like battery acid 24/7, and in Beijing you can barely see 100 ft in front of you.

So we need to get off oil eventually. We need something cleaner.
I've always been a big fan of Brazil and their ethanol Flex cars. Why arent we going in same direction??

This brings up some good points.

China is being praised by the climate gate brigade as leading the way to stop so called "global warming",...and they can't even get common pollution under control.

And these clowns are to be taken seriously,...give me a fricken break.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

It's the bastardization of science by people with political agendas that upsets me. If they're going to insist the "science is settled," I want to see the evidence.

Its right here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/

Its been there for 25 years or so.