October Smashes Temperature Records Practically Guaranteeing 2015 Will Be HottestYear
- Thread starter twizz
- Start date
But wait they say that this is the warmest it's been in 10,000 years. And the highest co2 levels in the atmosphere in 700,000 years! Of course they ignore the Medieval Warm Period where it was significantly warmer globally than it is today.
I know you love Hadcrut, its the only one that is even as far off as 0.1ºC. It really does show how idiotic your claims are when you have to ignore every other global temp measurement just to find one that's even 0.1ºC from being spectacularly correct.
But really, they all say the same thing. We've hit 1ºC of warming from pre-industrial temps.
Moviefan thinks 0.0027ºC is 'spectacularly wrong'.
Every country in the world admits that anthropomorphic climate change is real and needs to be stopped.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/cop21-climate-change-talks-saturday-announced-1.3362354
Hey fast, found a chart you might like.
You continue to whine that climatologists don't calculate all CO2 sources, like deforestation, despite being told repeatedly that your claim is really, really fucking stupid.
And since you can't read the reports or understand most charts, I finally found one that even someone as stupid as you should be able to understand.
Here.
More of the same,...
But to be expected,...considering your reputation.
FAST
Just another of your posts, consisting of lies,...and childish insults.Hey fast, found a chart you might like.
You continue to whine that climatologists don't calculate all CO2 sources, like deforestation, despite being told repeatedly that your claim is really, really fucking stupid.
And since you can't read the reports or understand most charts, I finally found one that even someone as stupid as you should be able to understand.
Here.
But to be expected,...considering your reputation.
FAST
Insults, true, but you merit lots of insults.
Lies, not at all. What part of that post is a lie?
Does it not show you that all sources of CO2 are considered?
C'mon fast, you can do better then claiming everything that you don't understand is a lie.
Well, actually, it shows the prediction being off by something closer to 0.15ºC.
What's more bizarre is the suggestion that I am choosing to ignore other graphs. That is blatantly false. For example, in previous threads, I posted a graph from the University of Alabama in Huntsville that showed the predictions are spectacularly wrong.
I also posted a graph created by Gavin Schmidt at NASA that showed the predictions are spectacularly wrong.
Franky's problem is that he only likes graph that shows temperature anomalies without any comparison to the predictions -- in other words, graphs that are meaningless.
And since he seems to have forgotten -- the Hotwhopper graph that provides the updated analysis of IPCC "projections" vs the observed data was initially posted (several times) by him, not me.
But really, they all say the same thing. We've hit 1ºC of warming from pre-industrial temps.
Well, now ... I guess this latest graph confirms that Franky's previous claim that the 1ºC increase was over a period of "25 years" was complete hogwash.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609
If all else fails,...
You really had to dig for that chart,...didn't you.
But NOT from NASA,...or NOAA, or IPCC,...is it.
- I did NOT state that "climatologists don't calculate all CO2 sources",...2nd lie.
And still with the childish insults,...carry on,...!!!
FAST
- I did NOT state that "CDIAC does not show all sources of CO2 are considered",...1st lie.
You really had to dig for that chart,...didn't you.
But NOT from NASA,...or NOAA, or IPCC,...is it.
- I did NOT state that "climatologists don't calculate all CO2 sources",...2nd lie.
And still with the childish insults,...carry on,...!!!
FAST
Great, then you will never again try to claim that CO2 through deforestation isn't calculated or considered by the IPCC.
One idiotic claim down from you.
Its a start.
They made the projection in 1990, true that about half of that increase happened before 1990.
But its also quite true and correct that we are at 1ºC from pre-industrial times, which we hit 25 years into their 100 year projection, or one quarter.
Just as it very true that your repeated claim about a 'pause' has been shown to be false.
And your claims that the IPCC are 'spectacularly wrong' are now shown to also be pure bullshit.
As Moviefan has found out, 0.0027ºC away from a target is not 'spectacularly wrong'.
Only one lie this time,...but its a start,...maybe there is hope for YA,...but I doubt it.
FAST
More bullshit.
The projection in the IPCC's 2001 report was for the period from 1990 to 2100, not from pre-industrial times. Your claim that there had been a 1ºC over 25 years was completely wrong.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...armer-Planet&p=5394609&viewfull=1#post5394609
And the warming that has occurred since 1990 is nowhere near what was predicted. The IPCC's predictions remain spectacularly wrong.
Last edited:
You are an idiot, that's exactly what I said.
The projection was made in 1990 using a baseline of pre-industrial temperatures.
Just as you are a total idiot who thinks that being off by 0.0027ºC is 'spectacularly wrong'.
Our bet is on the projection based off a 1995 start, using the IPCC decadal projections.
Its now 0.0027ºC off from being perfect, yet you still idiotically claim that its 'spectacularly wrong'.
You are a total idiot.
There, I feel better now.
Idiot.
Wrong. The prediction of an increase of as much as 5.8ºC (or, if you like, your projection of a mid-range increase of 4ºC) came from the IPCC's third report in 2001, and it was an increase over the period from 1990 to 2100.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2001/jan/23/globalwarming.climatechange2
Page 8: https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/english/pdf/spm.pdfIPCC said:
The starting point for the projected increase was 1990, not the "pre-industrial" years.
You are both illiterate and innumerate.
I have repeatedly told you that if you want to assess how the temperature anomalies compare with the bet, you have to agree to settle up.
Indeed, I have said I am willing to settle at any time. I stand by that.
I have also been quite clear that I won't waste my time explaining the numbers to you until you agree to settle up. I'm not putting any time into this discussion unless I get to collect.
It actually makes little difference to me. Under the terms of the bet, I'll get to collect soon enough, whether you like it or not.
Wow, you are stupid.
The starting point was 1990, when they made the projection, using a baseline temperature of pre-industrial times.
As I've repeatedly stated.
And lets remember:
Our bet is on the projection based off a 1995 start, using the IPCC decadal projections.
Its now 0.0027ºC off from being perfect, yet you still idiotically claim that its 'spectacularly wrong'.
No I don't.
That's just idiotic.
The bet doesn't come to term until NASA publishes their chart early next year.
And until then you will suffer through updates.
Deal with it.
Loser.
You are illiterate and innumerate. I'm not wasting any more time trying to convince you that 1880 and 1990 were two different years -- in different centuries, in fact.
