Considering you keep posting a graph as proof even though you know the 3 years after it ends disprove your premise, you two deserve each other.
President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
Considering you keep repeating the same lie over and over....
Or, maybe where you went to school, the students were taught that 0.5 is a bigger number than 0.5.
0.6 and 0.68 sure are higher than 0.5 though. No matter how you play it, temperatures were a bit below projection for a couple years but for the past 3 years they fit right in.
Nonsense. You're placing your 0.6 and 0.68 numbers into the wrong graph.
Yes, on the NASA graph, 0.68 is 1/100th of a degree higher than 0.67 and 2/100s of a degree higher than 0.66. But the margin of error for the measurements is greater than those slight numerical differences, meaning the 0.68 doesn't represent any warming at all.
On the IPCC graph, the anomaly for 2014 is only 0.5 degrees. That isn't any higher than the 0.5 degrees anomaly in 2005 or 2010. And in 2014, the 0.5 degrees Celsius anomaly is at the bottom of the models' forecasts.
The observed data released at the end of last year (NASA, NOAA, BEST, RSS, etc.) showed 2014 to be at the same level (within the margin of error) as 2005 and 2010 or lower.
When you plot the correct temperatures onto the IPCC graph, you can see that both the NASA and IPCC graphs confirm that temperatures have been flattening in the 21st century. The IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong.
It is irrelevant 'which graph' you want to put those numbers on.
From your graph, SAR, the projection with the smallest range has values 0.4 to 0.7 for the past 5 years. Whichever numbers you want to use, whether 0.5 or 0.6, that fits smack in the middle of the projection. Ignoring the error bars for the actual measurement, only one year out of the last 5 doesn't fit exactly into that projection.
No matter how many times you want to claim that the projections were spectacularly wrong or how many times you try to change the topic, you are full of shit on this.
Try again. 0.5 degrees is at the bottom of the SAR models from 1995, and those SAR models pre-date the Michael Mann-led hysteria from 2001.
If you really want to understand how the 0.5 degrees anomaly in 2014 stacks up against the IPCC's predictions, a direct comparison is much more helpful.
This duck walks into a bar and says "do you gotta any birdseed". The bartender say no.
The next day the duck comes in and says "do you have any birdseed". The bartender says no.
The next days the duck comes in and says "do you have any birdseed?" the bartender says "listen duck- I don't have any fucking birdseed- if you come in here again and ask for birdseed I will nail your feet to the bar"
The next day the duck comes and says "do you have any nails?" the bartender says no. So the duck says "so do you have any birdseed?"
The next day the duck comes in and says "do you have any birdseed". The bartender says no.
The next days the duck comes in and says "do you have any birdseed?" the bartender says "listen duck- I don't have any fucking birdseed- if you come in here again and ask for birdseed I will nail your feet to the bar"
The next day the duck comes and says "do you have any nails?" the bartender says no. So the duck says "so do you have any birdseed?"
Reality..propagandists stopped in their tracks
http://www.infowars.com/global-warming-expedition-foiled-by-record-ice/
http://www.infowars.com/global-warming-expedition-foiled-by-record-ice/
Can you point to an original source for that graph, not just some denier site?
Since you've been caught lying three times already, you need to provide sources.
And then after that we can note that NOAA says that the temperature for 2015, year to date is 0.85ºC, which puts it right on the money for the projection of 0.847ºC.
Pretty fucking spectacularly accurate.
Again.
That's twice you've provided charts that prove how accurate the IPCC was, while trying to claim the opposite (even if we accept that this chart is legit).
Are you ready to admit that you don't know what you are talking about yet?
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201506
That same graph that you say is "dead on" when you reply to movie is the same graph that you said this about when replying to me "Check the IPCC for current and better graphs, stop using just the ones you get from whatsupdoc.com". You see in science, real science not pesudo wanna be climate science, the same data/graph/chart/etc... can not be used to support two opposite claims depending on who you are talking to. Of course you do not care about real science, all you care about is that the word "science" is in the phrase and you will eat it up like a pig eats sh*t.
You missed the point.
The chart linked came from some denier site, I expect, and because of that its not linked to the paper, data or date. I suggest if you want to quote the IPCC, use the IPCC sources directly, that will confirm the date, projection models and it can be debated in context.
The fact that the chart, which was used to claim that the IPCC wasn't accurate, is actually quite accurate is a second point that shows that the 'deniers' on this board tend to copy and paste arguments from dubious sites without either checking to see if the claims are accurate or even reading the charts themselves.
Its clear you don't care about science, since you want to read only denier 'coles notes' summaries and can't independently verify whether the claims are pure bullshit or not. You are an ideal sucker for the denier/lobbyist crap.
Either the chart is accurate or the chart is BS, only one can be true.
I am the one that uses coles notes? Mutherfucker I did a point by point assessment of FAR4 and AR4, the accuracy is garbage, not even in finance would they accept 60-80% as accurate let alone a real science, and those figures include doing you a solid of giving you the last 3 years. Even after I deconstructed the graphs, you still claim they are "quite accurate".
You tell me what your threshold for accuracy is. I will tell you my standard for accuracy, the same standard that is applied to all sciences, 6 f*cking sigma. What, I know what your standard for accuracy is, your standard for accuracy is if there is the world "science" in the title.
I am the one that uses coles notes? Mutherfucker I did a point by point assessment of FAR4 and AR4, the accuracy is garbage, not even in finance would they accept 60-80% as accurate let alone a real science, and those figures include doing you a solid of giving you the last 3 years. Even after I deconstructed the graphs, you still claim they are "quite accurate".
You tell me what your threshold for accuracy is. I will tell you my standard for accuracy, the same standard that is applied to all sciences, 6 f*cking sigma. What, I know what your standard for accuracy is, your standard for accuracy is if there is the world "science" in the title.
Ok, give me the details on the chart and we can assess it.
Which report did it come from?
What page?
Which models does it project?
What year was that model?
Is it the most recent model?
What are the numbers used in the graph?
What is the last year of climate data entered?
Where is the data posted?
Is it included in the model listing in this chapter?
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf
As a stickler for accuracy, you should have no problems answering those questions.
And as someone who has a high threshold for accuracy, I assume you know the answers to all of those questions.
Even though climate science may not be perfect, I think I'd sooner trust geeky scientists, the vast majority of which believe in AGW, than right wing politicians and greedy oil executives or their ilk. (Not to say that some scientists don't have their own agendas but I tend to believe that they are lesser in number vs. deniers).
I did not post that chart. I only spoke about those charts after you and basketcase complimented how accurate the chart was. Those questions, you need to answer yourself because you tried to affirm some kind of conclusion from those graphs well before I said anything about those graphs, all I was after was to debunk your "quite accurate" fantasy.
What if I told you that Stephen Hawking is a dbag, he left his first wife who took care of him for many years to be with his nurse. Are you going disregard his work because he is an asshole?
It does not matter if there are a bunch a greedy assholes doing science, so long as the results can be replicated by others then that is all that matters.
Last edited:
Those charts came from Moviefan, we should ask him.
And as for 'debunking' you did nothing of the sort. Your claim they weren't 'accurate' is based on your own readings of said chart and an expectation that the climate moves only in straight lines.
My argument that the accuracy is sh*t is not based on the underlying data, the underlying data can be about cows and it does not matter, accuracy is the difference between actual and predicted. Show me any chart with actual and predicted and you can easily measure the accuracy of the predictions so long as the chart is properly plotted.
Again I ask you what is your threshold for "quite accurate"? Please be precise and give me a number.
