Are you saying that the IPCC is using the wrong data? It's their data and their graph. Are you seriously pretending otherwise?
President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
You admit your chart is bullshit, that's a start.
The chart mixes atmospheric measurements against surface temp predictions in a lying, dishonest and poorly executed move that fools only idiots like you.
You posted it in this thread here:
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ng-Scientist&p=5318312&viewfull=1#post5318312
Now you need to admit that the chart you post that you claim is an IPCC chart, is not a published IPCC chart, as previously shown here.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ng-Scientist&p=5311620&viewfull=1#post5311620
We'll add that to the two studies on the consensus you quoted from but lied about their findings, which gives us four examples of outright lying.
Then we'll add on a chart of global temperatures, to add on the fifth charge of you lying, this one about your claim that there has not been warming since 2000.
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/...ublic/GlobalTempsTrend520px.jpg?itok=ZnbAYqZ1
That's five examples of moviefan outright lying.
You are on a roll.
The chart I posted was created by the IPCC. And unlike the one that you posted, the one that I posted was actually peer reviewed.
I fixed your quote for you. Now, go get yourself some help.
Meanwhile, I think we can all agree with Bishop's statement about you:
You think the "past 3 years" ended in 2012? :Eek:
I think you need to buy a calendar.
By the way, your post forgot to mention that I was right about the IPCC reporting in 2013 that 111 of the 114 models got it wrong.
You think those observable, physical signs have nothing to do with warming?
Come on. Ice caps, snowy peaks and glaciers have all receded.
We have record droughts and forest fires. The heat also causes oceans to evaporate more to cause torrential rain falls and floods in other areas.
For AGW to stand up as science, it has to be testable and verifiable. The way you test the hypothesis of AGW is to make predictions and then measure those predictions against the observed results.
As you noted, there have been huge increases in man-made greenhouse gases in recent years. In this century, that didn't lead to any warming.
Reading "signs" is something I leave to religious folks.
Very funny, but those signs I speak of are real, and not apparitions seen by the faithful.
They are observable phenomena.
Maybe the theory behind is AGW is correct, but they aren't measuring cause and effect correctly to make more accurate predictions.
That was a leaked, pre-release chart.
Its dishonest to post it as it was never published by the IPCC.
You lied about that chart as well.
Everything you post is a lie.
Unlike your graph, the one I posted was peer reviewed.
So, now you're having to rely on the cooked books to try to produce a minuscule amount of warming.
Your own graphs have failed to find any statistically significant warming in the 21st century. In fact, the first graph ends with a temperature that is lower than 1998. The assertion that temperatures have been stagnant in the 21st century still stands.
By the way -- how's the search going for a graph that shows a favourable comparison between the IPCC's predictions and the current temperatures? Not well, I imagine.
All of the graphs that plot the IPCC's predictions against the observed data show the predictions were spectacularly wrong.
I wasn't being funny. The phenomena that you mentioned aren't evidence of anthropogenic climate change.
In fact, in its most recent report, the IPCC said there was no evidence supporting the idea that "extreme weather" can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change. Not that the alarmists care.
For a scientific hypothesis to be supported, you have to be able to make predictions that are supported by observed data.
The IPCC's predictions about the Earth's temperature have all been spectacularly wrong. The hypothesis isn't supported by evidence.
Still can't read a chart, can you?
By the way, if you tried to put the year to date's temp, 0.83ºC on that chart you'd find that its so high that it wouldn't fit in the box.
That clearly hasn't been the case on TERB.
In this and other threads, the two guys have put up the most resistance to scientific conclusions have been you and Groggy. Neither one of you strike me as right wingers.
According to the IPCC, the temperature for 2013 should have been at least 0.3 degrees Celsius higher than the temperature for 1998. Your NASA graph shows 1998 and 2013 as being the same.
Indeed, when you factor in the margin of error, your graph shows no real difference between 2005 and 2014.
If your cooked-books NASA graph is right, the IPCC's predictions have been spectacularly wrong and the temperatures in the 21st century have been stagnant.
As usual, you are lying.
Here's a two year old article that answers your three year old claims.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...t/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate
Including noting that the very same 'IPCC' chart you quote is from a leaked pre-release and not the official IPCC chart.
Your arguments are old, tired and spectacularly wrong.
You are cherry picking the last super El Nino year as your comparison date, yet again.
However, the reason why you are losing our bet is because this year is also an El Nino year, which combined with the global surface temperatures will give us a new record hot year, crushing your cherry picked date and forcing you to read books you won't be able to understand.
Your claim is debunked in clear language from that same article above in point #3.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...t/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate
Your arguments are old, tired and spectacularly wrong.
In fact, 4 out of 5 global temperature readings say we've hit 1ºC change from the second half of the 19th century, or 'halfway to hell'.
Dana Nuccitelli? Are you serious?
That's like learning German history by reading Goebbels. Too funny.
According to the IPCC's AR5 report, 111 of the 114 models predicted there would be significant warming in the years following 1998. Indeed, the IPCC predicted the temperature in 2013 would be at least 0.3 degrees Celsius higher than 1998.
Your NASA graph shows no warming at all from 1998 to 2013.
And, frankly, it takes a lot of gall to be posting cooked books and then accusing others of "cherry picking." The methodology behind your cooked books was cherry picked.
Prove that the charts show 'cooked books', you are lying again.
And proof of your cherry picking is quite easy.
Your claim only works from 1998, and barely at that.
NASA reports that 1998 doesn't even make the top 10 for warmest 12 month periods:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201506
In fact, if you go from 2000-2015 (year to date), you see a rise in global temperature of 0.38ºC which is higher then the IPCC predicted.
If you start from 1999-104 you see a rise of 0.32ºC, which is also higher then the IPCC predicted.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Your cherry picking argument is as dishonest as everything else you post.
Do you not have one honest argument?
Only a totally dishonest idiot will look at this chart and claim it shows a flat horizontal line.
