President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist

[Moviefan-2]

Frank: Yes Of course, otherwise the only way to reconcile what I have said is to conclude I am retarded, and we all know I am not retarded

Actually, Frank....

 

[Frankfooter]

This is the conversion I imagine I would be having with frank if I were to meet him:

Me: FAR graph accuracy sucks
Frank: Check the IPCC for current and better graphs, stop using just the ones you get from whatsupdoc.com
Me: AR4 graph accuracy sucks
Frank: Nope, its really fucking accurate, check the last few dates that fall right on the money.
Me: That is why I used FAR
Frank: Of course, because you don't want accuracy, you want to claim the IPCC is wrong.
Me: So you are confident that AR4 after a few decades of wait will confirm AGW
Frank: Yes, AR4, according to the chart you posted, is dead on as of today.
Me: But there was one year when AR4 and FAR were both wrong so therefore I'm smarter then them all.
Frank: Because you expect the weather to be the same every day, and every month to be only slightly more or less then the next month, so that all graphs come out with straight lines only. You claim there is natural variation but don't accept it in real charts.
Me: So you are telling me you have a time machine, you went decades into the future and looked at the AR4 results and came back to this time
Frank: No need, today's date is today. And as of today the AR4 charts are 'spectacularly accurate'

That's the conversation you would actually have.
Your imagination isn't very smart.

 

[Frankfooter]

To be fair, Frankfooter and the other believers have set some clear criteria for measuring the impact of man-made greenhouse gases on the climate.

According to them, increases in man-made greenhouse gases will lead to the following:

-- An increase in the Earth's temperature (late 1970s to the late 1990s).
-- A decrease in the Earth's temperature (1940s to the 1970s).
-- No change to the Earth's temperature (the 21st century).

So, if you see an increase in the Earth's temperature, a decrease in the Earth's temperature, or no change to the Earth's temperature, you can be sure that anthropogenic global warming is real.

If you see any other result, you might want to question AGW. :thumb:

Wow, I know you are stupid, but I didn't expect you to be that stupid.
You really have no clue what the predictions are, what the IPCC is predicting or what I've said, do you?
If that's what you really think I've said, you are just that stupid.

But then again, you did post an IPCC chart that is dead on the money and claim it was wrong.
You probably can't even read what those models are predicting for the climate, can you?

 

[Moviefan-2]

You really have no clue what the predictions are, what the IPCC is predicting or what I've said, do you?

I know what the IPCC's predictions have been. And I know what the observed data show.

(And I mean the real data, not numbers that are transferred from one graph to another to create a phony illusion that the planet is warming.)

I will concede one point that you've made.

On most days, I "really have no clue" what you are talking about. Neither does anyone else on TERB. As I mentioned before, what is often the most challenging is trying to determine whether you are deliberately lying or whether you are just astonishingly stupid.

Actually, the most likely answer is that you just have a very confused mind.

You don't realize it, Groggy, but you have some very serious issues.

 

[bishop]

That's the conversation you would actually have.
Your imagination isn't very smart.

You have no backbone, when on cursory glance if the data supports your claim then you compliment it, when on closer examination the data does not support your claim you dismiss it without ever trying to reconcile your divergent views.

Exactly, Moviefan hasn't caught on to the fact that those charts are actually really quite accurate.
He can't read them well enough to understand that we are smack dab in the middle of the red bars of predictions right now.
That the very chart he accuses of being wrong is bang on the money.

Now you are saying that graph is BS?

The more you talk the dumber you look, it is hard to believe since your past posts have already set the bar so low, you have reach a whole new level of stupidity.

 

[bishop]

Wow, I know you are stupid, but I didn't expect you to be that stupid.
You really have no clue what the predictions are, what the IPCC is predicting or what I've said, do you?
If that's what you really think I've said, you are just that stupid.

But then again, you did post an IPCC chart that is dead on the money and claim it was wrong.
You probably can't even read what those models are predicting for the climate, can you?

Now the graph he posted is dead on the money when takling to movie, but when you talk to me you claim the same graphs are BS.

 

[Moviefan-2]

But then again, you did post an IPCC chart that is dead on the money and claim it was wrong.

I added your name to post 159 above.

Since you insist that the IPCC chart is showing the NASA data set, confirm for us that you believe the IPCC chart below shows the temperature anomaly reading for 2005 as 0.66 degrees and the reading for 2010 as 0.67 degrees.

Here is the NASA information that you have been using as your source: http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img538/5980/HiFnTn.jpg

 

[basketcase]

You're serious?? You genuinely didn't know that you can't take numbers from a graph and transport them to a different graph that is using a completely different set of numbers?
....

Lets see. The graph you posted (and still post) was showing the measured temperature variation compared to the main projections. When you include the measured values for temperature variation from the past 3 years (and in Celsius you clown), they fit right into the middle of the projections. Your only issue is you don't like what the measurements show.

And you are an outright liar to the groggy extreme since you know what the data says but you still lie about it.

 

[Frankfooter]

I know what the IPCC's predictions have been. And I know what the observed data show.

(And I mean the real data, not numbers that are transferred from one graph to another to create a phony illusion that the planet is warming.)
....
Actually, the most likely answer is that you just have a very confused mind.

OMG!

Is that ever funny.

Now you are claiming that those darn NASA and IPCC type don't have the real numbers, but only you do?
That's really fucking funny, in a 'you are so deranged that you need help' kind of way, of course.

Do you mind if I bookmark this quote to use to make fun of you from now on?
I mean really, what sort of an idiot believes they are the holder of the sacred climate data, that somehow they have the real numbers?
Go ahead, show us these 'real data' are.

What a fricking idiot.

 

[Frankfooter]

Now the graph he posted is dead on the money when takling to movie, but when you talk to me you claim the same graphs are BS.

Is English your first language?

 

[Frankfooter]

Since you insist that the IPCC chart is showing the NASA data set, confirm for us that you believe the IPCC chart below shows the temperature anomaly reading for 2005 as 0.66 degrees and the reading for 2010 as 0.67 degrees.

We can talk about that after you confirm that the last three years the predictions have been right on the money.
Are you willing to confirm that those numbers are very accurate?

 

[bishop]

Is English your first language?

I am sorry I beat you down so hard that you have to resort to making fun of my spelling mistakes to save face.

 

[Moviefan-2]

OMG!

Is that ever funny.

Now you are claiming that those darn NASA and IPCC type don't have the real numbers, but only you do?

You are one of the dumbest people I have ever met.

Let's see if you can get this.

Here are the NASA numbers. Notice that they don't show any statistically significant warming after 2002: http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img538/5980/HiFnTn.jpg

Here are the IPCC numbers. Notice that they also don't show any warming in the 21st century: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/fig1_4.jpg

Both graphs show the temperatures have been "flattening" (to use NASA's description) in the 21st century.

So how did you and Basketcase come up with the idea that the numbers show enormous warming in the last three years? By applying the data from one graph to a completely different set of data on another graph.

Pure idiocy.

Using that approach, you could create a graph that shows we're headed toward another ice age -- or create any other illusion you want.

You have to apply the data to the same graph, Retard Boy.

 

[Frankfooter]

I am sorry I beat you down so hard that you have to resort to making fun of my spelling mistakes to save face.

Did you read your own post?
I had no idea what you were trying to say.

 

[Frankfooter]

You are one of the dumbest people I have ever met.

Let's see if you can get this.

Here are the NASA numbers. Notice that they don't show any statistically significant warming after 2002: http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img538/5980/HiFnTn.jpg

Oh my fucking god!
Are you ever relentless and stupid.

So now that the 1998 pauses claims are dead in the water you are now going to try the same thing by cherry picking a new date of 2002?
Oh my god, really?

You have to be totally dishonest to look at that chart and claim that the black line is not going up.
Trying to find your one little spot, (now with the new and improved 2002 date, screw 1998) to try to claim that no, its not a chart going up, its a chart that shows a flat line is really fucking lame.

You really have no imagination, do you?
Same claim, new date, same faulty logic.

Are you really so dishonest that when you look at the chart you linked to, you really don't think its a chart showing rising temperatures across the globe?
Really?

 

[basketcase]

You are one of the dumbest people I have ever met.

Let's see if you can get this.

Here are the NASA numbers. Notice that they don't show any statistically significant warming after 2002: http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img538/5980/HiFnTn.jpg

Here are the IPCC numbers. Notice that they also don't show any warming in the 21st century: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/fig1_4.jpg
...

Yep. No noticeable warming unless you include the last 3 years. I find it amazing that you continue to post a graph even though you know that adding the last 3 years makes you claims complete trash.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Yep. No noticeable warming unless you include the last 3 years. I find it amazing that you continue to post a graph even though you know that adding the last 3 years makes you claims complete trash.

Take another look at the NASA graph, Basketcase. I did include the last three years.

As for the IPCC graph, if you were to accept the data and update the graph by plotting 2014 at the same level as 2010 (about 0.5 degrees Celsius on that graph), it would also show the planet isn't warming.

I can't fathom where you get the idea that 0.5 degrees Celsius in 2014 on the IPCC graph is in the "middle" of the models' forecasts. It's nowhere near the middle -- rather, it's at the bottom.

Meanwhile, since you're such a fan of combining numbers from two different graphs, let's see what happens when we put the NASA numbers first.

- NASA's various graphs say the temperature anomaly in 2002 was either 0.62 or 0.63 degrees Celsius: http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img538/5980/HiFnTn.jpg.

- The IPCC says the temperature anomaly in 2012 was less than 0.4 degrees Celsius: https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/fig1_4.jpg.

OMG!! That's a big drop in just 10 years.

If Frankfooter/Groggy and Basketcase are right, we're headed for another ice age!!

Time to stock up on parkas.

 

[Frankfooter]

As for the IPCC graph, if you were to accept the data and update the graph by plotting 2014 at the same level as 2010 (about 0.5 degrees Celsius on that graph), it would also show the planet isn't warming.
.

Oh My God!

And you know what, if you change the numbers even more and plot the graph as if 2014 were the same as 1910 it looks like the planet is cooling!

Oh My God!



Seriously, what the fuck is this 'if you only changed the numbers' shite?
Are you that desperate for arguments that now you have to change the numbers, try to mix up charts and then fudge all the numbers?
Is that really all you've got left?

Why don't you look at the real numbers, June's GISS is out today.

The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2015 was the highest for June in the 136-year period of record, at 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F), surpassing the previous record set just one year ago by 0.12°C (0.22°F). This was also the fourth highest monthly departure from average for any month on record. The two highest monthly departures from average occurred earlier this year in February and March, both at 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average for their respective months, while January 2007 had the third highest, at 0.89°C (1.60°F) above its monthly average.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201506

They note that June 2014 - June 2015 the global anomaly was 0.83ºC, or the magic winning number for our bet.

Stop trying to make up numbers, look at the evidence.
You are spectacularly wrong, the IPCC is right.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Groggy:

You are a total loon.

The planet is fine. Stop worrying about the planet and get some help for yourself.

 

[Frankfooter]

The planet is fine. Stop worrying about the planet and get some help for yourself.

Sure, it is.

But don't buy land in Florida, rising sea levels.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...enario-that-is-south-florida/article25552300/
Don't move to California, drought and/or flash floods.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...urning-and-having-a-drought-at-the-same-time/
Watch out for the west coast here, drought and forest fires.
Prepare to start liking to eat jellyfish, fish aren't doing so well.
http://phys.org/news/2015-07-endanger-fish-health.html
Don't get into insurance, extreme weather makes that unprofitable.
https://www.newsday.co.zw/2015/07/21/climate-change-spawning-disasters/
And food prices aren't going down any time soon.
http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...climate-change-how-do-we-get-out-of-this-bind
Not to mention that food insecurity will lead to more strife and terrorism.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...nge-threat-serious-as-nuclear-war-uk-minister

But its a beautiful day out today, I'm going off for a bike ride to enjoy it while we can.