IPCC Climate Change Report........

by cantleave 153 Replies latest social current

• 

  slimboyfat

  You cannot deny the laws of physics.

  Aye, aye captain. I am not qualified to do the science, but what we can all do is look at the record of the IPCC at predicting things, and it's not very good. It's not just surface temperatures they got wrong. They have a worse track record than the Watchtower. So on what basis should we have confidence in their further predictions?

  And do you know why the graph you posted above stops at 2010? The data are available beyond that year. Could it be because if the graph extended to 2013 then its ideological purpose would be contradicted? Are you not a bit embarrassed about posting graphs that are so clearly selective to confirm a particular bias?
• 

  slimboyfat

  The graph looks a whole lot different in context.

  It's a sad day when you have to turn to the Daily Mail for a more accurate presentation of the up to date data but here we have it:

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html

  From that visual it's easier to see why the IPCC are said to be "toast" if the cooling continues much longer.
• 

  besty

  @SBF

  And do you know why the graph you posted above stops at 2010? The data are available beyond that year. Could it be because if the graph extended to 2013 then its ideological purpose would be contradicted?

  First of all you asked why stop at 2008, and now you ask why stop at 2010 - which is it?

  In any event both are wrong. Perhaps you should examine the facts - the figures are from January 1970 to November 2012.

  Figure 4: Average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, and Nov '02 - Nov '12.

  The objective of the graph is clear - deniers cherrypick a metric - surface temperature, and then cherrypick a date range that suits them and cry 'cooling'. All the while ignoring all other metrics and the overall multi-decadal trend.

  No - I'm not embarassed - the facts are clear.
• 

  slimboyfat

  2010, I read it wrong the first time. The question is still a valid one. The Daily Mail presents the data in a fairer way than the graph you posted.
• 

  besty

  Of course its easy to see why the IPCC are toast based on a handy Daily Mail graphic to help.

  Where does the Daily Mail explain this to you?

  

  Church et al 2011 Revisiting the Earth's sea-level and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008

  Do you see any issue with cherry-picking surface temperature as the metric for global warming?
• 

  besty

  2010, I read it wrong the first time.

  Still wrong. Again. November 2012.

  Thats the trouble with spending your time gazing at Daily Mail graphics - you lose the ability to read.
• 

  bohm

  isnt the daily mail a tabloid?
• 

  bohm

  SBF: I am not qualified to do the science, ..

  bingo!
• 

  besty

  I am not qualified to do the science, ..

  therefore I will use the Daily Mail to inform me?

  therefore I will accept a 97% expert consensus?
• 

  besty

  glander - you invoke "random ridicule" and yet I can't see any instance of ridicule directed at you on this thread.

  You end your comment saying 'you guys need your mommy and teddy bear'

  Hypocritical?

  The point is the IPCC report doesn't fit your worldview and so you will use any means you can think of to discredit the message.