Man made Global Warming Is Our Greatest Threat

[CrusaderFrank]

Speaking of the lack of brains and critical thinking skills...

....and you pop right up.....moronically serving as one of the best example of brainless stupidity on this forum.....and there is a LOT of competition for that position from your fellow denier cult retards....

toiletpaper://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/certaintychannel_ipcc_reality.png?w=72

Like all of the other denier cult wackos, you inevitably try to cite worthless anti-science propaganda from a fossil fuel industry sponsored blog, while ignoring the actual science from reputable scientists published in the peer-reviewed science journals.

As far as your bogus graph goes....

...[Graph] comparing the global surface temperature projections from each of the first four IPCC reports to the subsequent observed temperature changes. We show that not only have the IPCC surface temperature projections been remarkably accurate, but they have also performed much better than predictions made by climate contrarians (Figure 1).



Figure 1: IPCC temperature projections (red, pink, orange, green) and contrarian projections (blue and purple) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASAGISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; black and red) for 1990 through 2012.



Figure 3: IPCC FAR BAU global surface temperature projection adjusted to reflect observed GHG radiative forcings 1990-2011 (blue) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; red) for 1990 through 2012.



Figure 5: IPCC SAR Scenario IS92a global surface temperature projection (blue) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; red) for 1990 through 2012.



Figure 7: IPCC TAR model projection for emissions Scenario A2 (blue) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; red) for 1990 through 2012.

Rahmstorf et al. (2012) Verify TAR and AR4 Accuracy
A paper published in Environmental Research Letters by Rahmstorf, Foster, and Cazenave (2012) applied the methodology of Foster and Rahmstorf (2011), using the statistical technique of multiple regression to filter out the influences of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and solar and volcanic activity from the global surface temperature data to evaluate the underlying long-term primarily human-caused trend. Figure 11 compares their results with and without the short-term noise from natural temperature influences (pink and red, respectively) to the IPCC TAR (blue) and AR4 (green) projections.



Figure 11: Observed annual global temperature, unadjusted (pink) and adjusted for short-term variations due to solar variability, volcanoes, and ENSO (red) as in Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). 12-month running averages are shown as well as linear trend lines, and compared to the scenarios of the IPCC (blue range and lines from the 2001 report, green from the 2007 report). Projections are aligned in the graph so that they start (in 1990 and 2000, respectively) on the linear trend line of the (adjusted) observational data.

Frame and Stone (2012) Verify FAR Accuracy
A paper published in Nature Climate Change, Frame and Stone (2012), sought to evaluate the FAR temperature projection accuracy by using a simple climate model to simulate the warming from 1990 through 2010 based on observed GHG and other global heat imbalance changes. Figure 12 shows their results. Since the FAR only projected temperature changes as a result of GHG changes, the light blue line (model-simuated warming in response to GHGs only) is the most applicable result.



Figure 12: Observed changes in global mean surface temperature over the 1990–2010 period from HadCRUT3 and GISTEMP (red) vs. FAR BAU best estimate (dark blue), vs. projections using a one-dimensional energy balance model (EBM) with the measured GHGradiative forcing since 1990 (light blue) and with the overall radiative forcing since 1990 (green). Natural variability from the ensemble of 587 21-year-long segments of control simulations (with constant external forcings) from 24 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) climate models is shown in black and gray. From Frame and Stone (2012).
(excerpts from: Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate)

As the lie of AGW becomes more evident, they lie bigger about their confidence in that lie, in the hopes that no one will look closely.. Empirical evidence shows them frauds liars and deceitful pukes, but the faithful will believe the lies without question..

More of the usual anti-science denier cult crackpot conspiracy theory insanity about the entire world scientific community plotting to fool the rightwingnuts. Laughable and very pathetic!

You realize that ALL of charts show no warming since the mid-90's right?

 

[RollingThunder]

Speaking of the lack of brains and critical thinking skills...

....and you pop right up.....moronically serving as one of the best example of brainless stupidity on this forum.....and there is a LOT of competition for that position from your fellow denier cult retards....

toiletpaper://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/certaintychannel_ipcc_reality.png?w=72

Like all of the other denier cult wackos, you inevitably try to cite worthless anti-science propaganda from a fossil fuel industry sponsored blog, while ignoring the actual science from reputable scientists published in the peer-reviewed science journals.

As far as your bogus graph goes....

...[Graph] comparing the global surface temperature projections from each of the first four IPCC reports to the subsequent observed temperature changes. We show that not only have the IPCC surface temperature projections been remarkably accurate, but they have also performed much better than predictions made by climate contrarians (Figure 1).



Figure 1: IPCC temperature projections (red, pink, orange, green) and contrarian projections (blue and purple) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASAGISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; black and red) for 1990 through 2012.



Figure 3: IPCC FAR BAU global surface temperature projection adjusted to reflect observed GHG radiative forcings 1990-2011 (blue) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; red) for 1990 through 2012.



Figure 5: IPCC SAR Scenario IS92a global surface temperature projection (blue) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; red) for 1990 through 2012.



Figure 7: IPCC TAR model projection for emissions Scenario A2 (blue) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; red) for 1990 through 2012.

Rahmstorf et al. (2012) Verify TAR and AR4 Accuracy
A paper published in Environmental Research Letters by Rahmstorf, Foster, and Cazenave (2012) applied the methodology of Foster and Rahmstorf (2011), using the statistical technique of multiple regression to filter out the influences of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and solar and volcanic activity from the global surface temperature data to evaluate the underlying long-term primarily human-caused trend. Figure 11 compares their results with and without the short-term noise from natural temperature influences (pink and red, respectively) to the IPCC TAR (blue) and AR4 (green) projections.



Figure 11: Observed annual global temperature, unadjusted (pink) and adjusted for short-term variations due to solar variability, volcanoes, and ENSO (red) as in Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). 12-month running averages are shown as well as linear trend lines, and compared to the scenarios of the IPCC (blue range and lines from the 2001 report, green from the 2007 report). Projections are aligned in the graph so that they start (in 1990 and 2000, respectively) on the linear trend line of the (adjusted) observational data.

Frame and Stone (2012) Verify FAR Accuracy
A paper published in Nature Climate Change, Frame and Stone (2012), sought to evaluate the FAR temperature projection accuracy by using a simple climate model to simulate the warming from 1990 through 2010 based on observed GHG and other global heat imbalance changes. Figure 12 shows their results. Since the FAR only projected temperature changes as a result of GHG changes, the light blue line (model-simuated warming in response to GHGs only) is the most applicable result.



Figure 12: Observed changes in global mean surface temperature over the 1990–2010 period from HadCRUT3 and GISTEMP (red) vs. FAR BAU best estimate (dark blue), vs. projections using a one-dimensional energy balance model (EBM) with the measured GHGradiative forcing since 1990 (light blue) and with the overall radiative forcing since 1990 (green). Natural variability from the ensemble of 587 21-year-long segments of control simulations (with constant external forcings) from 24 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) climate models is shown in black and gray. From Frame and Stone (2012).
(excerpts from: Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate)

As the lie of AGW becomes more evident, they lie bigger about their confidence in that lie, in the hopes that no one will look closely.. Empirical evidence shows them frauds liars and deceitful pukes, but the faithful will believe the lies without question..

More of the usual anti-science denier cult crackpot conspiracy theory insanity about the entire world scientific community plotting to fool the rightwingnuts. Laughable and very pathetic!

You realize that ALL of charts show no warming since the mid-90's right?

LOLOLOLOLOL......well CrazyFruitcake, since all of those charts very obviously show major warming since the mid-90s, it is obvious that you are trying to use the Argument from Insanity fallacy.....as usual for you.

 

[jc456]

We put up facts all the time and you claim we don't. That makes you a liar.

You've got some choices. You could be:

1) Wrong and feel a little stupid
2) Right but slightly embarrassed
3) Wrong and lying and feel a little stupid and lotta scumbag human being for having the ethics of a spitoon.

crick, now we have had this conversation quite a few times. First you need to learn what a fact is. I never stated you haven't posted up material, oh contrare, you post up quite a bit of material. Now you understanding what it is you post up is generally what comes into question. Cause factual material is driven based on evidence such as experimental findings or observed findings, and material like that. Posting up material that states model and/ or projection or prediction or maybe or could be or some word with doubt in it, isn't factual. I know, I know, you were taught otherwise, but the big boys in the playing field do know that all of that is conjecture and has no factual premise.

Now see, I used IPCC's own report, one you back as my factual evidence. And sir you can't even agree with that. Dude I feel bad for you cause you're in a lost little world of fantasy and can't seem to escape the pull.

so, let's try again, do you agree with the 15 year pause or not as represented in the IPCC report you posted? yes or no? I'm merely pointing out the fact that they included it in their report. That is a fact correct, it is there and I'm not making that up correct?

 

[Crick]

You realize that ALL of charts show no warming since the mid-90's right?

Wrong.

 

[jc456]

Speaking of the lack of brains and critical thinking skills...

....and you pop right up.....moronically serving as one of the best example of brainless stupidity on this forum.....and there is a LOT of competition for that position from your fellow denier cult retards....

toiletpaper://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/certaintychannel_ipcc_reality.png?w=72

Like all of the other denier cult wackos, you inevitably try to cite worthless anti-science propaganda from a fossil fuel industry sponsored blog, while ignoring the actual science from reputable scientists published in the peer-reviewed science journals.

As far as your bogus graph goes....

...[Graph] comparing the global surface temperature projections from each of the first four IPCC reports to the subsequent observed temperature changes. We show that not only have the IPCC surface temperature projections been remarkably accurate, but they have also performed much better than predictions made by climate contrarians (Figure 1).



Figure 1: IPCC temperature projections (red, pink, orange, green) and contrarian projections (blue and purple) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASAGISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; black and red) for 1990 through 2012.



Figure 3: IPCC FAR BAU global surface temperature projection adjusted to reflect observed GHG radiative forcings 1990-2011 (blue) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; red) for 1990 through 2012.



Figure 5: IPCC SAR Scenario IS92a global surface temperature projection (blue) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; red) for 1990 through 2012.



Figure 7: IPCC TAR model projection for emissions Scenario A2 (blue) vs. observed surface temperature changes (average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4; red) for 1990 through 2012.

Rahmstorf et al. (2012) Verify TAR and AR4 Accuracy
A paper published in Environmental Research Letters by Rahmstorf, Foster, and Cazenave (2012) applied the methodology of Foster and Rahmstorf (2011), using the statistical technique of multiple regression to filter out the influences of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and solar and volcanic activity from the global surface temperature data to evaluate the underlying long-term primarily human-caused trend. Figure 11 compares their results with and without the short-term noise from natural temperature influences (pink and red, respectively) to the IPCC TAR (blue) and AR4 (green) projections.



Figure 11: Observed annual global temperature, unadjusted (pink) and adjusted for short-term variations due to solar variability, volcanoes, and ENSO (red) as in Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). 12-month running averages are shown as well as linear trend lines, and compared to the scenarios of the IPCC (blue range and lines from the 2001 report, green from the 2007 report). Projections are aligned in the graph so that they start (in 1990 and 2000, respectively) on the linear trend line of the (adjusted) observational data.

Frame and Stone (2012) Verify FAR Accuracy
A paper published in Nature Climate Change, Frame and Stone (2012), sought to evaluate the FAR temperature projection accuracy by using a simple climate model to simulate the warming from 1990 through 2010 based on observed GHG and other global heat imbalance changes. Figure 12 shows their results. Since the FAR only projected temperature changes as a result of GHG changes, the light blue line (model-simuated warming in response to GHGs only) is the most applicable result.



Figure 12: Observed changes in global mean surface temperature over the 1990–2010 period from HadCRUT3 and GISTEMP (red) vs. FAR BAU best estimate (dark blue), vs. projections using a one-dimensional energy balance model (EBM) with the measured GHGradiative forcing since 1990 (light blue) and with the overall radiative forcing since 1990 (green). Natural variability from the ensemble of 587 21-year-long segments of control simulations (with constant external forcings) from 24 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) climate models is shown in black and gray. From Frame and Stone (2012).
(excerpts from: Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate)

As the lie of AGW becomes more evident, they lie bigger about their confidence in that lie, in the hopes that no one will look closely.. Empirical evidence shows them frauds liars and deceitful pukes, but the faithful will believe the lies without question..

More of the usual anti-science denier cult crackpot conspiracy theory insanity about the entire world scientific community plotting to fool the rightwingnuts. Laughable and very pathetic!

You realize that ALL of charts show no warming since the mid-90's right?

LOLOLOLOLOL......well CrazyFruitcake, since all of those charts very obviously show major warming since the mid-90s, it is obvious that you are trying to use the Argument from Insanity fallacy.....as usual for you.

 

[Crick]

 

[Kosh]

And as we all know that Man-made global warming is a farce..

But you can not tell it to the AGW cult:

Kosh, endlessly reposting your faked graph doesn't make it any less fraudulent.

Yes, we know you believe in it with a sort of fanatical religious fervor. You're a very devoted and very brainwashed cultist, so you believe what you're told to believe, and your morally pure mind is never sullied with impure independent thoughts that might contradict the sacred teachings of the cult.

Just understand that all the scientists and rational people know with 100% certainty that you're pushing fraudulent propaganda on behalf of your cult. That's why the world is ignoring you. There's no conspiracy. The world just recognizes you to be a cult dupe. Don't get your hopes up that anyone is falling for your cult's faked data scam, because they're not.

Yes we know the AGW cult will deny real science!

 

[RollingThunder]

You realize that ALL of charts show no warming since the mid-90's right?

LOLOLOLOLOL......well CrazyFruitcake, since all of those charts very obviously show major warming since the mid-90s, it is obvious that you are trying to use the Argument from Insanity fallacy.....as usual for you.

 

[jc456]

You realize that ALL of charts show no warming since the mid-90's right?

LOLOLOLOLOL......well CrazyFruitcake, since all of those charts very obviously show major warming since the mid-90s, it is obvious that you are trying to use the Argument from Insanity fallacy.....as usual for you.

hahahahhahahaahhahahahaahahahaha dude, did you look at this photo clearly enough? Is it mother nature or CO2 that you wanted to reference there? Cause again, I have no issues with mama nature it's you that does. wow, and I would also remark that it is you with your head in the ground as the denier of mama nature. hahahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahha good job gene.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Q. Does the above chart show any warming since the mid-90's?

 

[RollingThunder]

Q. Does the above chart show any warming since the mid-90's?

Here's some questions for you, CrazyFruitcake.....does the graph from NASA below show any warming since the mid-90s?....since 1960?....since 1880?

 

[RollingThunder]

I have no issues with mama nature....

....you just have massive issues with reality!

 

[Crick]

Q. Does the above chart show any warming since the mid-90's?

HAHAHAHAAAaaaaaa... You don't even know what you've posted here. Watch the animation play for a while and see if it comes to you. If it helps, Don Easterbrook is a well-known denier scientist whose models have consistently been ridiculous failures.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Q. Does the above chart show any warming since the mid-90's?

HAHAHAHAAAaaaaaa... You don't even know what you've posted here. Watch the animation play for a while and see if it comes to you. If it helps, Don Easterbrook is a well-known denier scientist whose models have consistently been ridiculous failures.

I know you can't read a chart but pay close attention to the "observed temperature" line.

In 1997 it's about .6 and at the end of the graph in 2012 it's below that.

 

[Crick]

Frank, the "Observations" line never moves. Are you perhaps looking at one of Don Easterbrooks' predictions?

Oh, I see what you mean. This graph shows the pause. That's not very surprising Frank. Until Karl 2015, almost every graph did.

Check this out Frank. Before 1998, every astrophysicist on this planet assumed the expansion of the universe was slowing in response to the gravity field of the mass of the universe. Worst case was that it had reached a terminal velocity and would expand at its current velocity forever. But, in that year, " the Supernova Cosmology Project and the High-Z Supernova Search Team simultaneously obtained results suggesting a totally unexpected acceleration in the expansion of the universe by using distant type Ia supernovae as standard candles."

The expansion of the universe was not decreasing. It was increasing. This was like finding that a ball rolling uphill accelerated. What this suggested caused a major revision in our fundamental understanding of cosmology and the nature of the universe. However, within two years it was the new dogma. So stand back and watch as the real experts demonstrate what its like to NOT have an agenda, to NOT have a theory you just won't give up, to NOT be wiling to go where the evidence leads, no matter the cost.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Crick]

So, your response to data is cartoons. Got it. Not impressed.

 

[Vigilante]

So, your response to data is cartoons. Got it. Not impressed.

Don't give a shit if you are impressed or not.... it's a bunch of corruption and controlling everyone's lives and NOTHING about science!

 

[Vigilante]

Your stupidity and your crackpot and very fraudulent denier cult myths are NOT more impressive when you render them in cartoon form, you poor imbecile, no matter what your retard buddies tell you. They just make you look even crazier than usual.

Yup, WEATHER changes!

Unfortunately, your blind stupidity and utter insanity don't seem to ever change, you poor bamboozled retard.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Right, because Winston Churchill telling the British during WW2 that they had to conserve fuel for the military, and then getting in a car to go to his house, was just absolutely unforgivable! How can you say one thing and then do the other? Churchill should have walked everywhere if he was serious!

Could it be because the argument linking the two is a fallacy? Hmm, yes.

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - only after they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill -


The denier cult's days are numbered. Reality cannot be ignored.