Amusement in the NewsFollow

Yeah, I know what you're talking about. It's currently flattening out for this decade just as the various temperature projections say it will. Which you insist could have no plausible reason within the sphere of ACC. Except that a net flattening was predicted by all the different projections.

Essentially, you keep claiming that the event forecasted by everyone proves that everyone's forecasts have to be wrong. You'll find thirty different ways of insisting that this isn't the case but it pretty obviously is to anyone still bothering to read it. Keep saying it though.

Support the italic text part of your statement Joph. You blew up the 2-3 years past 2000, with a blatantly false starting point (note difference between where light blue line you drew is in comparison to the dark blue trendline that is part of the original graph).

Why not apply the same nifty techniques to blow up the chart labeled "Global Warming Projections" and overlay them? Cause that chart has 8 different projection lines, all but about 2 of which show significantly steeper slope for the first 10 years of this century.

Saying "Just as the various temperature projections say" is kinda misleading when most of the temperature projections do *not* say that at all. Most of them show a steeper slope than what we've actually seen in the last 8 years. More importantly, the projections upon which the most alarming global warming predictions are made (massive flooding for example) are the ones which least match what is actually happening.



Blatantly false. Look at that graph again Joph. Are you honestly trying to say that not a single one of those projection lines rises farther in the first 10th of the range given than the actual recorded temperature increase over that time? Really? Even that dark brown one that looks pretty close to about .5 degrees above baseline at +10 years?

Heck. You drew a set of lines in .1 degree intervals there. Draw a vertical line representing a 10 year point. It's pretty clear that most of the projections place the temperature increase somewhere around .2 to .3 degrees. Yet the *actual* average temperature increase even on the graph you blew up doesn't show more than a *maximum* .1 degree increase. The 5 year average is clearly much lower since there's only one data point that much higher than the starting trend line.

Remember. The starting point is where the dark blue line and your vertical light blue lines intersect. How much higher is the highest measured temperature after that point? What is the average after that point? It's a *lot* lower than .1 degrees. Closer to about a .06 degree difference. And that's been the flattening trends that has continued for the remaining years after that graph as well.



Certainly, it's impossible to say that average temperatures have increased more than .1 degrees during that time period, even if you do the worst eyeballing of those charts possible. Yet, it's pretty easy to see that most of the projections show much higher increases than that after 10 years.

Draw a vertical line at the 10 year mark on the projection Joph. YOu are *massively* understating how much those projections predicted temperatures to increase. I think I can see a single yellow line and one blue one that might, maybe, if we take low outliers in one and high outliers in the other match up.


Seriously. How can you honestly look at the two graphs you put into your thread and say with a straight face that they match? They're not even freaking close...



No. You keep insisting that this was forecast, even while putting a graph in your own post that clearly shows something completely different. I'm not sure if it's just blind denial of the facts or what. I honestly can't imagine how anyone can look at that projection graph and say that "all of the projections" show a .1 degree or less temperature increase in the first 10 years after 2000. What's mind boggling is that you even drew lines marking off the degree measurements, and *still* think this is true.



No. My way requires only looking at the very graphs you provided Joph. It's clear as day. One shows a set of projections, most of which show temperatures increasing somewhere in the .2 to .3 degree range after ten years. The other shows a slope of the actual temperature increases, which is less than even .1 degrees. Your measured temperature doesn't got that far into the decade, but the data past that point that I've found and reported shows a continued plateau trend. The temperatures just didn't go up as much as the projections (most of them).

One or two? Sure. But do you honestly think that global warming doom and gloom predictions were based on the lowest projections? Or the highest?

Are you looking at the same graphs I am?

Ok. You're looking at the second blow up graph. But Joph made a mistake. He put the baseline waaaaay down at a low outlier value for 2000 (that's his light blue line). The actual starting point should be where the dark blue line intersects that line. So when you look at that second graph, you need to move the big red dots down about 1.5 "black lines" downward (the highest red blob/dot should just be hitting the lowest horizontal black line). When you do that, it's pretty obvious that almost all the projection lines are well above the actual recorded temperatures.

Joph goofed up. It was an obvious goof. Heck. It was so much of a mistake, at first I didn't realize that he was actually trying to draw off where his light blue line was and didn't realize what he thought his graph was showing (I thought he just lined them up poorly).


Again. Look very carefully at the second graph in his post. The correct starting point for the trendline is where the dark blue and light blue lines intersect. But in the blow up a couple charts down, Joph has his "bottom" point very very far down below that point. He made a mistake. That's why his blow up appears to match. When you account for it, it's very very obvious that they don't.


The projections and the actual temperatures readings do not match up. They aren't even close. Most of those projections show 2-3 times as much temperature increase over just that 7 year time period than actually happened. Joph was just really really confused when he did his graph work.

No, you're just insisting on basing the graphs off data points that don't exist between the two graphs because basing it off the actual existing baselines doesn't give the result you want.

The second (multicolored) graph has the Y2000 temp as the baseline. You're upset because I didn't match the end of the trendline to that point -- except that's not where the trendline goes at all. Again, this is a point that everyone else gets except you.

It doesn't matter, really. In 2000, scientists predicted where the temperature would be going from 2000 onwards. In 2009, we can look at the temperature from 2000-2007 and see that, yup, it went where the scientists predicted. In 2000, the average temperature could have been 3 degrees with the entire planet an icy ball and it still wouldn't matter except that there'd be a much larger jump between 2000 and 2001. So long as the actual temperature matches what the projection was, it's accurate. Put your finger over the left edge of the graph if it bothers you to look at it, it won't change that the 2001 temperature anomaly was 1.5 intervals higher than the 2000 temperature anomaly.

Each red circle shows how many degrees above the 2000 temp we were from year to year. The multicolored lines show various predictions of where it was expected we'd be. The red lines more or less flatten out. If you were to draw the blue line through them, it'd be a plataeu as you said. However, averaging the various predictions, each of them winds up with an average global temperature for the period of approximately the same temperature.



The green crosshairs show the Y2000 temperature. I didn't add the other line because I'm trying to keep it clean but it peaked above the A line for reference. The trendline, if it were to be continued, would sit right above the A line. The average temperature for the various predictions would sit just below the A line (owing mainly to the fact that scientists predicted a decrease in temperatures to Y2000 levels at some point between 2000-2007 which didn't happen). For example, the green line goes from the 2000 baseline to the interval above A, back down to Y2000 and then, in 2007, hits the B interval. The average temperature for that period being between A & B. The dark red line goes from Y2000, almost up to B, back below the baseline, up to the third interval and then almost to Interval B. Again, if those were the actual temperatures and you plotted a baseline through there, you'd wind up with a fairly flat line between A & B, raising up slightly towards the end. Yellow is worse, ending in a flat line that doesn't even reach the B line. However, taken in aggregate, you wind up with a pretty flat line along the B interval. The reality was a fairly flat line along the A interval (owing, yet again, to a failure to cool to Y2000 levels).

What's going on now isn't any surprise. You keep insisting that it is but... well, it's not. I can't explain it any better than that. I'd ask you to perhaps find some scientific papers expressing shock at how this "unexplainable" temperature pattern is occuring but I think we both know that you'll do no such thing.Yeah, see, this is what you can't understand. I'm not using the graphs to prove that it's warming per se. I'm using them to show that the current temperature trend wasn't unexpected and was, in fact, predicted (in a general sense). Starting from 1998 wouldn't change that. However, given that the prediction graphs start from 2000/2001, it wouldn't make much sense.

Now, the next ten year period shows a definite warming spat, even allowing for averaging. If things aren't warmer in 2019, let me know.

Edited, Mar 10th 2009 1:04am by Jophiel

I loved the way that the reporter in the embedded video, using his tape measure, showed us what 1 metre looked like when measured from the top of the sea wall rather than 1 metre from the high tide mark would look like......./DOOOOOOOOM!!!!!



Based on common sense past experience, when the planet gets hotter thereby melting the ice-caps (again), evaporation from the oceans will increase > increased precipitation over landmass > increased vegetative cover > increased CO2 absorption > global equilibrium.

Wether that means all humans will die out, or adapt by building higher sea defences or moving further inland, or by becoming amphibious, I have no idea. I can say with certainty tho, that the planet will continue spinning on its merry way without the help of 'climate scientists'.

I can also say with certainty that I expect my rating to drop to sub-default for daring to contradict "a team of researchers" almost as fast as if i suggested that eating meat is a bad idea......

Meh, long-term it would certainly equalize; it's what happens in the mean time that worries me.

I want to know whether to invest in a punt for my daily commute.

Well at least San Francisco has good air quality, at least as far as ozone goes:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-03-11-ozone-illness_N.htm#table

Side benefit of lower CO2, lower ozone and less deaths due to respiratory diseases (up to 32% between major US cities found over the 19 year study).