Yes it does.
The original graph was made in 1999 with about 20 years of projections that have been seen to be accurate.
With 20 years of technological improvements in analyzing historical data, the methods used in the original graph have held up.
no argument here!
1 Like
that is in dispute by many. and even if so or to any degree the causes are in dispute too
this is called “science” btw.
1 Like
Several peer reviewed studies.
DO you have any peer reviewed studies suggesting it is wrong?
Links to studies disputing the graph?
Don’t be impressed by “peer reviewed”, it’s not what it used to be.
“Several”? You posted more than one?
No, what I have is common sense.
False.
Wrong.
Untrue.
Incorrect.
(and stating it many times does not change that.)
According to Mann’s hockey stick chart the (somewhat imaginary) hypothetical temperature increase should have been 0.5 deg C in the first few years following 1998. (see below)
However what Mann predicted has not (repeat not) come to pass
It did not happen.
It never occurred.
It has not come to pass.
It was not (repeat not) born out.
To wit:
“Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.”
Trust the science.
The science says Mann’s imaginary prediction was
wrong,
false,
inaccurate,
untrue,
erroneous,
overstated,
exaggerated.
Ah.
So, on one side of the argument we have hundreds of scientists, research, data, information and observations. On the other, we have you.
Got it.
2 Likes
Correct. Me, with no conflict of interest.
What are you doing about it, this end of world crisis?
From your link:
Editor’s note: September 1, 2018
Since this article was last updated, the slowdown in the rate of average global surface warming that took place from 1998–2012 (relative to the preceding 30 years) has unequivocally ended. Scientists have learned more about the physical factors that contributed to the short-term trend, and they have documented the continued build up in sub-surface ocean heat during the period. Check out our latest Q&A on this topic: Did global warming stop in 1998?
Editor’s note: Updated June 4, 2015
New analysis through 2014 shows that temperature is once again rising at about the same pace as it did over the second half of the 20th century. PRESS RELEASE.
Using the data that were available at the time (through 2012), the last climate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that there had been no statistically significant increase in global surface temperature from 1998-2012.
According to a new NOAA analysis, the warming trend during that period was somewhat smaller than the longer-term (1951-2012) trend, but it wasn’t zero. And with the latest data calibrations and the most recent two years of global temperatures added to the series—including record-warm 2014—the warming experienced since 1998 is on par with the rate observed in the second half of the 20th century.
Basically, the new analysis confirms what climate scientists have said all along: natural variability (such as the patterns described in this article) may cause the rate of warming to change from one decade to the next, but global warming is still underway.
Lol.
Never short on arrogance.
What I can, including voting for those who understand the issue.
2 Likes
NO!
On one side we have hundreds of scientist, researchers etc. who say in effect
“Global warming is basically true, but what Michael Mann said is false, false false. More importantly he failed, failed failed, to properly differentiate between observed data and scary made-up hypotheticals that science now knows were 100% untrue.”
If you want people to trust science you have to be willing to (occasionally) call-out the whack job political activists who masquerade as scientists. Michael Mann appears to be one of those. Certainly hos hockey stick was wrong. Certainly science now proves that.
2 Likes
How is that arrogance? What’s my conflict of interest?
Which is nothing. What do you feel they’re going to do about it?
Show me a few of the hundreds with peer reviewed research to support their claims.
Oh, and the courts disagree with you. Mann won.
Basically the new analysis confirms that Michael Mann “prediction” was not false, wrong., inaccurate. It never came to pass.
Earth Day 1970 ring a bell?
Why not just embrace science?
We don’t have to reject all of AGW theory to say that from time to time an alarmist politcal type produces junk science and that appears to be what happened in Michael Mann’s case
You know more than thousands of trained scientists.
What would you call that?
You conflict of interest is your pride and identity as a member of the club.
The much maligned light bulb conversion. Regulations that reduce emissions. Fostering of tech that reduces emissions. Among other things.
The courts said that comparing him to a pedophile was wrong.
The courts said nothing about his now-rejected hypothetical scenario.
(HINT If you have to make stuff up to make your case, stop making your case.)
2 Likes
Common sense.
Why do you put so much stock in theories by academics? Is it because they wear lab coats?
Do you really believe changing light bulbs is going to save the planet?
Even that dumbass Lurch Kerry admitted if you cut your emissions in half, it won’t make any difference.
“Fostering”-interesting choice.
You’re being had by grifters.
1 Like
Talk about arrogance. The hubris that goes into believing the weakest, most feeble creature on the planet can destroy it. Tsk, tsk.
Man is not in control.
Let’s go back to the pre-industrial era and find out who’s really committed.
