Temperture prediction graph..

[RollingThunder]

Actually it was from a SINGLE tree in the entire grove. The rest of the grove showed nothing special.

Here's some discussions of the issue that debunk that brazen lie.

Yamal controversy - RationalWiki

Hey Ya! (mal)

Yes, that talks about actual science, hence the deniers here will all auto-scream it's a big fake.

The deniers here don't even try to discuss the science any more. No matter what the topic is, they just insta-scream that all the data is being faked by scary socialists. Every one of 'em is an ignorant cult troll, hellbent on their mission to shut down all rational discussion.

That's right, deniers. The whole planet is wrong, and only your tiny fringe political cult understands the RealTruth. I bet it makes you feel all tingly and important to believe that. You don't have to do anything except curse at your moral and intellectual betters, and you get proclaim how that makes you a superior human being. You get a huge emotional payoff for being lazy sociopaths. That kind of emotional lure must be irresistible to weak and immoral minds.

"tiny fringe political cult".....

Does anybody realize how University of Mars this statement is? This guy spends waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time in his apartment with the faggy cat!! You guys be the judge..............what the fuck is going on in that place people?

Pew poll from last year says only 28% of Americans think the scientists have this "consensus" thing right..read it right here >> Many Americans are skeptical about scientific research on climate and GM foods

So who really is the "tiny fringe political cult?

You and the other denier cult cretins are, for sure, kooksucker!

Well of course everybody knows that we always settle important scientific issues with public opinion polls and ignore the scientific research.....LOLOLOLOLOL.....you are so crazy, kooksucker.

And a liar too, of course.

In the real world....

Global Warming Concern at Three-Decade High in US
GALLUP
MARCH 14, 2017
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Record percentages of Americans are concerned about global warming, believe it is occurring, consider it a serious threat and say it is caused by human activity. All of these perceptions are up significantly from 2015.

Forty-five percent of Americans now say they worry "a great deal" about global warming, up from 37% a year ago and well above the recent low point of 25% in 2011. The previous high was 41%, recorded in 2007. Another 21% currently say they worry "a fair amount" about global warming, while 18% worry "only a little" and 16% worry "not at all."

What's funny is you trot these ridiculous polls out and after decades of relentless propaganda, and outright lying, the reality is the overwhelming majority of Americans simply don't believe a word you say, and they don't care about what you say because of it. Your polls are about as good as the ones that claimed the shrilary had a 97% chance of being our POTUS.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.......in the real world......at least 66% of Americans are pretty worried about human caused global warming and only the delusional rightwingnut retards in the bottom 34% are so stupid, ignorant and brainwashed to be not worried.

Forty-five percent of Americans now say they worry "a great deal" about global warming, up from 37% a year ago and well above the recent low point of 25% in 2011. The previous high was 41%, recorded in 2007. Another 21% currently say they worry "a fair amount" about global warming, while 18% worry "only a little" and 16% worry "not at all."

 

[westwall]

Actually it was from a SINGLE tree in the entire grove. The rest of the grove showed nothing special.

Here's some discussions of the issue that debunk that brazen lie.

Yamal controversy - RationalWiki

Hey Ya! (mal)

Yes, that talks about actual science, hence the deniers here will all auto-scream it's a big fake.

The deniers here don't even try to discuss the science any more. No matter what the topic is, they just insta-scream that all the data is being faked by scary socialists. Every one of 'em is an ignorant cult troll, hellbent on their mission to shut down all rational discussion.

That's right, deniers. The whole planet is wrong, and only your tiny fringe political cult understands the RealTruth. I bet it makes you feel all tingly and important to believe that. You don't have to do anything except curse at your moral and intellectual betters, and you get proclaim how that makes you a superior human being. You get a huge emotional payoff for being lazy sociopaths. That kind of emotional lure must be irresistible to weak and immoral minds.

"tiny fringe political cult".....

Does anybody realize how University of Mars this statement is? This guy spends waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time in his apartment with the faggy cat!! You guys be the judge..............what the fuck is going on in that place people?

Pew poll from last year says only 28% of Americans think the scientists have this "consensus" thing right..read it right here >> Many Americans are skeptical about scientific research on climate and GM foods

So who really is the "tiny fringe political cult?

You and the other denier cult cretins are, for sure, kooksucker!

Well of course everybody knows that we always settle important scientific issues with public opinion polls and ignore the scientific research.....LOLOLOLOLOL.....you are so crazy, kooksucker.

And a liar too, of course.

In the real world....

Global Warming Concern at Three-Decade High in US
GALLUP
MARCH 14, 2017
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Record percentages of Americans are concerned about global warming, believe it is occurring, consider it a serious threat and say it is caused by human activity. All of these perceptions are up significantly from 2015.

Forty-five percent of Americans now say they worry "a great deal" about global warming, up from 37% a year ago and well above the recent low point of 25% in 2011. The previous high was 41%, recorded in 2007. Another 21% currently say they worry "a fair amount" about global warming, while 18% worry "only a little" and 16% worry "not at all."

What's funny is you trot these ridiculous polls out and after decades of relentless propaganda, and outright lying, the reality is the overwhelming majority of Americans simply don't believe a word you say, and they don't care about what you say because of it. Your polls are about as good as the ones that claimed the shrilary had a 97% chance of being our POTUS.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.......in the real world......at least 66% of Americans are pretty worried about human caused global warming and only the delusional rightwingnut retards in the bottom 34% are so stupid, ignorant and brainwashed to be not worried.

Forty-five percent of Americans now say they worry "a great deal" about global warming, up from 37% a year ago and well above the recent low point of 25% in 2011. The previous high was 41%, recorded in 2007. Another 21% currently say they worry "a fair amount" about global warming, while 18% worry "only a little" and 16% worry "not at all."

Yeah, no. 25% and that's being generous seem to be worried. And they are the least scientifically literate among Americans. In the UK it is even less.

Global survey: Britain among least concerned in the world about climate change
Out of 17 countries surveyed worldwide Britain is among the least concerned about climate change – but the most concerned about population growth
A historic deal to place limits on the rise in global temperatures to 2C above pre-industrial levels was reached in December, after the combined efforts of nearly 200 countries delivered consensus on carbon emissions. This is the first climate deal to commit all countries to emissions cuts, which will come into force in 2020 through a combination of legally binding and voluntary measures, and the package includes $100 billion a year in climate finance for developing countries by 2020 with future finance also promised.


YouGov | Global survey: Britain among least concerned in the world about climate change

 

[Crick]

Lol I stumbled on the graph looking for something else... Talk about fear mongering. Remind me when they can tell us what the weather is next Saturday...

We haven't the faintest idea who "futuretimeline.net might be and you've made no effort to find out. Let's have a look.

Here's there little into:

Welcome to the future! Below, you will find a speculative timeline of future history. Part fact and part fiction, the timeline is based on detailed research – including analysis of current trends, long-term environmental changes, advances in technology such as Moore's Law, future medical breakthroughs, the evolving geopolitical landscape and much more. Where possible, references have been provided to support the predictions. FutureTimeline is an ongoing, collaborative project that is open for discussion – we welcome ideas from scientists, futurists, inventors, writers and anyone else interested in futurology.

Hmm... not exactly mainstream science then. But, it's showing a 5.7C increase from 1980-ish. Let's see how that compares with real projections from real scientists.

Here, from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/scenariotempgraph_0.jpg

These values are relative to the 1985-2005 average. For the worst case scenario, it shows a 4.2C increase between 1980 and 2100. So, FutureTimeline.net would seem to be full of crap.

From AR4 at Figure SPM.5 - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers

These are relative to the 1980-1999 average, but the difference between 1980 and 2100 for the worst case scenario looks to be 3.8C.

Here is an informative table from AR5

3.5. Scenarios of the 21st Century
In 2000, the IPCC completed a Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) to replace the earlier set of six IS92 scenarios developed for the IPCC in 1992. These newer scenarios consider the period 1990 to 2100 and include a range of socioeconomic assumptions (e.g., global population and gross domestic product). Their implications for other aspects of global change also have been calculated; some of these implications are summarized for 2050 and 2100 in Table TS-1. For example, mean ground-level ozone concentrations in July over the industrialized continents of the northern hemisphere are projected to rise from about 40 ppb in 2000 to more than 70 ppb in 2100 under the highest illustrative SRES emissions scenarios; by comparison, the clean-air standard is below 80 ppb. Peak levels of ozone in local smog events could be many times higher. Estimates of CO2 concentration range from 478 ppm to1099 ppm by 2100, given the range of SRES emissions and uncertainties about the carbon cycle (Table TS-1). This range of implied radiative forcing gives rise to an estimated global warming from 1990 to 2100 of 1.4-5.8°C, assuming a range of climate sensitivities. This range is higher than the 0.7-3.5°C of the SAR because of higher levels of radiative forcing in the SRES scenarios than in the IS92a-f scenarios—primarily as a result of lower sulfate aerosol emissions, especially after 2050. The equivalent range of estimates of global sea-level rise (for this range of global temperature change in combination with a range of ice melt sensitivities) to 2100 is 9-88 cm (compared to 15-95 cm in the SAR). [3.2.4.1, 3.4.4, 3.8.1, 3.8.2]

Tables 3-2 and 3-9).

Date Global Population billions)a Global GDP (1012 US$ yr-1)b Per Capita Income Ratioc Ground Level O3Concentration (ppm)d CO2Concentration (ppm)e Global Temperature Change (°C)f Global Sea-Level Rise (cm)g

1990 5.3 21 16.1 — 354 0 0
2000 6.1-6.2 25-28 12.3-14.2 40 367 0.2 2
2050 8.4-11.3 59-187 2.4-8.2 ~60 463-623 0.8-2.6 5-32
2100 7.0-15.1 197-550 1.4-6.3 >70 478-1099 1.4-5.8 9-88

a Values for 2000 show range across the six illustrative SRES emissions scenarios; values for 2050 and 2100 show range across all 40 SRES scenarios.
b See footnote a; gross domestic product (trillion 1990 US$ yr-1).
c See footnote a; ratio of developed countries and economies-in-transition (Annex I) to developing countries (non-Annex I).
d Model estimates for industrialized continents of northern hemisphere assuming emissions for 2000, 2060, and 2100 from the A1F and A2 illustrative SRES emissions scenarios at high end of the SRES range (Chapter 4, TAR WG I).
e Observed 1999 value (Chapter 3, WG I TAR); values for 1990, 2050, and 2100 are from simple model runs across the range of 35 fully quantified SRES emissions scenarios and accounting for uncertainties in carbon cycle feedbacks related to climate sensitivity (data from S.C.B. Raper, Chapter 9, WG I TAR). Note that the ranges for 2050 and 2100 differ from those presented by TAR WGI (Appendix II), which were ranges across the six illustrative SRES emissions scenarios from simulations using two different carbon cycle models.
f Change in global mean annual temperature relative to 1990 averaged across simple climate model runs emulating results of seven AOGCMs with an average climate sensitivity of 2.8°C for the range of 35 fully quantified SRES emissions scenarios (Chapter 9, WG I TAR).
g Based on global mean temperature changes but also accounting for uncertainties in model parameters for land ice, permafrost, and sediment deposition (Chapter 11, WG I TAR).

I'm not going to try to reformat that, but the predicted temperature in their worst case scenario is a range of 1.4 to 5.8C. That would be a mean of 3.6C

So, FutureTimeline.net is being somewhat alarmist. But, of course, they have to the right to do so and at least their prediction is in the right direction and bears some resemblance to the results of actual science. The work of the deniers here can truthfully make no such claim.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Lol I stumbled on the graph looking for something else... Talk about fear mongering. Remind me when they can tell us what the weather is next Saturday...

We haven't the faintest idea who "futuretimeline.net might be and you've made no effort to find out. Let's have a look.

Here's there little into:

Welcome to the future! Below, you will find a speculative timeline of future history. Part fact and part fiction, the timeline is based on detailed research – including analysis of current trends, long-term environmental changes, advances in technology such as Moore's Law, future medical breakthroughs, the evolving geopolitical landscape and much more. Where possible, references have been provided to support the predictions. FutureTimeline is an ongoing, collaborative project that is open for discussion – we welcome ideas from scientists, futurists, inventors, writers and anyone else interested in futurology.

Hmm... not exactly mainstream science then. But, it's showing a 5.7C increase from 1980-ish. Let's see how that compares with real projections from real scientists.

Here, from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/scenariotempgraph_0.jpg

These values are relative to the 1985-2005 average. For the worst case scenario, it shows a 4.2C increase between 1980 and 2100. So, FutureTimeline.net would seem to be full of crap.

From AR4 at Figure SPM.5 - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers

These are relative to the 1980-1999 average, but the difference between 1980 and 2100 for the worst case scenario looks to be 3.8C.

Here is an informative table from AR5

3.5. Scenarios of the 21st Century
In 2000, the IPCC completed a Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) to replace the earlier set of six IS92 scenarios developed for the IPCC in 1992. These newer scenarios consider the period 1990 to 2100 and include a range of socioeconomic assumptions (e.g., global population and gross domestic product). Their implications for other aspects of global change also have been calculated; some of these implications are summarized for 2050 and 2100 in Table TS-1. For example, mean ground-level ozone concentrations in July over the industrialized continents of the northern hemisphere are projected to rise from about 40 ppb in 2000 to more than 70 ppb in 2100 under the highest illustrative SRES emissions scenarios; by comparison, the clean-air standard is below 80 ppb. Peak levels of ozone in local smog events could be many times higher. Estimates of CO2 concentration range from 478 ppm to1099 ppm by 2100, given the range of SRES emissions and uncertainties about the carbon cycle (Table TS-1). This range of implied radiative forcing gives rise to an estimated global warming from 1990 to 2100 of 1.4-5.8°C, assuming a range of climate sensitivities. This range is higher than the 0.7-3.5°C of the SAR because of higher levels of radiative forcing in the SRES scenarios than in the IS92a-f scenarios—primarily as a result of lower sulfate aerosol emissions, especially after 2050. The equivalent range of estimates of global sea-level rise (for this range of global temperature change in combination with a range of ice melt sensitivities) to 2100 is 9-88 cm (compared to 15-95 cm in the SAR). [3.2.4.1, 3.4.4, 3.8.1, 3.8.2]

Tables 3-2 and 3-9).

Date Global Population billions)a Global GDP (1012 US$ yr-1)b Per Capita Income Ratioc Ground Level O3Concentration (ppm)d CO2Concentration (ppm)e Global Temperature Change (°C)f Global Sea-Level Rise (cm)g

1990 5.3 21 16.1 — 354 0 0
2000 6.1-6.2 25-28 12.3-14.2 40 367 0.2 2
2050 8.4-11.3 59-187 2.4-8.2 ~60 463-623 0.8-2.6 5-32
2100 7.0-15.1 197-550 1.4-6.3 >70 478-1099 1.4-5.8 9-88

a Values for 2000 show range across the six illustrative SRES emissions scenarios; values for 2050 and 2100 show range across all 40 SRES scenarios.
b See footnote a; gross domestic product (trillion 1990 US$ yr-1).
c See footnote a; ratio of developed countries and economies-in-transition (Annex I) to developing countries (non-Annex I).
d Model estimates for industrialized continents of northern hemisphere assuming emissions for 2000, 2060, and 2100 from the A1F and A2 illustrative SRES emissions scenarios at high end of the SRES range (Chapter 4, TAR WG I).
e Observed 1999 value (Chapter 3, WG I TAR); values for 1990, 2050, and 2100 are from simple model runs across the range of 35 fully quantified SRES emissions scenarios and accounting for uncertainties in carbon cycle feedbacks related to climate sensitivity (data from S.C.B. Raper, Chapter 9, WG I TAR). Note that the ranges for 2050 and 2100 differ from those presented by TAR WGI (Appendix II), which were ranges across the six illustrative SRES emissions scenarios from simulations using two different carbon cycle models.
f Change in global mean annual temperature relative to 1990 averaged across simple climate model runs emulating results of seven AOGCMs with an average climate sensitivity of 2.8°C for the range of 35 fully quantified SRES emissions scenarios (Chapter 9, WG I TAR).
g Based on global mean temperature changes but also accounting for uncertainties in model parameters for land ice, permafrost, and sediment deposition (Chapter 11, WG I TAR).

I'm not going to try to reformat that, but the predicted temperature in their worst case scenario is a range of 1.4 to 5.8C. That would be a mean of 3.6C

So, FutureTimeline.net is being somewhat alarmist. But, of course, they have to the right to do so and at least their prediction is in the right direction and bears some resemblance to the results of actual science. The work of the deniers here can truthfully make no such claim.

I already posted the second graph you did in this thread, that's the point, people on the far left will run with the graph in my OP spread it... And everyone wants to run around like chickens with their heads cut off. 100 years from now if we find out nothing happens you will shrugg it off after we spent trillions of dollars on zip, nadda..


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Actually it was from a SINGLE tree in the entire grove. The rest of the grove showed nothing special.

Here's some discussions of the issue that debunk that brazen lie.

Yamal controversy - RationalWiki

Hey Ya! (mal)

Yes, that talks about actual science, hence the deniers here will all auto-scream it's a big fake.

The deniers here don't even try to discuss the science any more. No matter what the topic is, they just insta-scream that all the data is being faked by scary socialists. Every one of 'em is an ignorant cult troll, hellbent on their mission to shut down all rational discussion.

That's right, deniers. The whole planet is wrong, and only your tiny fringe political cult understands the RealTruth. I bet it makes you feel all tingly and important to believe that. You don't have to do anything except curse at your moral and intellectual betters, and you get proclaim how that makes you a superior human being. You get a huge emotional payoff for being lazy sociopaths. That kind of emotional lure must be irresistible to weak and immoral minds.

"tiny fringe political cult".....

Does anybody realize how University of Mars this statement is? This guy spends waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time in his apartment with the faggy cat!! You guys be the judge..............what the fuck is going on in that place people?

Pew poll from last year says only 28% of Americans think the scientists have this "consensus" thing right..read it right here >> Many Americans are skeptical about scientific research on climate and GM foods

So who really is the "tiny fringe political cult?

You and the other denier cult cretins are, for sure, kooksucker!

Well of course everybody knows that we always settle important scientific issues with public opinion polls and ignore the scientific research.....LOLOLOLOLOL.....you are so crazy, kooksucker.

And a liar too, of course.

In the real world....

Global Warming Concern at Three-Decade High in US
GALLUP
MARCH 14, 2017
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Record percentages of Americans are concerned about global warming, believe it is occurring, consider it a serious threat and say it is caused by human activity. All of these perceptions are up significantly from 2015.

Forty-five percent of Americans now say they worry "a great deal" about global warming, up from 37% a year ago and well above the recent low point of 25% in 2011. The previous high was 41%, recorded in 2007. Another 21% currently say they worry "a fair amount" about global warming, while 18% worry "only a little" and 16% worry "not at all."

What's funny is you trot these ridiculous polls out and after decades of relentless propaganda, and outright lying, the reality is the overwhelming majority of Americans simply don't believe a word you say, and they don't care about what you say because of it. Your polls are about as good as the ones that claimed the shrilary had a 97% chance of being our POTUS.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.......in the real world......at least 66% of Americans are pretty worried about human caused global warming and only the delusional rightwingnut retards in the bottom 34% are so stupid, ignorant and brainwashed to be not worried.

Forty-five percent of Americans now say they worry "a great deal" about global warming, up from 37% a year ago and well above the recent low point of 25% in 2011. The previous high was 41%, recorded in 2007. Another 21% currently say they worry "a fair amount" about global warming, while 18% worry "only a little" and 16% worry "not at all."

The reason people do is exactly what I didn't even have to say in my OP, it's propaganda, being an alarmist...


.

 

[Crick]

Lol I stumbled on the graph looking for something else... Talk about fear mongering. Remind me when they can tell us what the weather is next Saturday...

We haven't the faintest idea who "futuretimeline.net might be and you've made no effort to find out. Let's have a look.

Here's there little into:

Welcome to the future! Below, you will find a speculative timeline of future history. Part fact and part fiction, the timeline is based on detailed research – including analysis of current trends, long-term environmental changes, advances in technology such as Moore's Law, future medical breakthroughs, the evolving geopolitical landscape and much more. Where possible, references have been provided to support the predictions. FutureTimeline is an ongoing, collaborative project that is open for discussion – we welcome ideas from scientists, futurists, inventors, writers and anyone else interested in futurology.

Hmm... not exactly mainstream science then. But, it's showing a 5.7C increase from 1980-ish. Let's see how that compares with real projections from real scientists.

Here, from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/scenariotempgraph_0.jpg

These values are relative to the 1985-2005 average. For the worst case scenario, it shows a 4.2C increase between 1980 and 2100. So, FutureTimeline.net would seem to be full of crap.

From AR4 at Figure SPM.5 - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers

These are relative to the 1980-1999 average, but the difference between 1980 and 2100 for the worst case scenario looks to be 3.8C.

Here is an informative table from AR5

3.5. Scenarios of the 21st Century
In 2000, the IPCC completed a Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) to replace the earlier set of six IS92 scenarios developed for the IPCC in 1992. These newer scenarios consider the period 1990 to 2100 and include a range of socioeconomic assumptions (e.g., global population and gross domestic product). Their implications for other aspects of global change also have been calculated; some of these implications are summarized for 2050 and 2100 in Table TS-1. For example, mean ground-level ozone concentrations in July over the industrialized continents of the northern hemisphere are projected to rise from about 40 ppb in 2000 to more than 70 ppb in 2100 under the highest illustrative SRES emissions scenarios; by comparison, the clean-air standard is below 80 ppb. Peak levels of ozone in local smog events could be many times higher. Estimates of CO2 concentration range from 478 ppm to1099 ppm by 2100, given the range of SRES emissions and uncertainties about the carbon cycle (Table TS-1). This range of implied radiative forcing gives rise to an estimated global warming from 1990 to 2100 of 1.4-5.8°C, assuming a range of climate sensitivities. This range is higher than the 0.7-3.5°C of the SAR because of higher levels of radiative forcing in the SRES scenarios than in the IS92a-f scenarios—primarily as a result of lower sulfate aerosol emissions, especially after 2050. The equivalent range of estimates of global sea-level rise (for this range of global temperature change in combination with a range of ice melt sensitivities) to 2100 is 9-88 cm (compared to 15-95 cm in the SAR). [3.2.4.1, 3.4.4, 3.8.1, 3.8.2]

Tables 3-2 and 3-9).

Date Global Population billions)a Global GDP (1012 US$ yr-1)b Per Capita Income Ratioc Ground Level O3Concentration (ppm)d CO2Concentration (ppm)e Global Temperature Change (°C)f Global Sea-Level Rise (cm)g

1990 5.3 21 16.1 — 354 0 0
2000 6.1-6.2 25-28 12.3-14.2 40 367 0.2 2
2050 8.4-11.3 59-187 2.4-8.2 ~60 463-623 0.8-2.6 5-32
2100 7.0-15.1 197-550 1.4-6.3 >70 478-1099 1.4-5.8 9-88

a Values for 2000 show range across the six illustrative SRES emissions scenarios; values for 2050 and 2100 show range across all 40 SRES scenarios.
b See footnote a; gross domestic product (trillion 1990 US$ yr-1).
c See footnote a; ratio of developed countries and economies-in-transition (Annex I) to developing countries (non-Annex I).
d Model estimates for industrialized continents of northern hemisphere assuming emissions for 2000, 2060, and 2100 from the A1F and A2 illustrative SRES emissions scenarios at high end of the SRES range (Chapter 4, TAR WG I).
e Observed 1999 value (Chapter 3, WG I TAR); values for 1990, 2050, and 2100 are from simple model runs across the range of 35 fully quantified SRES emissions scenarios and accounting for uncertainties in carbon cycle feedbacks related to climate sensitivity (data from S.C.B. Raper, Chapter 9, WG I TAR). Note that the ranges for 2050 and 2100 differ from those presented by TAR WGI (Appendix II), which were ranges across the six illustrative SRES emissions scenarios from simulations using two different carbon cycle models.
f Change in global mean annual temperature relative to 1990 averaged across simple climate model runs emulating results of seven AOGCMs with an average climate sensitivity of 2.8°C for the range of 35 fully quantified SRES emissions scenarios (Chapter 9, WG I TAR).
g Based on global mean temperature changes but also accounting for uncertainties in model parameters for land ice, permafrost, and sediment deposition (Chapter 11, WG I TAR).

I'm not going to try to reformat that, but the predicted temperature in their worst case scenario is a range of 1.4 to 5.8C. That would be a mean of 3.6C

So, FutureTimeline.net is being somewhat alarmist. But, of course, they have to the right to do so and at least their prediction is in the right direction and bears some resemblance to the results of actual science. The work of the deniers here can truthfully make no such claim.

I already posted the second graph you did in this thread, that's the point, people on the far left will run with the graph in my OP spread it... And everyone wants to run around like chickens with their heads cut off. 100 years from now if we find out nothing happens you will shrugg it off after we spent trillions of dollars on zip, nadda..


.

What folks on the left did you find "running with this graph"? In all the years this debate has proceeded on this site and others I do not recall having EVER seen anyone refer to futuretimeline.net as a reference source.

Do you find an increase of 1.4 to 5.8C acceptable?

NOTE: Although I have no recollection of having seen it or this poster, futuretimeline.net DID appear once in this forum. See post Watching the sea ice melt in the arctic 2012! from 2012, banned poster BobGNote.

 

[Old Rocks]

And the other two dozen or so studies that confirmed the Hockeystick also threw away data that disagreed? My, my, an international conspiracy, better stock up on tinfoil for your little hats.

 

[westwall]

And the other two dozen or so studies that confirmed the Hockeystick also threw away data that disagreed? My, my, an international conspiracy, better stock up on tinfoil for your little hats.

They merely rehashed the exact same faulty data sets. That's a common problem in science. Even after a study is shown to be worthless it is still used by newer studies as a starting point.

 

[Old Rocks]

Once again you brand yourself a liar. Many of those studies used proxies that were not used in the first study, And many of the same kind of proxies came from very different locales.