/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8254203
>National Center for Atmospheric Research (part of the NOAA) right on the graph. And NASA buddy.
saying which agency the data come from is useless. you seem to be under the delusion that it's the job of your reader to hunt down the sources for your figures and their data, rather than your job to actually cite things. neither trend is labeled, and the red line has been detached from its scale entirely.

>EVERYONE, LOOK AT SOURCES BELOW
pic related is figure 9.1 from the IPCC document you claim is your source. can you show me where in that figure either of the figures your pic >>8249161 contains? it'll be a good trick, given that figure 9.1 is simulations over the interval of 1890 to 1999, and the figures you posted start at 1958 and 1979
now, the first image DOES appear in the USCCSP document, but it's entirely different from the IPCC prediction to which you have repeatedly attributed your figure.
you appear unable to distinguish between two vaguely similar graphs; I suggest actually reading the captions?

>>over different intervals,
>Left one goes from 75S to 75N the right one goes from 75S to 75N. Your autism is terrible!
TIME INTERVALS, dimwit. the left one is over the 1958-1999 interval; the right one is over the 1979-1999 interval. do you not see why this difference might cause a problem in attempting to compare the two?

>>and using different scales of temperature.
>The predicted hot spot is at 1.2 degrees Centigrade (left plot), the measured values where the hot spot should be is between -0.1 and 0.1 degrees Centigrade.
>>Gosh I don't know how to use a scale.
>Sheesh. Lrn2Scienz
This is where you really make a fool of yourself.
As if it weren't already apparent that you don't read captions, you've gone ahead and compared the units on the left (total change over a 41-year span) to those on the right (change per decade) without bothering to convert the units. Who doesn't know how to use a scale NOW?