Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say

[Crick]

Westwall,
I understand you don't think much of Cook. You've told us so repeatedly. What I don't hear are your opinions regarding:

Oreskes, 2004
STATS, 2007
Bray and von Storch, 2008
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010
Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011
Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012
Powell, 2013

All of whom found very similar results.

 

[Crick]

Climate science is a defacto misnomer. Pointing at the Weather Channel and shrieking "CLIMATE CHANGE, DENIER!! OFF THE DENIERS!!!" is not science

The work referenced in AR5 IS science. You're the one spouting crap Frank.

 

[jon_berzerk]

if it gets that hot in one mile

i hate to see how hot it is going to get in two miles

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Climate science is a defacto misnomer. Pointing at the Weather Channel and shrieking "CLIMATE CHANGE, DENIER!! OFF THE DENIERS!!!" is not science

The work referenced in AR5 IS science. You're the one spouting crap Frank.

You can't even explain the concept of "Excess heat!!!!" you called it 2 random words strung together...LOL!!

That's "science"?!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Warmers never approved the petition...hilarious!

The Oregon petition is worthless crap.

Show us a SURVEY or POLL demonstrating that anything less than an overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept AGW.

I've made this request of you all a dozen times. You have no response because you have no such poll or survey. You have no such poll or survey because an overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept AGW.

Read it and weep, bitches.

Right now, there's a lot of funding for EnviroMarxism. President Trump will remedy that and cut all Funding for it

 

[IanC]

Back to the OP......

This year is the hottest using land surface stations and methodologies that have added tenths of a degree C to recent era data and subtract tenths from data pre-WWII.

Satellite data measures the majority of the surface, land and ocean, and says this year is not the warmest evahhhhh.

Which is likely to be more correct? One method treats all the measurements in the same fashion, the other adjusts its adjustments according to 'expectations'.

Are there independent references? Millions of weather balloons released over land are in good agreement with the satellites. Land station data is collected in HCN and what you see is what you get although not all of the data is used in every dataset product. World politics led to shrinking of reporting stations in the 90's, coinciding with the large jump in 'global ' temps.

2011-12 saw major revisions in most of the land station based datasets, incurring criticisms from many countries watchdogs. The warming seems to be exaggerated by the adjustments. Last year the record was set by hundredths of a degree, less than the change due to adjustments in just the last few years. I have looked at the ever changing figures over the last decade and you should too. It may not be comparing apples to oranges but it is certainly apples to crabapples.

 

[gipper]

It is only a matter of time before the radical left warmers start rounding up deniers and shipping them to the gulag...the radical left loves gulags.

I am sure we have posters here that would be fine with it. Hell those damn deniers are so stupid they deserve to be imprisoned...right?

 

[Crick]

Back to the OP......
Which is likely to be more correct? One method treats all the measurements in the same fashion, the other adjusts its adjustments according to 'expectations'.

The one making adjustments for errors.

 

[flacaltenn]

So you blow up the list of institutional endorsements as being nothing but policy statements from a front office committee ---- and then 5 and 8 yr. old "polls" of opinion --- Which ARE NOT OPINION ---- come up...

All they did is read the abstracts of technical papers and "DIVINED" opinion in a place that SHOULD BE devoid of opinion.. Didn't read if their research PROVED any of the comments in the abstracts. It's absurd..

GO ASK THEM specific questions. Like what percentage of the observed warming is due to man.. Or what the temperature anomaly will be in 2100... Or if they can PROJECT THAT? And do it now or in the past few years.

Don't give me any of these Karnack INTERPRETATION of opinions from 8 years ago.. Is that HARD? Can't FIND any? Why is that???

 

[threegoofs]

So you blow up the list of institutional endorsements as being nothing but policy statements from a front office committee and the 5 and 8 yr. old "polls" of opinion --- Which ARE NOT OPINION ---- come up...

All they did is read the abstracts of technical papers and "DIVINED" opinion in a place that SHOULD BE devoid of opinion.. Didn't read if their research PROVED any of the comments in the abstracts. It's absurd..

GO ASK THEM specific questions. Like what percentage of the observed warming is due to man.. Or what the temperature anomaly will be in 2100... Or if they can PROJECT THAT? And do it now or in the past few years.

Don't give me any of these Karnack INTERPRETATION of opinions from 8 years ago.. Is that HARD? Can't FIND any? Why is that???

If this was written with coherent syntax, maybe I could respond.

Either way, only a fool or someone who denies reality thinks there is not a firm consensus on AGW, as outlined in the IPCC reports.

Just spending a little but of time reading scientific journals is all it takes to establish that fact.

If you actually interact with scientists in the field, as I often have, it's about as clear as the acceptance that microorganisms cause disease.

Even the deniers in science accept that they are out on the fringe. Because any idiot can see that.

 

[flacaltenn]

So you blow up the list of institutional endorsements as being nothing but policy statements from a front office committee and the 5 and 8 yr. old "polls" of opinion --- Which ARE NOT OPINION ---- come up...

All they did is read the abstracts of technical papers and "DIVINED" opinion in a place that SHOULD BE devoid of opinion.. Didn't read if their research PROVED any of the comments in the abstracts. It's absurd..

GO ASK THEM specific questions. Like what percentage of the observed warming is due to man.. Or what the temperature anomaly will be in 2100... Or if they can PROJECT THAT? And do it now or in the past few years.

Don't give me any of these Karnack INTERPRETATION of opinions from 8 years ago.. Is that HARD? Can't FIND any? Why is that???

If this was written with coherent syntax, maybe I could respond.

Either way, only a fool or someone who denies reality thinks there is not a firm consensus on AGW, as outlined in the IPCC reports.

Just spending a little but of time reading scientific journals is all it takes to establish that fact.

If you actually interact with scientists in the field, as I often have, it's about as clear as the acceptance that microorganisms cause disease.

Even the deniers in science accept that they are out on the fringe. Because any idiot can see that.

IPCC predictions have failed.. In less than 20 years since they were run. IPCC cops to this. All of the hysteria has been toned waaay the hell down.

So what "agreement" are you referring to? The ORIGINAL HYSTERIA that labeled Global Warming as a sure thing Crisis of Biblical proportions? Or the continuous walk-back of the predictions and the mistakes that we have been seeing over the past 10 years??

Just answer me ONE QUESTION -- What is the temperature anomaly going to be 2100??

You seem to wanna simplify this proposition to a juvenile level -- so let's find out YOUR VERSION of what this Global Warming IS.. Go ahead --- in your OWN WORDS.. Explain the coming crisis using specific SCIENTIFIC proven facts....

Shouldn't be hard since you're a scientist and all and have reviewed so much of the available literature..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Back to the OP......
Which is likely to be more correct? One method treats all the measurements in the same fashion, the other adjusts its adjustments according to 'expectations'.

The one making adjustments for errors.

and by 'errors' you mean data that refuses to acknowledge Manmade Global Climate warming change

 

[flacaltenn]

This is the only one of Cricks that was DONE by climate scientists and asked realistic questions..
And CrickHam didn't even understand the LACK of consensus that it demonstrates. AND IT'S OLD..


Bray and von Storch, 2008
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Germany, conducted an online survey in August 2008, of 2,059 climate scientists from 34 different countries, the third survey on this topic by these authors.[12] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 375 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18%. The climate change consensus results were published by Bray,[13] and another paper has also been published based on the survey.[14]


This is BEST of the old surveys because von Storch designed the questions. NONE of the biased summaries I've ever seen convey the IMPORTANCE of this poll..

On scales of 1 to 7 for 76 technical questions about GW theory and research -- the number of scientists giving 6 or 7 answers to those important questions --- is very small..

THAT is NOT an unconditional -- "the science is settled --- no debate result"..

DARE YOU warmers to STUDY it --- and come back and tell me there is any kind of unconditional consensus on this science..

Pay specific attention to the questions about whether Climate science has been subjected to political influence.. For the rest of us --- BOOKMARK IT ---- because for anyone who can follow the debate --- it shows how shallow the scientific opinion on a consensus really is..

 

[westwall]

Westwall,
I understand you don't think much of Cook. You've told us so repeatedly. What I don't hear are your opinions regarding:

Oreskes, 2004
STATS, 2007
Bray and von Storch, 2008
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010
Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011
Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012
Powell, 2013

All of whom found very similar results.

All of them use the same cooked up numbers and all of them are a driving part of the fraud so yeah, I think about as much of them as i do a turd in the toilet.

 

[flacaltenn]

The Bray and von Storch-survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2008: report, codebook and XLS data | Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch - Academia.edu



The Bray and von Storch-survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2008: report, codebook and XLS data | Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch - Academia.edu



11d. Current theory development for climate change is


very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate
Variable | ObsMeanStd. Dev.Min Max
------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q16 | 372 3.967742 1.275535 1


You guys need to stop making LISTS and ripping off Wiki and actually STUDY a bit....
Nearly NONE of them said Very adequate......

 

[flacaltenn]

11c. The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate

And below it ---

11d. Current theory development for climate change is
very inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very adequate

Thanks CrickHam -- I had forgotten how good this material is to make you look ridiculous with your CONSENSUS claims.. Bunch of whining babies running around with scissors and whining... Too bad you can't read graphs.. This shit is da bomb...

Not a single 7 response for the top question...
Basically, the questions here are ---- "" Do we know what we what we're doing?"""
Answer is ---- "Kinda"

 

[gipper]

It is only a matter of time before the radical left warmers start rounding up deniers and shipping them to the gulag...the radical left loves gulags.

I am sure we have posters here that would be fine with it. Hell those damn deniers are so stupid they deserve to be imprisoned...right?

Will you ever post anything relevant to the subject? Or just indulge in the victimization fantasies. Damn, you are one dumb asshole.

No. Because AGW is NOT relevant. It is a hoax...and you believe it.

No doubt you would love to see me imprisoned in your beloved gulag.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just one more -- this is such fun..

9. How much do you think the direction of research in the climate change sciences has beeninfluenced by external politics in the last 10 years?

very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all

Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev.Min Max
-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q11 | 373 2.983914 1.451643 1 7

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
I lied -- one more --- PLEASE !!!!! This one is for GoldiRocks -- AKA ChickenLittle..
Top Graph ONLY ...... (they come in pairs for some reason in the image views.. )


16. How would you rate the ability of global climate models to:
16i. model extreme events for the next 10 years

very poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very good

Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev.Min Max
------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q40 | 365 2.753425 1.300685 1 7

Loving it.. Think I'll read it all again...

 

[threegoofs]

So you blow up the list of institutional endorsements as being nothing but policy statements from a front office committee and the 5 and 8 yr. old "polls" of opinion --- Which ARE NOT OPINION ---- come up...

All they did is read the abstracts of technical papers and "DIVINED" opinion in a place that SHOULD BE devoid of opinion.. Didn't read if their research PROVED any of the comments in the abstracts. It's absurd..

GO ASK THEM specific questions. Like what percentage of the observed warming is due to man.. Or what the temperature anomaly will be in 2100... Or if they can PROJECT THAT? And do it now or in the past few years.

Don't give me any of these Karnack INTERPRETATION of opinions from 8 years ago.. Is that HARD? Can't FIND any? Why is that???

If this was written with coherent syntax, maybe I could respond.

Either way, only a fool or someone who denies reality thinks there is not a firm consensus on AGW, as outlined in the IPCC reports.

Just spending a little but of time reading scientific journals is all it takes to establish that fact.

If you actually interact with scientists in the field, as I often have, it's about as clear as the acceptance that microorganisms cause disease.

Even the deniers in science accept that they are out on the fringe. Because any idiot can see that.

IPCC predictions have failed.. In less than 20 years since they were run. IPCC cops to this. All of the hysteria has been toned waaay the hell down.

So what "agreement" are you referring to? The ORIGINAL HYSTERIA that labeled Global Warming as a sure thing Crisis of Biblical proportions? Or the continuous walk-back of the predictions and the mistakes that we have been seeing over the past 10 years??

Just answer me ONE QUESTION -- What is the temperature anomaly going to be 2100??

You seem to wanna simplify this proposition to a juvenile level -- so let's find out YOUR VERSION of what this Global Warming IS.. Go ahead --- in your OWN WORDS.. Explain the coming crisis using specific SCIENTIFIC proven facts....

Shouldn't be hard since you're a scientist and all and have reviewed so much of the available literature..

I showed you already, the IPCC predictions have been reasonably close, and they are really less accurate in the short term than long term. I even showed you this with YOUR posted data that you didn't understand.

The temperature anomaly in 2100 is not predictable without baseline assumptions about future emissions.

For the best estimates, look at the RCP projections from the IPCC- RCP pathway 6.9 is a conservative guess, which puts the temp anomaly between 2-4 degrees C, (86-06 baseline) with a sea level increase of about a half meter.

 

[gipper]

It is only a matter of time before the radical left warmers start rounding up deniers and shipping them to the gulag...the radical left loves gulags.

I am sure we have posters here that would be fine with it. Hell those damn deniers are so stupid they deserve to be imprisoned...right?

Crick is a fan of offing the deniers

Makes one wonder what percentage of warmers would like to see a denier holocaust. A new Killing Fields might be just fine with them.

Po' baby. Do you check under your bed at night? Do you have enough firearms in your bed with you? Have you at least 1000 rounds of ammo on the nightstand? Cannot be too careful, you know.

My goodness, this just gets funnier with every day.

no...just know my history, unlike you...and the Left has a long history of killing and enslaving. When will you ever learn?