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

[threegoofs]

[/B][/COLOR]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.

Tell me how this simple scientific 'fact' that NOAA and NASA are missing only happens to be discovered by a wildly right wing paper and the rest of the scientific community missed this error?

 

[threegoofs]

Might as well throw this AMS membership question in there as well..

About 30% of the membership that sees a conflict within the society are reluctant to bring the topic up in AMS meetings and forums..


11. I am reluctant to bring up the topic of global warming in AMS meetings or other AMS forums. [Asked if answer to Question 8 is “Strongly agree” or “Somewhat agree”]

Strongly agree 9%
Somewhat agree 20%
Neither agree nor disagree 27%
Somewhat disagree 17%
Strongly disagree 27%

Yeppers -- that society is WHOLE HOG on the Global Weirding Bandwagon.. Aint they????

HEY 3Toes (or whatever the newbie name is) --- How about some more MEMBERSHIP views from all those prestigious science endorsements that you and Roxy value so highly.. I love reading them...

I think EVERY ONE of those organization endorsements ought to be accompanied by a membership poll like this one.. Don't you guys????

The AMS is mostly made up of TV weathermen. Not sure why you think their views are critical.

Generally, the more accomplished and educated the scientist is in climatology, the more likely they are to say AGW is a significant problem.

See Anderegg, et al 2010 in PNAS.

 

[threegoofs]

Go find a consensus TODAY... It doesn't exist.. Unless the questions are juvenile and unimportant.. Like is the climate changing? Or does man "have a role" in that change.

A consensus certainly exists today. And it's stronger than its been in the past. Look at the last IPCC. Heck- glance at any scientific journal, from the top ones to Scientific American- they all agree with the NAS, AGU, and the AAAS.

You're living in the hottest year of the hottest decade ever directly recorded. And it was predicted almost 30 years ago, fairly closely. That's pretty good evidence right there.

It was predicted 30 years ago fool?

Post a link?

And if you say you are a "scientist"

Give me day to day data of the oceans temperature between 1870 (when great Britains challenger was launched to for that one year cruise )~ 2004 when we started monitoring the oceans temperatures

Well, here's an even older one, from about 35 years ago.

http://m.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957

Here's a good explanation of what it looked like decades later, written by climatologists:

Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection

Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection

From Hansen?

Your high priest ?

Give me something else and I see you can't give me any ocean temperature data from 1870 to 2004...

Ocean temperture records | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I posted the study. I posted the explanation. It eviscerates your point.

And you blow past it and whine about getting some other link.

I don't think I'll play wack-a-mole with you- you've demonstrated you have no argument other than 'nuh-uh'.

 

[threegoofs]

threegoofs is a newbie who doesn't know much of anything but what the gullible press spoonfeeds the public. As is evident by his posts and responses.

No shit a high school kid.

Well, if you think I'm a high school kid, it doesn't say a whole lot about how far your education went.

Try me at trivia pursuit bitch

LOL. Yep. When you think trivial pursuit somehow reflects a good education, I think I see what level you're coming from.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Go find a consensus TODAY... It doesn't exist.. Unless the questions are juvenile and unimportant.. Like is the climate changing? Or does man "have a role" in that change.

A consensus certainly exists today. And it's stronger than its been in the past. Look at the last IPCC. Heck- glance at any scientific journal, from the top ones to Scientific American- they all agree with the NAS, AGU, and the AAAS.

You're living in the hottest year of the hottest decade ever directly recorded. And it was predicted almost 30 years ago, fairly closely. That's pretty good evidence right there.

It was predicted 30 years ago fool?

Post a link?

And if you say you are a "scientist"

Give me day to day data of the oceans temperature between 1870 (when great Britains challenger was launched to for that one year cruise )~ 2004 when we started monitoring the oceans temperatures

Well, here's an even older one, from about 35 years ago.

Science | From AAAS

Here's a good explanation of what it looked like decades later, written by climatologists:

Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection

Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection

From Hansen?

Your high priest ?

Give me something else and I see you can't give me any ocean temperature data from 1870 to 2004...

Ocean temperture records | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I posted the study. I posted the explanation. It eviscerates your point.

And you blow past it and whine about getting some other link.

I don't think I'll play wack-a-mole with you- you've demonstrated you have no argument other than 'nuh-uh'.

Wack -a-mole?

Seriously dumb fuck pretend scientist?

Wack -a-mole?

That comes out of the children's obama cabinet play list moron.


God you are a fucking child.

 

[Wyatt earp]

threegoofs is a newbie who doesn't know much of anything but what the gullible press spoonfeeds the public. As is evident by his posts and responses.

No shit a high school kid.

Well, if you think I'm a high school kid, it doesn't say a whole lot about how far your education went.

Try me at trivia pursuit bitch

LOL. Yep. When you think trivial pursuit somehow reflects a good education, I think I see what level you're coming from.

Its called wisdom , no the difference between knowledge and wisdom child.

 

[threegoofs]

A consensus certainly exists today. And it's stronger than its been in the past. Look at the last IPCC. Heck- glance at any scientific journal, from the top ones to Scientific American- they all agree with the NAS, AGU, and the AAAS.

You're living in the hottest year of the hottest decade ever directly recorded. And it was predicted almost 30 years ago, fairly closely. That's pretty good evidence right there.

It was predicted 30 years ago fool?

Post a link?

And if you say you are a "scientist"

Give me day to day data of the oceans temperature between 1870 (when great Britains challenger was launched to for that one year cruise )~ 2004 when we started monitoring the oceans temperatures

Well, here's an even older one, from about 35 years ago.

Science | From AAAS

Here's a good explanation of what it looked like decades later, written by climatologists:

Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection

Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection

From Hansen?

Your high priest ?

Give me something else and I see you can't give me any ocean temperature data from 1870 to 2004...

Ocean temperture records | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I posted the study. I posted the explanation. It eviscerates your point.

And you blow past it and whine about getting some other link.

I don't think I'll play wack-a-mole with you- you've demonstrated you have no argument other than 'nuh-uh'.

Wack -a-mole?

Seriously dumb fuck pretend scientist?

Wack -a-mole?

That comes out of the children's obama cabinet play list moron.


God you are a fucking child.

Apparently a child that's presented you with a data analysis you're too frickin stupid to understand.

But you know Hansens name (trivia) so you dismiss it.

And then get all pissy when it's pointed out that you don't have the capacity to understand it, despite the fact that you whined for hours about not getting the reference, like I sit on line all the time just eager to produce whatever irrelevant crap you demand.

 

[Wyatt earp]

[/B][/COLOR]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.

Tell me how this simple scientific 'fact' that NOAA and NASA are missing only happens to be discovered by a wildly right wing paper and the rest of the scientific community missed this error?

Give me names

Don't throw out random shit ...

I want names

 

[Wyatt earp]

It was predicted 30 years ago fool?

Post a link?

And if you say you are a "scientist"

Give me day to day data of the oceans temperature between 1870 (when great Britains challenger was launched to for that one year cruise )~ 2004 when we started monitoring the oceans temperatures

Well, here's an even older one, from about 35 years ago.

Science | From AAAS

Here's a good explanation of what it looked like decades later, written by climatologists:

Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection

Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection

From Hansen?

Your high priest ?

Give me something else and I see you can't give me any ocean temperature data from 1870 to 2004...

Ocean temperture records | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I posted the study. I posted the explanation. It eviscerates your point.

And you blow past it and whine about getting some other link.

I don't think I'll play wack-a-mole with you- you've demonstrated you have no argument other than 'nuh-uh'.

Wack -a-mole?

Seriously dumb fuck pretend scientist?

Wack -a-mole?

That comes out of the children's obama cabinet play list moron.


God you are a fucking child.

Apparently a child that's presented you with a data analysis you're too frickin stupid to understand.

But you know Hansens name (trivia) so you dismiss it.

And then get all pissy when it's pointed out that you don't have the capacity to understand it, despite the fact that you whined for hours about not getting the reference, like I sit on line all the time just eager to produce whatever irrelevant crap you demand.

I love fucking with your ilk type because it's so fun to confuse you...

 

[threegoofs]

Well, here's an even older one, from about 35 years ago.

Science | From AAAS

Here's a good explanation of what it looked like decades later, written by climatologists:

Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection

Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection

From Hansen?

Your high priest ?

Give me something else and I see you can't give me any ocean temperature data from 1870 to 2004...

Ocean temperture records | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I posted the study. I posted the explanation. It eviscerates your point.

And you blow past it and whine about getting some other link.

I don't think I'll play wack-a-mole with you- you've demonstrated you have no argument other than 'nuh-uh'.

Wack -a-mole?

Seriously dumb fuck pretend scientist?

Wack -a-mole?

That comes out of the children's obama cabinet play list moron.


God you are a fucking child.

Apparently a child that's presented you with a data analysis you're too frickin stupid to understand.

But you know Hansens name (trivia) so you dismiss it.

And then get all pissy when it's pointed out that you don't have the capacity to understand it, despite the fact that you whined for hours about not getting the reference, like I sit on line all the time just eager to produce whatever irrelevant crap you demand.

I love fucking with your ilk type because it's so fun to confuse you...

I'm not confused.

I know you're just another barely literate denier who's stance on the matter is defined by ignorance.

 

[Wyatt earp]

From Hansen?

Your high priest ?

Give me something else and I see you can't give me any ocean temperature data from 1870 to 2004...

Ocean temperture records | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I posted the study. I posted the explanation. It eviscerates your point.

And you blow past it and whine about getting some other link.

I don't think I'll play wack-a-mole with you- you've demonstrated you have no argument other than 'nuh-uh'.

Wack -a-mole?

Seriously dumb fuck pretend scientist?

Wack -a-mole?

That comes out of the children's obama cabinet play list moron.


God you are a fucking child.

Apparently a child that's presented you with a data analysis you're too frickin stupid to understand.

But you know Hansens name (trivia) so you dismiss it.

And then get all pissy when it's pointed out that you don't have the capacity to understand it, despite the fact that you whined for hours about not getting the reference, like I sit on line all the time just eager to produce whatever irrelevant crap you demand.

I love fucking with your ilk type because it's so fun to confuse you...

I'm not confused.

I know you're just another barely literate denier who's stance on the matter is defined by ignorance.

Still no names and ocean temperature records between 1870 ~2004

Ok , like I take your post seriously fruit loop. .

 

[threegoofs]

I posted the study. I posted the explanation. It eviscerates your point.

And you blow past it and whine about getting some other link.

I don't think I'll play wack-a-mole with you- you've demonstrated you have no argument other than 'nuh-uh'.

Wack -a-mole?

Seriously dumb fuck pretend scientist?

Wack -a-mole?

That comes out of the children's obama cabinet play list moron.


God you are a fucking child.

Apparently a child that's presented you with a data analysis you're too frickin stupid to understand.

But you know Hansens name (trivia) so you dismiss it.

And then get all pissy when it's pointed out that you don't have the capacity to understand it, despite the fact that you whined for hours about not getting the reference, like I sit on line all the time just eager to produce whatever irrelevant crap you demand.

I love fucking with your ilk type because it's so fun to confuse you...

I'm not confused.

I know you're just another barely literate denier who's stance on the matter is defined by ignorance.

Still no names and ocean temperature records between 1870 ~2004

Ok , like I take your post seriously fruit loop. .

If you want it, look it up, troll.

I'd suggest you first tackle the other reference you asked for...although I think we both know you can't since it's a pretty decent prediction of what has happened from 1981.

You are in the hottest year of the hottest decade ever recorded. And the science told you that was going to happen, but you're too dense to understand.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I love fucking with your ilk type because it's so fun to confuse you...

I'm not confused.

I know you're just another barely literate denier who's stance on the matter is defined by ignorance.

Still no names and ocean temperature records between 1870 ~2004

Ok , like I take your post seriously fruit loop. .

If you want it, look it up, troll.

I'd suggest you first tackle the other reference you asked for...although I think we both know you can't since it's a pretty decent prediction of what has happened from 1981.

You are in the hottest year of the hottest decade ever recorded. And the science told you that was going to happen, but you're too dense to understand.

How much they paying you child to say it was the hottest by a tenth of a degree?

Not a troll by along shot been on this forum for a few year's...

You on the other hand is a noob a paid government troll like green peace on obama care..

Give it up bitch, I know you are a obama paid troll.

You can't reason your way out of a paper bag, yet somehow think people are paid to be on message boards to try to confuse you with facts.

What a piece of work.

Sooooooo

Lets recap noob

First you claim you were a scientist.. Well that lie didn't work out for you, then you post crap about Hansen, that didn't work out for you.

You couldn't give me data on the oceans temperature between 1870 ~2004.
I am starting to get bored of you..

I hate fibbers on here.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You stated that their statements were out of date, and did not reflect current knowledge. Is the statement from the Royal Society up to date enough for you? 21July15.

Then you want to call these statements just press releases. Well of course, that is what you create a statement for, to release to the general public through the press what the consensus of opinion is on a subject within that Scientific Society.

Wow.

I've seen some bad deniers on some boards, but these guys take the cake.

Paid shill poster! thanks for the admission.

 

[Billy_Bob]

[
Bullshit. The amount of increase that is claimed is so slight that it is impossible for the tools we have to measure that fine. Period. The only way they can come up with those silly reports is to massage the raw data through their computers and voila! They have whatever bullshit number they want. But the numbers are still that...bullshit. Not born out by fact.

Love the confident statements.

But I would trust a link more.

And let's make it a scientific link, not some denier website.

Now this is dam funny! You would trust a link more but your ok with your side hiding their work, denying access to their data and methods while saying "trust US". This is like you using John Cooks site Skeptical Science and telling us its factual... the Lies abound!

 

[Billy_Bob]

According to the NCEP reanalysis data, August 2015 was the warmest on record by 0.08C.

2015 16.149
2014 16.069
2012 16.039
2003 16.021
2013 16.012

WOW... 0.08 degs F... when the margin of error of the ground stations is above 0.2 deg C.. Tell me again how this has any meaning in the real scientific world? This is like tell us that we are unable to measure accurately below 0.2 deg C yet it was the hottest EV'A by 8 ONE HUNDREDTHS of a degree...

Statistical significance = NONE

Statistical Reliability = Less than 20%

 

[Billy_Bob]

Might as well throw this AMS membership question in there as well..

About 30% of the membership that sees a conflict within the society are reluctant to bring the topic up in AMS meetings and forums..


11. I am reluctant to bring up the topic of global warming in AMS meetings or other AMS forums. [Asked if answer to Question 8 is “Strongly agree” or “Somewhat agree”]

Strongly agree 9%
Somewhat agree 20%
Neither agree nor disagree 27%
Somewhat disagree 17%
Strongly disagree 27%

Yeppers -- that society is WHOLE HOG on the Global Weirding Bandwagon.. Aint they????

HEY 3Toes (or whatever the newbie name is) --- How about some more MEMBERSHIP views from all those prestigious science endorsements that you and Roxy value so highly.. I love reading them...

I think EVERY ONE of those organization endorsements ought to be accompanied by a membership poll like this one.. Don't you guys????

Wow 72% do not think AGW is an issue.. yet they wont thump their political masters in the head... Very sad indeed... Guess i will be sending them my letter of dissent on their political position.

 

[threegoofs]

Sooooooo

Lets recap noob

First you claim you were a scientist.. Well that lie didn't work out for you, then you post crap about Hansen, that didn't work out for you.

You couldn't give me data on the oceans temperature between 1870 ~2004.
I am starting to get bored of you..

I hate fibbers on here.

No. You challenged me to produce a prediction reference. I produced a published scientific reference and you dismissed it because...you can't actually dispute the facts. So you relied on insults and deflection.

Then you started ranting and whining about some unrelated ocean temps from random dates and I'm sure will demand something else after that because you've got nothing else.

I'd call you a liar too, but I think that assumed higher cognitive functions you haven't demonstrated here.

 

[threegoofs]

Might as well throw this AMS membership question in there as well..

About 30% of the membership that sees a conflict within the society are reluctant to bring the topic up in AMS meetings and forums..


11. I am reluctant to bring up the topic of global warming in AMS meetings or other AMS forums. [Asked if answer to Question 8 is “Strongly agree” or “Somewhat agree”]

Strongly agree 9%
Somewhat agree 20%
Neither agree nor disagree 27%
Somewhat disagree 17%
Strongly disagree 27%

Yeppers -- that society is WHOLE HOG on the Global Weirding Bandwagon.. Aint they????

HEY 3Toes (or whatever the newbie name is) --- How about some more MEMBERSHIP views from all those prestigious science endorsements that you and Roxy value so highly.. I love reading them...

I think EVERY ONE of those organization endorsements ought to be accompanied by a membership poll like this one.. Don't you guys????

Wow 72% do not think AGW is an issue.. yet they wont thump their political masters in the head... Very sad indeed... Guess i will be sending them my letter of dissent on their political position.

You fail at scientific literature analysis, dude.


What was the conclusion of that paper?

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
"DISCUSSION. Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009): 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change. These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change (Farnsworth and Lichter 2012; Bray 2010)."

 

[Billy_Bob]

[/B][/COLOR]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.

Tell me how this simple scientific 'fact' that NOAA and NASA are missing only happens to be discovered by a wildly right wing paper and the rest of the scientific community missed this error?

?? and you say your a scientist?? I am laughing my ass off...

Anyone that can interpret data knows what is coming and quickly...