Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[Markle]

Link, or be shown to be a lying asshole.

You really should read some sources that are not hoodwinked Global Warming suckers.

 

[Markle]

Where's the link to the change in the interpretation of the ice cores?

NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special

Excerpt:
"NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special"

jc, nothing about ice cores in that, you lying SOB. And John Coleman has zero credentials or credibility.

NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special

NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special
Press Release From: KUSI-TV
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010

Climate researchers have discovered that NASA researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." KUSI-TV meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman John Coleman will present these findings in a one-hour special airing on KUSI-TV on Jan.14 at 9 p.m. A related report will be made available on the Internet at 6 p.m. EST on January 14th at www.kusi.com.

In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D'Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations. The report is available online at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf.

dude, to change the past records, one would have to change the noted temperature anomalies taken from ice cores. Not sure how else they can change 6000 year old records.

jc, that was not your claim. You claimed they changed the data from the cores. Since you can find that data in many papers on Google Scholar, it should be very easy for you to back up that claim. You cannot because that claim is pulled out of your ass, and smells like the shit it is.

Don't you ever get tired of being proven to be an asshole liar?

As I prove you a wrong...again, you are really going to hate my post following this one.

 

[Markle]

Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records

by JAMES DELINGPOLE28 Apr 20161,726

You’ve read about the climate fraud committed ‘on an unbelievable scale’ by the shysters at NASA.
You’ve read about how NOAA overestimated US warming by 50 percent.

Now it’s NSIDC’s turn to be caught red-handed fiddling the data and cooking the books.

NSIDC – National Snow and Ice Data Center – is the US government agency which provides the official statistics on such matters as sea ice coverage in the Arctic.

Naturally its research is of paramount importance to the climate alarmists’ narrative that man-made global warming is causing the polar ice caps to melt. At least it was until those ice caps refused to play ball…

Where the alarmists have for years been doomily predicting ice free summers in the Arctic – according to Al Gore in 2007, 2008 and 2009 it would be gone by 2013 – the truth is that multi-year ice has been staging a recovery since 2009.



So what do you do if reality doesn’t suit your narrative? Simple. If you’re NSIDC (and NASA and NOAA…) you just change reality.

Read more...if you dare....
Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records

 

[Crick]

It's a discussion board, honey. Everyone gets to talk to everyone. If you want a private conversation, take it to PM.

 

[Markle]

It's a discussion board, honey. Everyone gets to talk to everyone. If you want a private conversation, take it to PM.

I'm discussing honey, are FACTS not allowed? Several long time posters have demanded links and proof. Is that not allowed?

 

[frigidweirdo]

As per normal, you don't have a fucking clue as to what you are talking about.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2009.95
DOI
10.5670/oceanog.2009.95
The uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the global ocean induces fundamental changes in seawater chemistry that could have dramatic impacts on biological ecosystems in the upper ocean. Estimates based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) business-as-usual emission scenarios suggest that atmospheric CO2 levels could approach 800 ppm near the end of the century. Corresponding biogeochemical models for the ocean indicate that surface water pH will drop from a pre-industrial value of about 8.2 to about 7.8 in the IPCC A2 scenario by the end of this century, increasing the ocean’s acidity by about 150% relative to the beginning of the industrial era. In contemporary ocean water, elevated CO2 will also cause substantial reductions in surface water carbonate ion concentrations, in terms of either absolute changes or fractional changes relative to pre-industrial levels. For most open-ocean surface waters, aragonite undersaturation occurs when carbonate ion concentrations drop below approximately 66 μmol kg-1. The model projections indicate that aragonite undersaturation will start to occur by about 2020 in the Arctic Ocean and 2050 in the Southern Ocean. By 2050, all of the Arctic will be undersaturated with respect to aragonite, and by 2095, all of the Southern Ocean and parts of the North Pacific will be undersaturated. For calcite, undersaturation occurs when carbonate ion concentration drops below 42 μmol kg-1. By 2095, most of the Arctic and some parts of the Bering and Chukchi seas will be undersaturated with respect to calcite. However, in most of the other ocean basins, the surface waters will still be saturated with respect to calcite, but at a level greatly reduced from the present.

Good old rocks...you have a failing model, or a prediction based on a failing model for every occasion, don't you...Your link is chock full of could, estimates, suggestions, models, indications based on models, and on and on...Once again, no actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW.....just more models and baseless predictions founded upon them. Good job....not.

It must be great when you go into a debate and you know what you're going to say to any evidence presented. You just say it's a model that doesn't work based on evident that isn't good. Then you feel like you can't lose.

The problem happens when things go wrong, I mean, like the world goes wrong, then what?

well, why is it when it is proven to be a model and not observed, do the warmers continue to post the same exact material. What is it that you all can't understand about the word Observed? Have you looked that word up and if so, do you even understand its meaning? I have to say, you are truly funny that you can't figure out the difference between what is modeled data and observed data. Funny. Hey, can you science? I didn't think so, cause you have no clue.

Scientists do their thing. What they then publish gets reported. What people do with information after the fact is not the fault of the scientists, is it?

You keep going on about "observed", I understand what it means, however you seem to be using it as some kind of tool to be able to ignore everything.

Observed is what is seen. Observed can be seen in a variety of different ways. Ice core is observed. But maybe you'd say this isn't observed. Words often convey what people THINK they convey, and two people might have different views on what this word is saying in a specific context.

As for me having no clue. This is the last warning, if you continue to try and use silly tricks like this, i'm out of this conversation with you.

yes ice cores are observed. why are scientists changing the records off of those ice cores?

Which scientists are changing the records?

 

[frigidweirdo]

However look at the seas. The PH levels are going down, the CO2 levels are rising massive, and it just happens to coincide with humanity pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Which part of what I've said do you disagree with?

What do you suppose the Ph levels were just prior to the beginning of the present ice age when atmospheric CO2 levels were in excess of 1000ppm?...and how do you suppose CO2 levels got that high...and higher without the aid of internal combustion engines? In fact, if you look at the history of the earth, the present 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2 represents an atmosphere that is positively starved for CO2....not massive CO2 levels at all.

The Earth has changed. In the past CO2 was much higher. Then again it didn't have the current crop of animals on the planet for the most part.

Co2 levels may very well have changed dramatically killing off everything in the seas, or it may well have changed over time allowing for evolution to take its time in changing those creatures and allowing them to adapt.

However this isn't necessarily the point here.

The point is that we are killing the seas. We're going somewhere where we don't know the consequences of our actions.

Now, the planet will probably survive. But will humans? Will CO2 levels rise to a point where the seas die, leading to CO2 and other greenhouse gases making the planet inhospitable to humans?

This is really the main point about what we're doing to the planet.

Please show me your source and link to a reliable source that CO2 is the only cause of changes in the ocean. What do any and all green plants produce at night?

I didn't say that CO2 is the only cause of change in the oceans.

So what percentage? Is CO2 NOT an absolute necessity for plant growth in the oceans?

What percentage? Well that would depend on what type of damage you're looking at, which part of the ocean you're looking at and a whole host of other things.

In the end giving a percentage is completely pointless. All aspects need to be looked at and attempts at fixing them made.

Yes, CO2 is essential for plants. Just as Oxygen is essential for humans, yet too much Oxygen will poison humans, and too much CO2 will poison the air and the seas.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Lordy, lordy, Cannot read a simple graph, eh. The current ice ages began about 2 million years ago. And the CO2 level was considerably less than 1000 ppm at that time. Since the Tertiary is roughly 65 millions years in length, two million years ago is hardly the midpoint.

So rocks....in order to melt the ice at one or both poles, and effectively end the ice age, the average mean temperature would need to reach about 18C...when has that happened?

My goodness, SSDD, you do enjoy playing the complete idiot. Melt enough ice to raise the sea level three feet, and most of the seaports in the world are in major trouble. With just on increase of 20 ppm over the normal 280, during the eemian period, about 130,000 years ago, the sea level was at least 20 feet higher than today. We have not even began to see the results of the present 400+ ppm in the atmosphere today. But that same inertia in the system means that when we do see it, we will be seeing it for a long time.

huh? Melting ice where?

Antarctica, where it matters.

Let me guess, you'll pull charts of ice covering a wider areas as "evidence" that there's MORE ice, even though it fails to take into account the thickness of that ice.

Was it NOT forecast, ten or so years ago, that the Arctic would be ICE FREE? Just curious....

I'm sorry, what? You've jumped from talking about the amount of ice, to suddenly talking about some scientists (being neither you nor me) talking about ice free summers.... how did you make this leap? And would you like to stay on the line of conversation and answer my post?

 

[Markle]

Good old rocks...you have a failing model, or a prediction based on a failing model for every occasion, don't you...Your link is chock full of could, estimates, suggestions, models, indications based on models, and on and on...Once again, no actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW.....just more models and baseless predictions founded upon them. Good job....not.

It must be great when you go into a debate and you know what you're going to say to any evidence presented. You just say it's a model that doesn't work based on evident that isn't good. Then you feel like you can't lose.

The problem happens when things go wrong, I mean, like the world goes wrong, then what?

well, why is it when it is proven to be a model and not observed, do the warmers continue to post the same exact material. What is it that you all can't understand about the word Observed? Have you looked that word up and if so, do you even understand its meaning? I have to say, you are truly funny that you can't figure out the difference between what is modeled data and observed data. Funny. Hey, can you science? I didn't think so, cause you have no clue.

Scientists do their thing. What they then publish gets reported. What people do with information after the fact is not the fault of the scientists, is it?

You keep going on about "observed", I understand what it means, however you seem to be using it as some kind of tool to be able to ignore everything.

Observed is what is seen. Observed can be seen in a variety of different ways. Ice core is observed. But maybe you'd say this isn't observed. Words often convey what people THINK they convey, and two people might have different views on what this word is saying in a specific context.

As for me having no clue. This is the last warning, if you continue to try and use silly tricks like this, i'm out of this conversation with you.

yes ice cores are observed. why are scientists changing the records off of those ice cores?

Which scientists are changing the records?

Please read the article. It too has links. You're not going to like them, though they are factual. I know, you want things that feel good, make you feel warm and fuzzy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It must be great when you go into a debate and you know what you're going to say to any evidence presented. You just say it's a model that doesn't work based on evident that isn't good. Then you feel like you can't lose.

The problem happens when things go wrong, I mean, like the world goes wrong, then what?

well, why is it when it is proven to be a model and not observed, do the warmers continue to post the same exact material. What is it that you all can't understand about the word Observed? Have you looked that word up and if so, do you even understand its meaning? I have to say, you are truly funny that you can't figure out the difference between what is modeled data and observed data. Funny. Hey, can you science? I didn't think so, cause you have no clue.

Scientists do their thing. What they then publish gets reported. What people do with information after the fact is not the fault of the scientists, is it?

You keep going on about "observed", I understand what it means, however you seem to be using it as some kind of tool to be able to ignore everything.

Observed is what is seen. Observed can be seen in a variety of different ways. Ice core is observed. But maybe you'd say this isn't observed. Words often convey what people THINK they convey, and two people might have different views on what this word is saying in a specific context.

As for me having no clue. This is the last warning, if you continue to try and use silly tricks like this, i'm out of this conversation with you.

yes ice cores are observed. why are scientists changing the records off of those ice cores?

Which scientists are changing the records?

Please read the article. It too has links. You're not going to like them, though they are factual. I know, you want things that feel good, make you feel warm and fuzzy.

Are you making your argument, or am I making your argument?

 

[Crick]

It's a discussion board, honey. Everyone gets to talk to everyone. If you want a private conversation, take it to PM.

I'm discussing honey, are FACTS not allowed? Several long time posters have demanded links and proof. Is that not allowed?

The comment was to Skull Pilot.

And if you really want to pull up a blog from electrical engineer and well-known fuck up Tony Heller (nee Steven Goddard) as "proof", you go right ahead.

 

[Old Rocks]

Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records

by JAMES DELINGPOLE28 Apr 20161,726

You’ve read about the climate fraud committed ‘on an unbelievable scale’ by the shysters at NASA.
You’ve read about how NOAA overestimated US warming by 50 percent.

Now it’s NSIDC’s turn to be caught red-handed fiddling the data and cooking the books.

NSIDC – National Snow and Ice Data Center – is the US government agency which provides the official statistics on such matters as sea ice coverage in the Arctic.

Naturally its research is of paramount importance to the climate alarmists’ narrative that man-made global warming is causing the polar ice caps to melt. At least it was until those ice caps refused to play ball…

Where the alarmists have for years been doomily predicting ice free summers in the Arctic – according to Al Gore in 2007, 2008 and 2009 it would be gone by 2013 – the truth is that multi-year ice has been staging a recovery since 2009.



So what do you do if reality doesn’t suit your narrative? Simple. If you’re NSIDC (and NASA and NOAA…) you just change reality.

Read more...if you dare....
Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records

Breibart? You consider that a credible source? Really? Damn.

 

[SSDD]

It's a discussion board, honey. Everyone gets to talk to everyone. If you want a private conversation, take it to PM.

Try to remember that when people you weren't talking to start asking you uncomfortable questions...you are the first to cry that you were talking to someone else.

 

[Markle]

Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records

by JAMES DELINGPOLE28 Apr 20161,726

You’ve read about the climate fraud committed ‘on an unbelievable scale’ by the shysters at NASA.
You’ve read about how NOAA overestimated US warming by 50 percent.

Now it’s NSIDC’s turn to be caught red-handed fiddling the data and cooking the books.

NSIDC – National Snow and Ice Data Center – is the US government agency which provides the official statistics on such matters as sea ice coverage in the Arctic.

Naturally its research is of paramount importance to the climate alarmists’ narrative that man-made global warming is causing the polar ice caps to melt. At least it was until those ice caps refused to play ball…

Where the alarmists have for years been doomily predicting ice free summers in the Arctic – according to Al Gore in 2007, 2008 and 2009 it would be gone by 2013 – the truth is that multi-year ice has been staging a recovery since 2009.



So what do you do if reality doesn’t suit your narrative? Simple. If you’re NSIDC (and NASA and NOAA…) you just change reality.

Read more...if you dare....
Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records

Breibart? You consider that a credible source? Really? Damn.

Cute try my good friend. AS YOU KNOW, Breitbart, as many sites, simply research and post news articles from other sites. The same is true here, this is not an original article, this comes from a reliable source. One, as you know, you can find with a simple search on Bing.

I understand you are extremely frustrated and desperate since you are unable to refute anything in the post. So you lash out with a childish, meaningless accusation.

Keep up the good work, soon...perhaps...you'll post something of substance.

 

[Markle]

It's a discussion board, honey. Everyone gets to talk to everyone. If you want a private conversation, take it to PM.

I'm discussing honey, are FACTS not allowed? Several long time posters have demanded links and proof. Is that not allowed?

The comment was to Skull Pilot.

And if you really want to pull up a blog from electrical engineer and well-known fuck up Tony Heller (nee Steven Goddard) as "proof", you go right ahead.

Why would you be boasting about having NOTHING?

 

[Crick]

I have the IPCC's AR1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and the tens of thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies on which they are based. What have you got?

 

[Markle]

I have the IPCC's AR1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and the tens of thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies on which they are based. What have you got?

FACTS AND TRUTH. Piece of cake.

As you know, your thousands of peer reviewed studies have proven to be bogus, once again.

 

[Crick]

Please explain why you think so.

 

[IanC]

Please explain why you think so.

would it make any difference to you if he did explain why he thought so? in detail, with links, etc?

I have done so in the past and you simply handwave away any evidence that politics plays a strong role in what the the IPCC states are the conclusions to be drawn from the truncated list of evidence provided in its reports.

 

[SSDD]

I have the IPCC's AR1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and the tens of thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies on which they are based. What have you got?

the real question is...what do they have?....I have been asking for some observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW and you guys don't seem to be able to come with the first bit....tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers and not a shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence...that is a joke....you guys are a joke...and climate pseudoscience is a joke.