Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[SSDD]

Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records

by JAMES DELINGPOLE28 Apr 20161,726

This is your expert a non Scientist

James Delingpole
Credentials
Degree in English Literature.

Here is a Key quote from James Delingpole himself
“It is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers because I simply haven't got the time … I am an interpreter of interpretations.” [4]“Climate change denier James Delingpole doesn't do science,” YouTube Video uploaded by user “sciencenotvoodo0” on January 25, 2011. Adapted from BBC one's “Science Under Attack.”

Another Key quote
“I feel a bit of an imposter talking about the science. I'm not a scientist, you may be aware. I read English Literature.” [5]“James Delingpole, ICCC6,” Viddler video retrieved from climateconference.heartland.org. Uploaded July 21, 2011.

Got anything like an actual rebuttal to his claims...or is an ad hominem attack the best you can do? Again, typical warmer mind set...ignore the data...call names and divert from the actual topic because we all know that there is no actual answer coming from you guys on the actual topic.

 

[IanC]

Sorry crick...you were the one doing the interpreting...the statements were perfectly straight forward admissions to fabricating data...here, let me refresh your memory....and your interpretation may be interesting to those who missed it the first time...
..

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

In November 2009, the servers at the University of East Anglia in Britain were illegally hacked and emails were stolen. When a selection of emails betweenclimatescientists were published on the internet, a few suggestive quotes were seized upon by many claiming global warming was all just a conspiracy. A number of independent enquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing:

1. In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that"there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded"The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
2. In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
3. In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found"no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
4. In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining"there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
5. In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the IndependentClimate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that"we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."
6. In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and"found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."
7. In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found"In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found"The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
8. In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found"no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".
9. In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded"Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".

you obviously have not looked into any of the 'Inquiries'. one of the most egregious emails pertained to Jones sending out a missive warning his companions that worked on AR4 to delete their correspondence because it appeared that FOI requests for them were coming. Jones and the others named were NEVER asked if they had deleted (or moved) that correspondence, or to prove that it was still there unchanged.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry crick...you were the one doing the interpreting...the statements were perfectly straight forward admissions to fabricating data...here, let me refresh your memory....and your interpretation may be interesting to those who missed it the first time...
..

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

In November 2009, the servers at the University of East Anglia in Britain were illegally hacked and emails were stolen. When a selection of emails betweenclimatescientists were published on the internet, a few suggestive quotes were seized upon by many claiming global warming was all just a conspiracy. A number of independent enquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing:

1. In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that"there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded"The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
2. In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
3. In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found"no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
4. In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining"there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
5. In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the IndependentClimate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that"we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."
6. In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and"found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."
7. In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found"In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found"The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
8. In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found"no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".
9. In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded"Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".

you obviously have not looked into any of the 'Inquiries'. one of the most egregious emails pertained to Jones sending out a missive warning his companions that worked on AR4 to delete their correspondence because it appeared that FOI requests for them were coming. Jones and the others named were NEVER asked if they had deleted (or moved) that correspondence, or to prove that it was still there unchanged.

Seems that climate science is about as good at investigating bad science by its practitioners as it is at climate science itself...that is....very bad...

They only look at whatever is on the approved reading list handed out by their high priests...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Seems that climate science is about as good at investigating bad science by its practitioners as it is at climate science itself...that is....very bad...

They only look at whatever is on the approved reading list handed out by their high priests...

Other than your opinion, which is worthless, do you have links or information that can be analyzed, that shows the investigations , all six of them, were not independent ...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

you obviously have not looked into any of the 'Inquiries'. one of the most egregious emails pertained to Jones sending out a missive warning his companions that worked on AR4 to delete their correspondence because it appeared that FOI requests for them were coming. Jones and the others named were NEVER asked if they had deleted (or moved) that correspondence, or to prove that it was still there unchanged.

I read what you wrote...what is your source for saying he was not asked certain questions...can you link me to your sources...otherwise I am thinking you are just making shit up..

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Got anything like an actual rebuttal to his claims...or is an ad hominem attack the best you can do? Again, typical warmer mind set...ignore the data...call names and divert from the actual topic because we all know that there is no actual answer coming from you guys on the actual topic.

Sure when the claim comes from a credible source sure I can rebut...but this dude this expert you all got is an English teacher who does not have time to look at Science [peer reviewed papers]...here is your great source in his own words once again...have you ever wondered why you all have to cite rubbish peddling bums like this asshole James Delingpole and I get to post links to real Scientist and real sources...You do know Delingpole is riffing off a Steve Goddard report that has been debunked right you read the Delingpole article right ? I did

I feel a bit of an imposter talking about the science. I'm not a scientist, you may be aware. I read English Literature.” [5]“James Delingpole, ICCC6,” Viddler video retrieved from climateconference.heartland.org. Uploaded July 21, 2011.
“It is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers because I simply haven't got the time … I am an interpreter of interpretations.” [4]“Climate change denier James Delingpole doesn't do science,” YouTube Video uploaded by user “sciencenotvoodo0” on January 25, 2011. Adapted from BBC one's “Science Under Attack.”

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Can't help but notice that you deliberately left off the quotes from your reply...that is your answer?....simply ignore the clear statements of data fabrication and go on with the claims that the investigators didn't manipulate data? That is not as funny as crick's "rationalization" but it does typify the warmer mindset...

You are just repeating yourself...there were at least six investigations of the claims of fraud...six investigations and ZERO evidence of Fraud...ZERO evidence of Scientific fraud...embrace it accept it get over it

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Clearly the "investigations"...and the "investigators" either weren't on the ball, or had a serious bias problem...the two quotes above are clear statements of data fabrication.

They should have had an "Einstein" like you in charge...LOL you are not on the ball...link to anyone who says they were sham investigation ...link to a source that says that other than you because YOU ARE NOT CREDIBLE as a source to take down NOAA NASA the whole science behind AGW

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with the early release of information (via Australia), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.? I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time....Geoff Jenkins

Clearly the "investigations"...and the "investigators" either weren't on the ball, or had a serious bias problem...the two quotes above are clear statements of data fabrication.

That was investigated yes ...all the Investigations concluded no fraud...do I have to link again ?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The English teacher Climate expert you all put up is really writing about something reported by Steven Goddard [read the article by the English teacher ] ...here is some information on Goddard
Steven Goddard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sea ice[edit]
One of Goddard's earliest writings, an article for The Register, asserted that the National Snow and Ice Data Center's (NSIDC) data underlying a chart depicting 2008 Arctic sea iceloss was incorrect and that NSIDC seemed to demonstrate "a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss."[3]Ten days later, however, Goddard acknowledged that the data on which the graph was based was accurate.[4]In 2012, another of Goddard's blog posts attracted attention. The post argued that increases in Antarctic sea ice balanced out decreases in Arctic sea ice, and accused the NSIDC of being "dissonant" about the topic.

Mark Serreze, director of the NSIDC, responded to the post by saying that the increases in Antarctic sea ice were "not a surprise to us".[5]

Claims of NASA manipulation of temperature data[edit]
In June 2014, Goddard attracted considerable media attention for his claims that NASA had manipulated temperature data to make it appear that 1998 was the hottest year in United States history. In fact, he claimed, it was 1934, but NASA had started incorrectly citing 1998 as the hottest year beginning in 2000.[6]Goddard had been promoting these claims for years before this, including in a chapter of a book by Don Easterbrook,[7] but the mainstream media had not paid significant attention to it before then.[8]Those who promoted the claim included Christopher Booker, in a June 21 article in the Daily Telegraph,[9]andFox News Channel hostSteve Doocy three days later in a Fox and Friends segment.

The claim was dismissed by Politifact.com, which rated it as "pants on fire"—its lowest possible rating. Politifact contacted Berkeley Earth energy systems analyst and environmental economist Zeke Hausfather,[10]who told them that the problem with Goddard's analysis was that it ignored the changes the network of U.S. weather stations had undergone over the last eighty years.[11]Goddard's claims were also criticized by fellow climate skeptic Anthony Watts, who argued that his assertions of data fabrication were "wrong", and criticized him for using absolute temperatures rather than anomalies in his analysis.[12]

In a response to Politifact on his blog, Goddard argued that while NASA has official reasons for the adjustments they make to temperature data, "their adjustments are highly subjective, and are subject to software and algorithm errors. Politifact’s claim is the result of a failure to understand the topic, for the following reasons. There is no question that the temperature record has been dramatically altered, to turn a long term cooling trend into a long term warming trend. No one disputes this. Anthony Watts was discussing a different specific topic related to missing station data, and has since admitted he was wrong. If you actually contact him, you will find that out."[13]

Noted global warming skeptic Judith Curry characterized Goddard's analysis of NASA's data as "bogus."[14]

 

[sealybobo]

You skeptics and deniers often say why don't we warmers make predictions that are in the short term so we can be called out for them? Well, I am going to make a few and tie them in with the enso. I am making a assumption that the global temperature will be .05-.1c warmer based on the giss dataset then we were pre-2015-2016 nino. I will put my credibility on the line and I want a mod to pin this at the top of this forum for skeptics/deniers to rip me apart when I get it wrong!

When will I be wrong?
1. IF we see a moderate nina year that turns out to be .56 or .58c...That is wrong. Rip me a part as a idiot!
2. If we see below .64c in a weak nina! Rip me apart as a idiot!

3. On the other hand it is a possibility that we may hit or break last years record in a neutral year so a high side prediction is wrong but it only proves a warming world!
-------------------------------------------------------
These are the ranges that the means should fall into. All data points GISS(Nasa)!

I will predict that Neutral years will avg near .75c-.80c for 2017-2020 and .77 to .83c for 2021 to 2024. The possibility is there that one could get over .85c during the later part of the period during a neutral year.

Weak ninas(-.5 to -.9c) could see global avg temperatures between .69-.74c. In comparison, 2005's .69 or 2014's global yearly temperature.

Moderate ninas(-1 to -1.4c) will probably see global avg yearly temperatures near .66c +- .3c. Probably warmer then 1998!

Strong Nina's(-1.5c to -2.0) will probably see .58 to .65c depending on how strong. Likelyhood of a .5c yearly global temperature will only occur in a -1.8c or above nina.

Jimmy Kimmel went off on Sarah Palin and Gw deniers last night. He explained how 97% of climate scientists believe it's human caused.

And these scientists have no hidden agenda. The only ones lying are the politicians who are paid by rich polluters so that they continue to deny.

Deniers are stupid and make me sick

 

[Wyatt earp]

You skeptics and deniers often say why don't we warmers make predictions that are in the short term so we can be called out for them? Well, I am going to make a few and tie them in with the enso. I am making a assumption that the global temperature will be .05-.1c warmer based on the giss dataset then we were pre-2015-2016 nino. I will put my credibility on the line and I want a mod to pin this at the top of this forum for skeptics/deniers to rip me apart when I get it wrong!

When will I be wrong?
1. IF we see a moderate nina year that turns out to be .56 or .58c...That is wrong. Rip me a part as a idiot!
2. If we see below .64c in a weak nina! Rip me apart as a idiot!

3. On the other hand it is a possibility that we may hit or break last years record in a neutral year so a high side prediction is wrong but it only proves a warming world!
-------------------------------------------------------
These are the ranges that the means should fall into. All data points GISS(Nasa)!

I will predict that Neutral years will avg near .75c-.80c for 2017-2020 and .77 to .83c for 2021 to 2024. The possibility is there that one could get over .85c during the later part of the period during a neutral year.

Weak ninas(-.5 to -.9c) could see global avg temperatures between .69-.74c. In comparison, 2005's .69 or 2014's global yearly temperature.

Moderate ninas(-1 to -1.4c) will probably see global avg yearly temperatures near .66c +- .3c. Probably warmer then 1998!

Strong Nina's(-1.5c to -2.0) will probably see .58 to .65c depending on how strong. Likelyhood of a .5c yearly global temperature will only occur in a -1.8c or above nina.

Jimmy Kimmel went off on Sarah Palin and Gw deniers last night. He explained how 97% of climate scientists believe it's human caused.

And these scientists have no hidden agenda. The only ones lying are the politicians who are paid by rich polluters so that they continue to deny.

Deniers are stupid and make me sick

It always amuses me how the AGW cult mixes pollution and climate change in the one topic, Damn are they that stupid they don't know the difference?


.

 

[sealybobo]

Republicans will swallow and repeat whatever their rich masters tell them.

 

[sealybobo]

You skeptics and deniers often say why don't we warmers make predictions that are in the short term so we can be called out for them? Well, I am going to make a few and tie them in with the enso. I am making a assumption that the global temperature will be .05-.1c warmer based on the giss dataset then we were pre-2015-2016 nino. I will put my credibility on the line and I want a mod to pin this at the top of this forum for skeptics/deniers to rip me apart when I get it wrong!

When will I be wrong?
1. IF we see a moderate nina year that turns out to be .56 or .58c...That is wrong. Rip me a part as a idiot!
2. If we see below .64c in a weak nina! Rip me apart as a idiot!

3. On the other hand it is a possibility that we may hit or break last years record in a neutral year so a high side prediction is wrong but it only proves a warming world!
-------------------------------------------------------
These are the ranges that the means should fall into. All data points GISS(Nasa)!

I will predict that Neutral years will avg near .75c-.80c for 2017-2020 and .77 to .83c for 2021 to 2024. The possibility is there that one could get over .85c during the later part of the period during a neutral year.

Weak ninas(-.5 to -.9c) could see global avg temperatures between .69-.74c. In comparison, 2005's .69 or 2014's global yearly temperature.

Moderate ninas(-1 to -1.4c) will probably see global avg yearly temperatures near .66c +- .3c. Probably warmer then 1998!

Strong Nina's(-1.5c to -2.0) will probably see .58 to .65c depending on how strong. Likelyhood of a .5c yearly global temperature will only occur in a -1.8c or above nina.

Jimmy Kimmel went off on Sarah Palin and Gw deniers last night. He explained how 97% of climate scientists believe it's human caused.

And these scientists have no hidden agenda. The only ones lying are the politicians who are paid by rich polluters so that they continue to deny.

Deniers are stupid and make me sick

It always amuses me how the AGW cult mixes pollution and climate change in the one topic, Damn are they that stupid they don't know the difference?


.

That pollution is causing gw

 

[Wyatt earp]

You skeptics and deniers often say why don't we warmers make predictions that are in the short term so we can be called out for them? Well, I am going to make a few and tie them in with the enso. I am making a assumption that the global temperature will be .05-.1c warmer based on the giss dataset then we were pre-2015-2016 nino. I will put my credibility on the line and I want a mod to pin this at the top of this forum for skeptics/deniers to rip me apart when I get it wrong!

When will I be wrong?
1. IF we see a moderate nina year that turns out to be .56 or .58c...That is wrong. Rip me a part as a idiot!
2. If we see below .64c in a weak nina! Rip me apart as a idiot!

3. On the other hand it is a possibility that we may hit or break last years record in a neutral year so a high side prediction is wrong but it only proves a warming world!
-------------------------------------------------------
These are the ranges that the means should fall into. All data points GISS(Nasa)!

I will predict that Neutral years will avg near .75c-.80c for 2017-2020 and .77 to .83c for 2021 to 2024. The possibility is there that one could get over .85c during the later part of the period during a neutral year.

Weak ninas(-.5 to -.9c) could see global avg temperatures between .69-.74c. In comparison, 2005's .69 or 2014's global yearly temperature.

Moderate ninas(-1 to -1.4c) will probably see global avg yearly temperatures near .66c +- .3c. Probably warmer then 1998!

Strong Nina's(-1.5c to -2.0) will probably see .58 to .65c depending on how strong. Likelyhood of a .5c yearly global temperature will only occur in a -1.8c or above nina.

Jimmy Kimmel went off on Sarah Palin and Gw deniers last night. He explained how 97% of climate scientists believe it's human caused.

And these scientists have no hidden agenda. The only ones lying are the politicians who are paid by rich polluters so that they continue to deny.

Deniers are stupid and make me sick

So silly boo, if 97% of climate scientist agree and 150 plus country's signed it who has more money backing the JUNK science?????

 

[Wyatt earp]

You skeptics and deniers often say why don't we warmers make predictions that are in the short term so we can be called out for them? Well, I am going to make a few and tie them in with the enso. I am making a assumption that the global temperature will be .05-.1c warmer based on the giss dataset then we were pre-2015-2016 nino. I will put my credibility on the line and I want a mod to pin this at the top of this forum for skeptics/deniers to rip me apart when I get it wrong!

When will I be wrong?
1. IF we see a moderate nina year that turns out to be .56 or .58c...That is wrong. Rip me a part as a idiot!
2. If we see below .64c in a weak nina! Rip me apart as a idiot!

3. On the other hand it is a possibility that we may hit or break last years record in a neutral year so a high side prediction is wrong but it only proves a warming world!
-------------------------------------------------------
These are the ranges that the means should fall into. All data points GISS(Nasa)!

I will predict that Neutral years will avg near .75c-.80c for 2017-2020 and .77 to .83c for 2021 to 2024. The possibility is there that one could get over .85c during the later part of the period during a neutral year.

Weak ninas(-.5 to -.9c) could see global avg temperatures between .69-.74c. In comparison, 2005's .69 or 2014's global yearly temperature.

Moderate ninas(-1 to -1.4c) will probably see global avg yearly temperatures near .66c +- .3c. Probably warmer then 1998!

Strong Nina's(-1.5c to -2.0) will probably see .58 to .65c depending on how strong. Likelyhood of a .5c yearly global temperature will only occur in a -1.8c or above nina.

Jimmy Kimmel went off on Sarah Palin and Gw deniers last night. He explained how 97% of climate scientists believe it's human caused.

And these scientists have no hidden agenda. The only ones lying are the politicians who are paid by rich polluters so that they continue to deny.

Deniers are stupid and make me sick

It always amuses me how the AGW cult mixes pollution and climate change in the one topic, Damn are they that stupid they don't know the difference?


.

That pollution is causing gw

Then get rid of your ATV.... Lead by example.

 

[sealybobo]

You skeptics and deniers often say why don't we warmers make predictions that are in the short term so we can be called out for them? Well, I am going to make a few and tie them in with the enso. I am making a assumption that the global temperature will be .05-.1c warmer based on the giss dataset then we were pre-2015-2016 nino. I will put my credibility on the line and I want a mod to pin this at the top of this forum for skeptics/deniers to rip me apart when I get it wrong!

When will I be wrong?
1. IF we see a moderate nina year that turns out to be .56 or .58c...That is wrong. Rip me a part as a idiot!
2. If we see below .64c in a weak nina! Rip me apart as a idiot!

3. On the other hand it is a possibility that we may hit or break last years record in a neutral year so a high side prediction is wrong but it only proves a warming world!
-------------------------------------------------------
These are the ranges that the means should fall into. All data points GISS(Nasa)!

I will predict that Neutral years will avg near .75c-.80c for 2017-2020 and .77 to .83c for 2021 to 2024. The possibility is there that one could get over .85c during the later part of the period during a neutral year.

Weak ninas(-.5 to -.9c) could see global avg temperatures between .69-.74c. In comparison, 2005's .69 or 2014's global yearly temperature.

Moderate ninas(-1 to -1.4c) will probably see global avg yearly temperatures near .66c +- .3c. Probably warmer then 1998!

Strong Nina's(-1.5c to -2.0) will probably see .58 to .65c depending on how strong. Likelyhood of a .5c yearly global temperature will only occur in a -1.8c or above nina.

Jimmy Kimmel went off on Sarah Palin and Gw deniers last night. He explained how 97% of climate scientists believe it's human caused.

And these scientists have no hidden agenda. The only ones lying are the politicians who are paid by rich polluters so that they continue to deny.

Deniers are stupid and make me sick

So silly boo, if 97% of climate scientist agree and 150 plus country's signed it who has more money backing the JUNK science?????

I for one won't take you seriously. It's like arguing with a Flat earther

 

[Wyatt earp]

You skeptics and deniers often say why don't we warmers make predictions that are in the short term so we can be called out for them? Well, I am going to make a few and tie them in with the enso. I am making a assumption that the global temperature will be .05-.1c warmer based on the giss dataset then we were pre-2015-2016 nino. I will put my credibility on the line and I want a mod to pin this at the top of this forum for skeptics/deniers to rip me apart when I get it wrong!

When will I be wrong?
1. IF we see a moderate nina year that turns out to be .56 or .58c...That is wrong. Rip me a part as a idiot!
2. If we see below .64c in a weak nina! Rip me apart as a idiot!

3. On the other hand it is a possibility that we may hit or break last years record in a neutral year so a high side prediction is wrong but it only proves a warming world!
-------------------------------------------------------
These are the ranges that the means should fall into. All data points GISS(Nasa)!

I will predict that Neutral years will avg near .75c-.80c for 2017-2020 and .77 to .83c for 2021 to 2024. The possibility is there that one could get over .85c during the later part of the period during a neutral year.

Weak ninas(-.5 to -.9c) could see global avg temperatures between .69-.74c. In comparison, 2005's .69 or 2014's global yearly temperature.

Moderate ninas(-1 to -1.4c) will probably see global avg yearly temperatures near .66c +- .3c. Probably warmer then 1998!

Strong Nina's(-1.5c to -2.0) will probably see .58 to .65c depending on how strong. Likelyhood of a .5c yearly global temperature will only occur in a -1.8c or above nina.

Jimmy Kimmel went off on Sarah Palin and Gw deniers last night. He explained how 97% of climate scientists believe it's human caused.

And these scientists have no hidden agenda. The only ones lying are the politicians who are paid by rich polluters so that they continue to deny.

Deniers are stupid and make me sick

So silly boo, if 97% of climate scientist agree and 150 plus country's signed it who has more money backing the JUNK science?????

I for one won't take you seriously. It's like arguing with a Flat earther

Says the idiot who didn't even know mars was 4.5 billion years old




.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Republicans will swallow and repeat whatever their rich masters tell them.

No we read science books, news reports go the fuck outside.



.

 

[IanC]

you obviously have not looked into any of the 'Inquiries'. one of the most egregious emails pertained to Jones sending out a missive warning his companions that worked on AR4 to delete their correspondence because it appeared that FOI requests for them were coming. Jones and the others named were NEVER asked if they had deleted (or moved) that correspondence, or to prove that it was still there unchanged.

I read what you wrote...what is your source for saying he was not asked certain questions...can you link me to your sources...otherwise I am thinking you are just making shit up..

I bumped a thread for you with the british parliamentry inquiry into the inquiries