Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[IanC]

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]

perhaps you should read this Curry article on Steve Goddard. he has indeed made mistakes but that doesnt mean everything he says is a mistake. Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

perhaps you should read this Curry article on Steve Goddard. he has indeed made mistakes but that doesnt mean everything he says is a mistake. Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right?

You should read up on science so you do not have to end up quoting English teachers ...as though they were Climate experts...

 

[IanC]

perhaps you should read this Curry article on Steve Goddard. he has indeed made mistakes but that doesnt mean everything he says is a mistake. Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right?

You should read up on science so you do not have to end up quoting English teachers ...as though they were Climate experts...

the thing is....I have read the science. the main core of skeptics don't disbelieve the basic physics behind AGW, they disbelieve the exaggerated claims and conclusions that are given to the media to scare people into giving up their money and lifestyle for little-to-no effect.

 

[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

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




.

I already told you I just threw out that number. 1 million, 5 billion. I think you get the point. The point is you are utterly stupid.

Listen to these climate scientists and tell me you aren't a fucking retard

 

[sealybobo]

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

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



.

97% of climate scientists say you and Sarah Palin are fucking morons. Who am I to disagree with them?

And who are you to disagree with them? Who do you think is paying politicians like Sarah Palin to pretend to be stupid?

The two columns below show quotes (left column) from Sarah Palin paired with what the science says (right column). Click on text in right column for full details.

Climate Myths from Sarah Palin

 

[mamooth]

You always bring up the same point, yet you are unwilling to discuss the details of it. yes indeed a large downward correction was made to the early ocean temperature record, mostly to correct for bucket measurements. this correction was installed by the early 90's, and the models' hindcasting would be crippled without it.

No, I've pointed out before how that red herring in no way contradicts my point, and how it still destroys your conspiracy theory.

It doesn't matter why the corrections were made .The point is they _were_ made. If the scientists were out to show more warming, why did they put in corrections to show less warming? If you claim scientists are now happily revising all the data, why don't they revise those older corrections right out?

Your conspiracy theory makes no sense at all.

what I dont understand is why you think that a reasonably legitimate correction put in place over twenty years ago

That illustrates how cultists see the science. In their minds, all corrections going one way are automatically "good science", and all going the other way are "fraud". In contrast, all the honest scientists accept all the corrections going both ways, even though it makes the warming look smaller.

makes up for and excuses all the other arbitrary changes

It's also a staple cult tactic to claim that any change they don't like is "arbitrary", while the ones they do like are "necessary".

since then that have all increased the trend and/or changed the shape of the trend.

Well, yes, every adjustment changes the shape of the trend. They have to. In the cultist, anything and everything is now auto-defined as proof of conspiracy.

 

[mamooth]

Got anything like an actual rebuttal to his claims..

Sure. This busts Tony Heller's latest fraud most convincingly.

“Steve Goddard” Busted | The Great White Con

We know what you'll do now. It's the same thing you always do. You're just going to scream insults at the author, and at me, as a way to cover your screaming retreat.

 

[mamooth]

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.

No, they're clearly jokes, and you're clearly desperately dishonest.

It is amusing though, how upset you get that nobody believes all your crazy lies. That would be all you're good for now, the amusement factor.

 

[SSDD]

Got anything like an actual rebuttal to his claims..

Sure. This busts Tony Heller's latest fraud most convincingly.

“Steve Goddard” Busted | The Great White Con

We know what you'll do now. It's the same thing you always do. You're just going to scream insults at the author, and at me, as a way to cover your screaming retreat.

So data manipulation is the problem with the graph...ok...that's what we have been saying all along...

 

[SSDD]

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.

No, they're clearly jokes, and you're clearly desperately dishonest.

It is amusing though, how upset you get that nobody believes all your crazy lies. That would be all you're good for now, the amusement factor.

Really? Scientists "joke" about fabricating data? What exactly is funny about fabricating data?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

perhaps you should read this Curry article on Steve Goddard. he has indeed made mistakes but that doesnt mean everything he says is a mistake. Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right?

Steve Goddard is corrupt ? he has a vested interest in denying ? LOL that is not his real name ...he uses Goddard to associate with a real Scientist [Robert Goddard Rocket Scientist] .....his real name is Tony Heller..

 

[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.

No, they're clearly jokes, and you're clearly desperately dishonest.

It is amusing though, how upset you get that nobody believes all your crazy lies. That would be all you're good for now, the amusement factor.

Really? Scientists "joke" about fabricating data? What exactly is funny about fabricating data?

The issue has been investigated into the ground ...no fraud none ...no charges..no one censored no one fired no one rebuked ...

 

[Old Rocks]

We had a big discussion on that topic...you were shown several examples of climate pseudoscientists admitting to fudging, fabricating, and altering data in their private correspondence....you claimed that they were joking.....you are the joke...

You are referring to the stolen "Climategate" e mails which supposedly showed fraud. It has been investigated at least six different times INDEPENDENTLY and no such thing has been shown in fact the Scientist were cleared...
Climategate Scientist Cleared in Inquiry, Again - Scientific

Here are a couple of the quotes I provided to crick...his interpretation of what these scientists clearly said was hilarious....lets hear what you think they are saying....


For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.. Phil Jones

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.

But no links to where those quotes are found? Hmmmm............................................... More smart photons.

 

[Old Rocks]

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

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



.

Like hell you do, you silly ass. If you did, you would know the basis in physics why GHGs heat up our atmosphere and oceans. The scientists have for many decades now been predicting a warmer Earth, and that is what we see happening. In the meantime, the frauds and charlatans paid by Exxon-Mobile have been saying that it is all baloney, and the earth will be cooling.

 

[Old Rocks]

perhaps you should read this Curry article on Steve Goddard. he has indeed made mistakes but that doesnt mean everything he says is a mistake. Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right?

You should read up on science so you do not have to end up quoting English teachers ...as though they were Climate experts...

the thing is....I have read the science. the main core of skeptics don't disbelieve the basic physics behind AGW, they disbelieve the exaggerated claims and conclusions that are given to the media to scare people into giving up their money and lifestyle for little-to-no effect.

LOL. Read the science and still make consistently wrong predictions. The ice is melting far faster than the 'alarmist' predictions, the world is warming faster than their predictions, and the sea level rise is greater than what they predicted. That is the fact of what we are seeing.

Were this not so, you would not quote assholes like 'Goddard' who is not even publishing under his real name. And you would be quoting real scientists, not frauds like the English teacher.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The article below highlights what can happen when honest Scientist who believe in AGW are subjected to character assassination
Climate Scientist Wins $50000 In Libel Lawsuit
A prominent Canadian climatologist won his libel lawsuit against The National Post on Friday, after a judgedecidedthat the newspaper had published several articles that were both inaccurate and defamatory to his character.

British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Emily Burke said that Dr. Andrew Weaver should be awarded $50,000 in damages from the Post, which she said unfairly diminished Weaver’s credibility as a climate scientist by publishing articles that falsely painted Weaver as incompetent. The articles claimed that Weaver, a former member of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was “untrustworthy, unscientific and incompetent; and that he distorts and conceals scientific data to promote a public agenda and receive government funding.”

The decision did not touch on the accuracy of climate science itself, instead focusing on statements the Post and its columnists repeatedly made about Weaver — such as claims that he was attempting to distract the public from a (now-discredited) scandal involving climate scientists e-mails; that Weaver was a government employee; that he wanted the head of the IPCC to step down; and that he used data despite knowing it was “unadulterated rubbish.” Justice Burke found that those statements were either untrue or misleading.

In fact, the opinion defended the Post’s right to be skeptical of climate science, but said the Post was not being honest in its skepticism. “While certainly entitled to express those views, in this case as part of that expression, they deliberately created a negative impression of Dr. Weaver,” Burke wrote. “In doing so, I conclude the defendants have been careless or indifferent to the accuracy of the facts.”

 

[SSDD]

We had a big discussion on that topic...you were shown several examples of climate pseudoscientists admitting to fudging, fabricating, and altering data in their private correspondence....you claimed that they were joking.....you are the joke...

You are referring to the stolen "Climategate" e mails which supposedly showed fraud. It has been investigated at least six different times INDEPENDENTLY and no such thing has been shown in fact the Scientist were cleared...
Climategate Scientist Cleared in Inquiry, Again - Scientific

Here are a couple of the quotes I provided to crick...his interpretation of what these scientists clearly said was hilarious....lets hear what you think they are saying....


For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.. Phil Jones

he 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.

But no links to where those quotes are found? Hmmmm............................................... More smart photons.

Email 2729 for the Phil Jones quote...

November 22, 1996: email 0848679780

Geoff Jenkins was head of climate change prediction at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, part of the United Kingdom’s Met(eorological) Office (nationalweather service). He writes to Phil Jones:

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.

So there are your sources rocks...now what is your "interpretation" of the clear statements of data fabrication.

 

[Old Rocks]

link

 

[SSDD]

link

Find it yourself skid mark....or whine a bit more abut the mean old skeptics not providing links and maybe I will provide a link just to show how inept you are at finding anything for yourself...

Or commit to agreeing that climate scientists do in fact fabricate data if I provide a link to the emails...but I would prefer to hear you whine...and demonstrate that you can't look up anything for yourself...

 

[Wyatt earp]

The article below highlights what can happen when honest Scientist who believe in AGW are subjected to character assassination
Climate Scientist Wins $50000 In Libel Lawsuit
A prominent Canadian climatologist won his libel lawsuit against The National Post on Friday, after a judgedecidedthat the newspaper had published several articles that were both inaccurate and defamatory to his character.

British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Emily Burke said that Dr. Andrew Weaver should be awarded $50,000 in damages from the Post, which she said unfairly diminished Weaver’s credibility as a climate scientist by publishing articles that falsely painted Weaver as incompetent. The articles claimed that Weaver, a former member of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was “untrustworthy, unscientific and incompetent; and that he distorts and conceals scientific data to promote a public agenda and receive government funding.”

The decision did not touch on the accuracy of climate science itself, instead focusing on statements the Post and its columnists repeatedly made about Weaver — such as claims that he was attempting to distract the public from a (now-discredited) scandal involving climate scientists e-mails; that Weaver was a government employee; that he wanted the head of the IPCC to step down; and that he used data despite knowing it was “unadulterated rubbish.” Justice Burke found that those statements were either untrue or misleading.

In fact, the opinion defended the Post’s right to be skeptical of climate science, but said the Post was not being honest in its skepticism. “While certainly entitled to express those views, in this case as part of that expression, they deliberately created a negative impression of Dr. Weaver,” Burke wrote. “In doing so, I conclude the defendants have been careless or indifferent to the accuracy of the facts.”

Canada ? Seriously ? Hey how is Micheal Mann's lawsuit going, it has been around 4 years now.