Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[Crick]

Four years longer than his detractors wanted it to go. The question should be how goes Steyn's and the Review's attempts to get out of the thing? The answer to that would be "not at all well".

 

[skookerasbil]

Four years longer than his detractors wanted it to go. The question should be how goes Steyn's and the Review's attempts to get out of the thing? The answer to that would be "not at all well".

The real question is in a non-makey-uppey world is.........does anybody care?

Nobody is caring according to EVERY poll!!!

Worry About Terror Attacks in U.S. High, but Not Top Concern


Have to scroll waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down the list of concerns to find climate change!!!



[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Trump.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[Wyatt earp]

Four years longer than his detractors wanted it to go. The question should be how goes Steyn's and the Review's attempts to get out of the thing? The answer to that would be "not at all well".

Thanks, I have a new book going to have to read


Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann

From climate scientists, all of whom support the general consensus on climate change:

Wallace Broecker: “The goddam guy is a slick talker and super-confident. He won’t listen to anyone else,” one of climate science’s most senior figures, Wally Broecker of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York, told me. “I don’t trust people like that. A lot of the data sets he uses are shitty, you know. They are just not up to what he is trying to do…. If anyone deserves to get hit it is goddam Mann.”


duardo Zorita: Why I Think That Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf2 Should be Barred from the IPCC Process. Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore. These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.

Atte Korhola: Another example is a study recently published in the prestigious journal Science. Proxies have been included selectively, they have been digested, manipulated, filtered, and combined – for example, data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even been turned upside down such that the warm periods become cold and vice versa. Normally, this would be considered as a scientific forgery, which has serious consequences.

Hans von Storch: A conclusion could be that the principle, according to which data must be made public, so that also adversaries may check the analysis, must be really enforced. Another conclusion could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like IPCC.

Bo Christiansen: The hockey-stick curve does not stand. It does not mean that we cancel the manmade greenhouse effect, but the causes have become more nuanced… Popularly, it can be said that the flat piece on the hockey stick is too flat. In addition, their method contains a large element of randomness. It is almost impossible to conclude from reconstruction studies that the present period is warmer than any period in the reconstructed period.


..

 

[jc456]

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 socks, funny stuff bubba. How many threads has it been in the Environmental Forum and you have yet to provide any evidence to support this paragraph. I've explained to you that first, the IPCC AR5 report agrees there was a pause for 15 years while CO2 was increasing. Baddaboom, kills the hypothesis of CO2 causes warming immediately. Why do you ignore that fact? And then you claim GHGs heat up our atmosphere and we've asked you for that hot spot. Still crickets bubba. So, for the umpteenth hundred and whatever time, where is your support at to back your paragraph? Thanks and have a nice day!

 

[jc456]

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.

nope, and you can't validate --"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"

 

[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?

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

And yet no one ever asked if emails were deleted in anticipation of FOI requests...what sort of investigation is that?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

And yet no one ever asked if emails were deleted in anticipation of FOI requests...what sort of investigation is that?

Do you have any source any link anyone who is saying the Investigations were crooked...there were at least 6 investigations by agencies both in the US and in Cuba...how was this secxondary cover up LOL coordinated...on its own...did they instinctual come to the same conclusions , did they coordinate this effort...you'll are fools ...you think simply saying something makes it so...I say things but I provide link to sources...you all think simply making declarations cuts it ...

 

[SSDD]

And yet no one ever asked if emails were deleted in anticipation of FOI requests...what sort of investigation is that?

Do you have any source any link anyone who is saying the Investigations were crooked...there were at least 6 investigations by agencies both in the US and in Cuba...how was this secxondary cover up LOL coordinated...on its own...did they instinctual come to the same conclusions , did they coordinate this effort...you'll are fools ...you think simply saying something makes it so...I say things but I provide link to sources...you all think simply making declarations cuts it ...

All one need do is follow the money... You are going to believe what you want and you are going to believe it based on your political leanings regardless of the actual facts...if that is the extent of your intellectual ability....it must suck to be you.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

All one need do is follow the money...

They have made it harder to do that
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American
The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to ananalysisreleased Friday afternoon.

The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.

It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.

The study was published Friday in the journalClimatic Change.


Did ExxonMobil Just Admit It's StillFundingClimate Science Deniers?

 

[Markle]

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 ?

The investigations, as you know, were conducted by groups who benefit from unlimited taxpayer funded grants. No global warming, no jobs.

The Climategate Whitewash Continues
Global warming alarmists claim vindication after last year's data manipulation scandal. Don't believe the 'independent' reviews.

By
PATRICK J. MICHAELS
Updated July 12, 2010 12:01 a.m. ET

Last November there was a world-wide outcry when a trove of emails were released suggesting some of the world's leading climate scientists engaged in professional misconduct, data manipulation and jiggering of both the scientific literature and climatic data to paint what scientist Keith Briffa called "a nice, tidy story" of climate history. The scandal became known as Climategate.

Now a supposedly independent review of the evidence says, in effect, "nothing to see here." Last week "The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review," commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia. The review committee was chaired by Sir Muir Russell, former vice chancellor at the University of Glasgow.

Read more at:
The Climategate Whitewash Continues

 

[Markle]

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

How amusing.

Once again the Progressives and the Global Warming eccentrics boast as to their source of "facts"from a comedian. I am so impressed.

I presume that you are aware that the hoax of 97% is just that, a hoax.

On the surface, even you have to admit that no one could get 97% of any group to agree on the color of the sky much less anything so complex as the myth of Global Warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

I assume that you know you are lying.

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements the state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Now you are stating that all these scientists around the world are in on a grand conspiracy to fool us all. Hope you have plenty of aluminum foil for your hats.

 

[Old Rocks]

The scientists since 1896 have been predicting warming if we continued to put GHGs into the atmosphere. And that is exactly what we are seeing. An increasing warming, and effect from the warming becoming increasingly obvious. From melting glaciers to increased ferocity of wildfires. But all you deniers can do is flap yap and deny reality.

 

[SSDD]

I assume that you know you are lying.

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements the state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Now you are stating that all these scientists around the world are in on a grand conspiracy to fool us all. Hope you have plenty of aluminum foil for your hats.

And yet, there exists not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered out in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world that supports the A in AGW....what sort of faith should that engender in such organizations? Clearly they have become far more political than scientific...

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Dumb fuck SSDD once again denies the reality of the absorption spectra of the GHGs. Well, he never was the sharpest knife in the drawer. How's those sentient photons doing, SSDD?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

By
PATRICK J. MICHAELS
Updated July 12, 2010 12:01 a.m. ET

The Climategate Whitewash Continues

Three things
1) the article is over 5 years old...the so called scandal is totally debunked
2) the bulk this man's education is in Biology
3) Follow the money that pays him

This is a paid mercenary hack shill certainly no one that should be accusing Science of fraud..............


Patrick J. Michaels
Credentials

• S.M. Biology, University of Chicago (1975).
• Biological Sciences, University of Chicago (1971).
• Special Graduate Committee on Ecological Climatology (1979).

Source: [1]

Background
Pat Michaels is the director of the Center for the Study of Science at the conservative Cato Institute. Michaels is a regular commentator on climate change issues on Fox News and other conservative news outlets.

He also writes regularly for Forbes, contributes opinion articles to US newspapers and has written several books sceptical of climate change science and the risks of rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Michaels' columns also regularly suggest climate scientists who accept the risks of rising greenhouse gas emissions are being influenced by the availability of taxpayer funds.

Michaels has a history of carrying out work on climate change shown to have been funded by fossil fuel interests.

He was the founder of a consulting firm titled New Hope Environmental Services. Michaels described (PDF) the firm's purpose as to “publicize findings on climate change and scientific and social perspectives that may not otherwise appear in the popular literature or media. This entails both response research and public commentary.” [2]

SourceWatch describes New Hope Environmental Services as “in effect … a PR firm.” New Hope is secretive about its funding sources, and fought a Greenpeace motion seeking disclosure. It is known to have received funds from electrical utilities in the past.

New Hope Environmental Services also ran a climate change bulletin titled The World Climate Report which was edited by Patrick Michaels and funded by coal group Western Fuels Association.

Analysis of the tax records of the Cato Institute found that in 2006 and 2007 the think tank paid Michaels' New Hope more than $240,000 in fees.

Michaels once estimated that “40 percent” of his funding comes from the oil industry. [3]

Pat Michaels was a “member scientist” at The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASCC), an organization created and funded by the tobacco industry to fight anti-tobacco legislation.

Michaels was also an “Academic Member” of the European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF), a group created by the tobacco industry to frame legitimate science as “junk science” on matters pertaining to health and environment, particularly secondhand smoke health impacts. Michaels was listed as an academic member on the ESEF's March 1998 working paper titled “Environmental Tobacco Smoke Revisited: The reliability of the evidence for risk of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease.” [41]

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

I presume that you are aware that the hoax of 97% is just that, a hoax.

I have sources that say otherwise...what are your sources ?

Consensus confirmed: 97% of climate scientists agree

 

[jc456]

LOL. Dumb fuck SSDD once again denies the reality of the absorption spectra of the GHGs. Well, he never was the sharpest knife in the drawer. How's those sentient photons doing, SSDD?

I wish you would get it straight what the argument is.we know there are green house gases that isn't the argument and you know what is the argument

 

[SSDD]

LOL. Dumb fuck SSDD once again denies the reality of the absorption spectra of the GHGs. Well, he never was the sharpest knife in the drawer. How's those sentient photons doing, SSDD?

Absorption and emission does not equal warming rocks....but feel free to provide some evidence that proves otherwise...

 

[SSDD]

I presume that you are aware that the hoax of 97% is just that, a hoax.

I have sources that say otherwise...what are your sources ?

Consensus confirmed: 97% of climate scientists agree

Upon what observed, measured, quantified evidence is that agreement based? There is none, so what else might bring about such an agreement....a big old bucket full of money would facilitate that sort of agreement even more than hard scientific evidence if any even existed...what sort of faith should one put in science that can reach such an agreement with no actual observed, measured, quantified evidence to support their hypothesis?