Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[whitehall]

The science of meteorology with all the satellite technology and the international space station and the gigantic computers and even something called "the European model" can't predict tornadoes or the accurate path of hurricanes or even the weather beyond next week. Who would have predicted that the U.S. East Coast would be 20 degrees below normal temperature in the middle of May 2016? Here's a good way to promote the theory of man made global warming. Put the heat sensors in places that get extremely hot like freaking black asphalt in the summer and fudge the data a little bit more to keep coming up with a couple of degrees increase while the world is actually getting colder. Meanwhile when our senses tell us that it seems to be getting colder every year the pseudo-scientists who make a living from anti-American rhetoric can continue to call us "deniers".

 

[Wuwei]

People do not buy stuff with Energy Units? So your un-linked cartoon picture means nothing.

And your little cartoon contradicts what your Wind and Solar experts are spending. They put it in arcane terms not related to the real World to fool, idiots.

IEA calls for $36 trillion more in clean energy investments

The link ... Energy returned on energy invested - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Arcane? I guess you don't understand the chart. It is quite a simple concept. Comparing costs of energy is difficult when the cost of various energy technologies changes over time. Using energy as the cost basis is independent of time. You can go to the link to find out more. There are many charts of this sort by many different institutions that show wind has an economical advantage. Search EROEI on Bing and click the images button.

If you don't want to find out more about EROEI, you might as well continue to make stuff up and bitterly lash out at the world for not believing you.

 

[IanC]

I think there are a lot of hidden costs to renewable energy that don't get factored in properly. As well as some outright scams. Should the energy produced be valued the same when it isn't 'on demand' or reliable?

I am somewhat optimistic that storage will improve. The new doped plastic battery could be amazing. But it's not actually here yet. And you can seldom rush the advance of technology just by throwing money at it. Ballard was making good money a coupla decades ago when govts funded them to the hilt but I feel sorry for you if you held onto the stock once the subsides were cut.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

this is a great story to illustrate what has been going on in climate science for quite some time now...

a new methodology is developed in the model for determining ice thickness, and as usual 'things are worse than we thought'. the new data are publicized and the old data disappears down the memory hole (in this case even the wayback machine has been disabled).

I am obviously not qualified to determine which method is superior, or even if one is superior to the other. but it seems odd that all the changes seem to be in the direction of exacerbating the description of climate change. and then making the old data difficult or impossible to access.

It's called science. To test if a model works, you have to have a hypothesis, use the data available, see if it works. If it doesn't then you try and tweak it and see if that works.

The biggest problem is when people get hold of PREDICTIONS and determine that this is somehow sacred and that if it's wrong then the people who made the predictions are somehow liars and idiots, when if fact it's the people who are reading the predictions as FACT that have the problem.

WELL DONE!! It's the first time that I can remember you posting up anything interesting.

What you said obviously has a lot of truth to it. Is it in context though?

Most people have neither the time, inclination or ability to understand climate science and decipher the predictions broadcast by the media. They simply add up all that they hear and make a rough average and consider that to be close to the truth. So the type and quantity of publicized predictions is important.

Next, what kind of predictions get publicized? Forecasts of Doom sells, uncertainty and continuation of the status quo do not. Prediction of 30 meters of sea level rise from a glacier melting is newsworthy and interesting. Prediction of sea level rise for the next hundred years being very similar to the last hundred years, is not. One scenario is impossible and the other is likely.

Next, who makes the predictions? Scientists for the most part. Why would they make or emphasise alarming forecasts? A few things to consider. CYA (cover your ass). There are no penalties for hyping bad but unlikely outcomes. But no one wants to get blamed if something does go seriously wrong and they said it wasn't likely. Status. Scientists who are recognized and quoted for predictions of Doom also get the high road to more funding and are called on by the media for their opinions. A positive feedback, to use the vernacular.

Should we blame the media for broadcasting unlikely scenarios, the scientists who allow the unlikely scenarios to be clipped out of their work without putting it in context, or the layman who believes what he is told because he is too ignorant to know better?

Often scientists will say there is a margin of error. You can see charts which show many different possibilities, but the media will take the most sensational and say "Scientists say this could happen" then read changes "could" to "will".

Often the people who read stuff, simply get taken in because they can't connect English words with what they actually mean.

 

[IanC]

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

this is a great story to illustrate what has been going on in climate science for quite some time now...

a new methodology is developed in the model for determining ice thickness, and as usual 'things are worse than we thought'. the new data are publicized and the old data disappears down the memory hole (in this case even the wayback machine has been disabled).

I am obviously not qualified to determine which method is superior, or even if one is superior to the other. but it seems odd that all the changes seem to be in the direction of exacerbating the description of climate change. and then making the old data difficult or impossible to access.

It's called science. To test if a model works, you have to have a hypothesis, use the data available, see if it works. If it doesn't then you try and tweak it and see if that works.

The biggest problem is when people get hold of PREDICTIONS and determine that this is somehow sacred and that if it's wrong then the people who made the predictions are somehow liars and idiots, when if fact it's the people who are reading the predictions as FACT that have the problem.

WELL DONE!! It's the first time that I can remember you posting up anything interesting.

What you said obviously has a lot of truth to it. Is it in context though?

Most people have neither the time, inclination or ability to understand climate science and decipher the predictions broadcast by the media. They simply add up all that they hear and make a rough average and consider that to be close to the truth. So the type and quantity of publicized predictions is important.

Next, what kind of predictions get publicized? Forecasts of Doom sells, uncertainty and continuation of the status quo do not. Prediction of 30 meters of sea level rise from a glacier melting is newsworthy and interesting. Prediction of sea level rise for the next hundred years being very similar to the last hundred years, is not. One scenario is impossible and the other is likely.

Next, who makes the predictions? Scientists for the most part. Why would they make or emphasise alarming forecasts? A few things to consider. CYA (cover your ass). There are no penalties for hyping bad but unlikely outcomes. But no one wants to get blamed if something does go seriously wrong and they said it wasn't likely. Status. Scientists who are recognized and quoted for predictions of Doom also get the high road to more funding and are called on by the media for their opinions. A positive feedback, to use the vernacular.

Should we blame the media for broadcasting unlikely scenarios, the scientists who allow the unlikely scenarios to be clipped out of their work without putting it in context, or the layman who believes what he is told because he is too ignorant to know better?

Often scientists will say there is a margin of error. You can see charts which show many different possibilities, but the media will take the most sensational and say "Scientists say this could happen" then read changes "could" to "will".

Often the people who read stuff, simply get taken in because they can't connect English words with what they actually mean.

Fair enough, but often the scientists are quite happy to be misconstrued. For example, Marcott spent a week on the publicity tour talking about how his new Hockeystick showed warmer recent temps but when he was pointedly questioned, he admitted that his work had no significance after 1900. Why did he not point this out to reporters? Why was he happy to go along with 'Forecast of Doom' stories? The original stories made the news, the retraction did not.

 

[Billy_Bob]

How to teach a group of people why "back radiation" is a poor term and deceptive?

First lets look at the the basic molecules and their properties..

CO2: One Carbon molecule and 2 Oxygen molecules.

The combined molecules do not react to LWIR photons. They absorb and re-emit these photon in 1-3 nanoseconds. The molecule can not retain heat and does not become excited when it absorbs photons.

H2O; One Hydrogen molecule and 2 Oxygen molecules,

The combined molecules react and are excited by LWIR photons. It warms the molecule and can retain that heat for a time without re-emitting the photon. As the molecule cools the emitted photons wave length increases in length (as evidenced by the increased output wave lengths from water vapor)


The alarmists claim that back radiation will force energy back to the earth. This is actually the residency time of the energy in near surface molecules and slowed rise of heat from the earth. In the desert, in low humidity (water vapor) the temperature swing is 60-80 deg F daily showing that the water vapor directly above the surface is responsible for the slowing of the heat rise. CO2 has no effect on the deserts higher ground temps and CO2 not only can not hold heat, it can not re-emit enough, ground ward, to combat the loss.

While the atmosphere may indeed be re-emitting photons towards the ground it is incapable of holding the heat and the LWIR escapes to space rapidly.

Water vapor is the key to the system. In low convective cycles the day time temps use conduction near ground level to hold heat. at night however that conduction stops and convection releases the heat to space. Again the LWIR, from rising black body ground heat, is very minutely returned by CO2 re-emittance towards the ground and in insufficient volumes to warm the water vapor in the air.

The whole CO2 meme is total bull shit and has been from day one. Back radiation is just one more ambiguous term that means exactly squat.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

this is a great story to illustrate what has been going on in climate science for quite some time now...

a new methodology is developed in the model for determining ice thickness, and as usual 'things are worse than we thought'. the new data are publicized and the old data disappears down the memory hole (in this case even the wayback machine has been disabled).

I am obviously not qualified to determine which method is superior, or even if one is superior to the other. but it seems odd that all the changes seem to be in the direction of exacerbating the description of climate change. and then making the old data difficult or impossible to access.

It's called science. To test if a model works, you have to have a hypothesis, use the data available, see if it works. If it doesn't then you try and tweak it and see if that works.

The biggest problem is when people get hold of PREDICTIONS and determine that this is somehow sacred and that if it's wrong then the people who made the predictions are somehow liars and idiots, when if fact it's the people who are reading the predictions as FACT that have the problem.

WELL DONE!! It's the first time that I can remember you posting up anything interesting.

What you said obviously has a lot of truth to it. Is it in context though?

Most people have neither the time, inclination or ability to understand climate science and decipher the predictions broadcast by the media. They simply add up all that they hear and make a rough average and consider that to be close to the truth. So the type and quantity of publicized predictions is important.

Next, what kind of predictions get publicized? Forecasts of Doom sells, uncertainty and continuation of the status quo do not. Prediction of 30 meters of sea level rise from a glacier melting is newsworthy and interesting. Prediction of sea level rise for the next hundred years being very similar to the last hundred years, is not. One scenario is impossible and the other is likely.

Next, who makes the predictions? Scientists for the most part. Why would they make or emphasise alarming forecasts? A few things to consider. CYA (cover your ass). There are no penalties for hyping bad but unlikely outcomes. But no one wants to get blamed if something does go seriously wrong and they said it wasn't likely. Status. Scientists who are recognized and quoted for predictions of Doom also get the high road to more funding and are called on by the media for their opinions. A positive feedback, to use the vernacular.

Should we blame the media for broadcasting unlikely scenarios, the scientists who allow the unlikely scenarios to be clipped out of their work without putting it in context, or the layman who believes what he is told because he is too ignorant to know better?

Often scientists will say there is a margin of error. You can see charts which show many different possibilities, but the media will take the most sensational and say "Scientists say this could happen" then read changes "could" to "will".

Often the people who read stuff, simply get taken in because they can't connect English words with what they actually mean.

Fair enough, but often the scientists are quite happy to be misconstrued. For example, Marcott spent a week on the publicity tour talking about how his new Hockeystick showed warmer recent temps but when he was pointedly questioned, he admitted that his work had no significance after 1900. Why did he not point this out to reporters? Why was he happy to go along with 'Forecast of Doom' stories? The original stories made the news, the retraction did not.

Well, individuals are individuals, and clearly some people will try and mislead, for whatever reason they think they want to.

But the same happens on the other side too.

The problem is that those who believe there is no man made climate change seem to say if one person slightly exaggerates, or slightly misleads, then the whole thing is a myth and made up and all of that.

Again, ridiculous, it would imply that lying has the ability to stop man made global warming.

 

[SSDD]

Network Newscasts Ignore Global Warming’s Role in Canada’s Wildfires
By Miles Grant

Network news coverage of the massive fires ripping through Canada’s tar sands hub, as fast and furious as trailers for a Hollywood disaster movie, has missed opportunities to provide real information about the heavily polluting tar sands industry and global warming’s role in adding fuel to the flames.

I know that you believe global warming is to blame Tyrone...and it is just sad....pitiful and sad. Talk to you this evening.

You are so moronic you actually insist that NASA NOAA and the all of the world's Climate experts made up AGW without data or measurements ...you know what that is called "The PITS OF STUPID'

And you continue to claim that they have data which you are completely unable to produce...do you think they would keep observed, measured, quantified data supporting the claim that man is altering the global climate secret?...

 

[SSDD]

Network Newscasts Ignore Global Warming’s Role in Canada’s Wildfires
By Miles Grant

Network news coverage of the massive fires ripping through Canada’s tar sands hub, as fast and furious as trailers for a Hollywood disaster movie, has missed opportunities to provide real information about the heavily polluting tar sands industry and global warming’s role in adding fuel to the flames.

I know that you believe global warming is to blame Tyrone...and it is just sad....pitiful and sad. Talk to you this evening.

All I am going to do with you is repeat your mindless assertion that NOAA NASA and all of the world's Climate experts made up AGW on a whim without any measurements...that is called Moronia LOL

No tyrone...what you are going to do with me is continue to prove my claim by not producing any of the observed, measured, quantified data that you claim they have which supports the claim that man is altering the global climate...

 

[SSDD]

I think he is unaware that water vapor is the only one of the so called greenhouse gasses that can absorb, and actually retain energy....

That's not true. All gasses, greenhouse or not, hold thermal energy. With water you are referring only to it's extra ability to change phases.

Sorry guy...not true at the ambient temperature of the atmosphere

 

[SSDD]

ahhhhh. partially consumed fuel that is still hot enough to glow but is no longer producing an open flame?

do you know why people push the embers of a dying campfire together to restart it? because the embers lose less heat next to another ember than they do to the cooler surrounding environment. the same amount of combustion is capable of producing a higher temperature which leads to open flames again. back radiation from ember to ember, less heat loss, higher temperature at the location of the power source (fuel combustion).

Guess you never tended a fire....people push the embers of a dying campfire together to restrict airflow...less oxygen, less burning...therefore you have coals in the morning to restart your fire.... there is no back radiation happening there...think of another reason...

why do people wear clothes? the body warms the clothes to a temperature intermediate between the cooler outside environment and the warmer skin. instead of only the smaller amount of environmental back radiation they get the larger amount from their clothes, hence the body needs to burn less food to stay warm.

No Ian...the body warms the air space between the skin and the clothes....pull the clothes tight to the skin and you won't get warm...no back radiation there either...think of something else.

why am I a skeptic who doesnt believe more CO2 will cause a runaway heating?

You aren't a skeptic...you are a believer who just believes the magic isn't as strong as the core of the church...you are one of the guys who sits in the back pews...or maybe the balcony so you can get out early after the service is over.

 

[SSDD]

Well, individuals are individuals, and clearly some people will try and mislead, for whatever reason they think they want to.

But the same happens on the other side too.

The problem is that those who believe there is no man made climate change seem to say if one person slightly exaggerates, or slightly misleads, then the whole thing is a myth and made up and all of that.

Again, ridiculous, it would imply that lying has the ability to stop man made global warming.

The whole claim of manmade climate change is an exaggeration...there is not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is causing the global climate to change.....it is all based on assumptions...but feel free to prove me wrong and provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim.

 

[Old Rocks]

Looky, looky, there's one o' them thar smart photons.

 

[Wuwei]

I think he is unaware that water vapor is the only one of the so called greenhouse gasses that can absorb, and actually retain energy....

That's not true. All gasses, greenhouse or not, hold thermal energy. With water you are referring only to it's extra ability to change phases.

Sorry guy...not true at the ambient temperature of the atmosphere

That's a bit of self contradiction. Any substance at ambient temperature contains thermal energy. That includes water and other GHG's and O2 and N2. Thermal energy can be retained by those substances and virtually anything else.

 

[Wuwei]

The whole claim of manmade climate change is an exaggeration...there is not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is causing the global climate to change.....it is all based on assumptions...but feel free to prove me wrong and provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim.

Well, since you don't believe in science, you can believe anything you want.

 

[Wuwei]

The whole claim of manmade climate change is an exaggeration...there is not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is causing the global climate to change.....it is all based on assumptions...but feel free to prove me wrong and provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim.

You were given that evidence, but you don't believe in science, so you don't understand it.

 

[Wuwei]

CO2: One Carbon molecule and 2 Oxygen molecules.

CO2 is the "molecule". Carbon and Oxygen are called "atoms".

The combined molecules do not react to LWIR photons. They absorb and re-emit these photon in 1-3 nanoseconds. The molecule can not retain heat and does not become excited when it absorbs photons.

The combined atoms have vibration modes which do react to LWIR.

H2O; One Hydrogen molecule and 2 Oxygen molecules,

They are atoms not molecules.

The combined molecules react and are excited by LWIR photons.

Water has similar vibration modes to CO2

The combined molecules react and are excited by LWIR photons. It warms the molecule and can retain that heat for a time without re-emitting the photon.

Combined atoms!! A single molecule does not warm. It takes an ensemble of molecules to define heat. In absorbing LWIR a single molecule will excite one of it's vibration states. That is called an excited molecule; not heat.

The rest of your essay doesn't follow because of your faulty premises on molecules absorbing LWIR.

Billy Bob you are making stuff up again. It just doesn't work for you.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

And you continue to claim that they have data which you are completely unable to produce...do you think they would keep observed, measured, quantified data supporting the claim that man is altering the global climate secret?...

The only one that has real Truth is you Einstein ...NOAA NASA what do they know oh Great Master of Climate

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

No tyrone...what you are going to do with me is continue to prove my claim by not producing any of the observed, measured, quantified data that you claim they have which supports the claim that man is altering the global climate...

The Truth is out there LOL you are a NOBODY in Climate...the people who are somebody in climate agree with the positions I support because its their positions ...it eats you up LOL...you are a zero...Facts are not going to sway you because it is not by fact that you have reached your positions ...

 

[Wuwei]

And you continue to claim that they have data which you are completely unable to produce...do you think they would keep observed, measured, quantified data supporting the claim that man is altering the global climate secret?...

The only one that has real Truth is you Einstein ...NOAA NASA what do they know oh Great Master of Climate

Calling him Einstein is an insult because he doesn't believe in Einstein's theories.