Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[HereWeGoAgain]

Credibility....in Action
US joins 174 nations to sign hard-won climate pact
UNITED NATIONS -- At least 171 world leaders gathered Friday at the United Nations to sign a sweeping climate agreement negotiated last year and aimed at slowing global warming and helping poorer nations affected most by it.

The "Paris Agreement" was hammered out in Le Bourget, France, in December, at a summit of diplomats and leaders including U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who flew back from Saudi Arabia Thursday night in time to take part in Friday's signing ceremony.

You think governments have credibility? And by the way...the paris agreement is a great big bust.....like koyoto and the rest....lip service...nothing more.

Here's the deal....> If I am wrong at least 2 years of the next 8 years = I'll strongly consider the skeptical point of view. I don't like being burned.

So the last 45 years weren't enough huh?

What percentage of six billion years are 45 years?

You some kind of retard?
Globull freezing/warming wasnt an issue until the seventies.
Ignorant ass noob.....

 

[Billy_Bob]

We agree that the earth is warming...or cooling...where we disagree is the unsubstantiable claim that man is responsible.

The 97% consensus on global warming
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science.More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers

Which, for the umpteenth time is a logical fallacy given that EVERY ONE of those societies derives funding from perpetuating the fraud. It is not a legitimate argument.

They do love their logical fallacy and circular arguments dont they..

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Hmmmm...obviously you did not notice that there has been no increase in temperature the past 18+ years and your chart only goes to 2010.

But, thank you for the effort.

2015 is warmest year on record, NOAA and NASA say ...
as you see NOAA and NASA say 2015 was hottest in history...who is saying otherwise may I ask ?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Hmmmm...obviously you did not notice that there has been no increase in temperature the past 18+ years and your chart only goes to 2010.

But, thank you for the effort.

This record lasted One year

1. 
   The year 2014 ranks as Earth's warmest since1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists. The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of1998, have now occurred since 2000.Jan 16, 2015
   NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record ...
   www.nasa.gov/.../nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-re...
   NASA

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Bloomberg
Published on Sep 1, 2015
July 21 -- Global warming turns 120 next year... sort of. Next year will be the 120th anniversary of the first time we figured out that human activity could be causing climate change. Since then, the science has gotten firmer and the politics have gotten murkier, but the outlook for the future remains uncertain. This is the history of manmade global warming in three minutes

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh, I know what it means. I know what lots of words and phrases mean. That doesn't mean the person I'm talking to has the same idea in their head when they're using such a word. Do you understand this concept? I've dealt with enough far right groups to know that when they say something, they don't mean what most people would interpret it to mean. And in this case I've a feeling you might not be using the same meaning as I'm thinking, because you seem to like trickery.

The doom and gloom of CO2?

There is doom and gloom, and it's not made up.

The PH levels of the seas are dropping. Half of all CO2 is taken up by the seas, and they're suffering for it. Coral is dying because of the change in CO2 levels, species are struggling and getting towards the point of extinction because the seas are changing so much.

Now, the question I have is this. What happens if the seas die, and their ability to absorb CO2 goes from 50% of CO2 in the atmosphere to 0% of CO2 in the atmosphere?

It's possible. It hasn't happened yet. It might never happen. However if it does happen, we go past the point of no return. Then what? What happens if we push the world past this point? Basically the answer is: we're fucked.

See there it is 'we're fucked'.

And until I'm dead, I'll ask folks like you to explain it. Explain how man made CO2 is dangerous. YOU CAN'T. It's not your fault, we all already know you can't. The tests and observations don't support it.

It is what the debate is about f00l.

again, post up some observational data that shows the doom and gloom. Hell, just show the observed man made CO2.

Did you read what I wrote?

CO2 is causing the seas to die.

The seas take 50% of CO2.

If the seas stop taking CO2, then the greenhouse effect will be multiplied by two. The greenhouse effect is part of the reason why we can live on this planet, but it's like central heating, you don't want the heating on when it's 90 degrees outside.

Man made CO2 isn't any more dangerous than natural CO2. However there is so much natural CO2 in the atmosphere and there always has been. At times there's been more (when Humans weren't around) and at times less.
The problem is humans can survive within a certain climate level comfortably. Too hot and too cold and we begin to suffer, we can't live life as we'd like. Evidence would probably be Eskimos, they live, but they didn't become that advanced. Too hot, how many sea level countries close to the equator developed as fast as countries who were in reasonable climates? The deep south isn't as developed in most parts as the north of the US.

But then again humans have managed to develop heating and air conditioning. But what of the animals outside? What of the wildlife, the flora and fauna?

But again. The point I made before and the point you choose to ignore (and then demand answers), what happens if we go over the point of no return?

As for the data you want, I posted this, you ignored it.

Shanghai Air Pollution: Real-time PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI)

You can see the PM2.5 and the PM 10 levels. Currently 190 in Shanghai. You can see 400, sometimes you can see 2,000. Over 50 is bad.


10th and Weller, Seattle, Washington, USA Air Pollution: Real-time PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI)

This is for some place in Seattle. Just chose a random place in the US. PM2.5 levels at 49, Not a single place in the US appears to be at Shanghai levels. Why not? What is in the air? Where does this come from? It's man made. It's made made pollution that is being pumped out.

A map of Europe, look at the places which are sparely inhabited. They're green, very little man made effects, very little pollution at all. Very few particles which are basically poisonous to humans.

Well, again, pollution isn't the argument. Your link says POLLUTION in it. It's about climate and CO2 affects to weather. Doom and gloom of hurricanes and tornadoes cause we drive cars and eat on barbeque grills. hell heat our homes when it is FKING Below Zero.

Is there pollution, you bet your ass there is. I don't argue that all. In fact, in an effort to reduce pollution, the geniuses of the planet invented what is called the catalytic convertor to reduce pollution. however, these fking geniuses didn't know that it would add more CO2 to the air. Did you know that? Just wonder what it is you do know. So, summary is, in the attempt to cut pollution, we ended up adding more CO2 to the air. You might say what the fk? Me too. Is that like a wow moment for ya?

And again, there is no evidence showing CO2 is causing seas to die. It is just a scare tactic. That's it. When I ask for evidence, you won't find any. It doesn't exist, and yet you'll post it's killing the sea. But you have no way to prove that statement. That's all. Why can't you accept that. you can't prove the sea is dying. you just can't. Why do you try and argue that when you know you can't?

Do you know what pollution is? CO2, when produced by humans, is pollution.

All pollution is, the definition of pollution, is:

The American Heritage Dictionary entry: pollution

"1. The act or process of polluting or the state of being polluted, especially the contamination of soil, water, or the atmosphere by the discharge of harmful substances.
2. Something that pollutes; a pollutant or a group of pollutantsollution in the air reduced the visibility near the airport."

CO2 pollutes the air, the more there is, the more we have something that isn't natural, something that isn't desired.

Do you understand how CO2 affects the weather?

Essentially CO2 and other greenhouse gases prevent solar radiation from leaving the Earth's surface, hence increasing the impact of solar radiation.

H2O is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Did you know that?
CO2 is the second most abundant.

The thing is, that the H2O in the atmosphere is NATURAL. A lot of CO2 is also natural. The Earth uses this and life as we know it now emerged living in that atmosphere. It's a good thing. The moon doesn't have life, and one of the reasons for it is that it doesn't have a greenhouse effect. It's the same distance from the sun (more or less) as the Earth, but gets rather cold. The temperatures go from -153 degrees to +107 degrees (Celsius). So, the Greenhouse effect helps to regulate temperatures.

So how can CO2 be negative?

Well, like many things, too much or too little is bad. You can get cancer from too little sunlight, you can get cancer from too much sunlight. There's a balance there which needs to be achieved in order to be healthy.

The Earth isn't much different. CO2 is a long lasting greenhouse gas. It can stay in the atmosphere for 30-95 years. Methane is 72 times stronger than CO2 as a greenhouse gas but only has a shelf life of about 12 years. N2O has a life of 114 years, and is 289 times stronger, but there's far less of this going into the atmosphere.

CO2 is the big one because of how much humans are pumping into the air. CFCs which are 11,000 time stronger than CO2 have been phased out for being too dangerous, and for damaging the Ozone layer.

Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations

Here you can see the difference in levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

According to that hypothesis...a tropospheric hot spot should develop....instead we have seen more than two decades pass with statistically insignificant warming while CO2 continues a steady increase....when a prediction is made based on a hypothesis, and the prediction fails to happen, in real science, the hypothesis is scrapped, more research is done and a new hypothesis is put forward...why isn't the AGW hypothesis being scrapped?...could it be that climate science isn't really science at all?

The thing is, if we look at some charts, we should be seeing massive natural global cooling. Perhaps what we're seeing is natural global cooling along with man made global warming.

But warming we are seeing. You might think it is insignificant, I'm not sure why you think it's insignificant, but hey.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So what you're saying is you'll only accept 100% fact, and any fact I present you'll basically say it isn't fact.

You do realize we're not dealing with 100%s here. We can't say something for certain because there's always going to be interpretation of the facts.

.

The fanatical denialist did not arrive at their conclusions using facts. This is why facts have no effects on their opinions about Global warming...

When the Hurricane center forecasts the movement of a Vortex in the atmosphere...they create a cone of probability as to the position of the storm in the future they do not declare with total certainty "the storm will be at some particular location"...that is Science...different Hurricane forecasting Computer models interpret the data differently so they vary in the forecast positions ... a consensus is reached via a "cone of probability" using the different models interpretation of data...

We agree that the earth is warming...or cooling...where we disagree is the unsubstantiable claim that man is responsible.

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

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

 

[frigidweirdo]

Arctic Warms More Than 5°F in 15 Years, NOAA Says

By Katherine Bagley

Question is, is there MORE ice or less ice? It's possible to have less ice but over a wider area. In fact they've shown that this is what can happen, ice melts, then it is carried by the wind and then it freezes again, making it thinner but larger.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why then have we not had any global warming in nearly 20 years?

You have data to back it up ?

LOL
The "pause" in warming myth: debunked

Myth One: There has been a pause in global warming

Nope, the Earth continues to warm strongly.NASA,NOAA, theIPCCand a long list of other trusted organisations have confirmed that yearly global average temperature continues to climb. 2013 marked the37thyear in a rowthat the yearly global temperature was hotter than average.13 of the hottest 14 yearshave occurred this century.



Source:interactive NOAA graph

But yet we are getting 20 to 30 percent less sunlight reaching the planet than before...Google "Global dimming". Of course I don't trust anything that comes from the NOAA or the UN's IPCC at all.

link?

 

[Old Rocks]

Credibility....in Action
US joins 174 nations to sign hard-won climate pact
UNITED NATIONS -- At least 171 world leaders gathered Friday at the United Nations to sign a sweeping climate agreement negotiated last year and aimed at slowing global warming and helping poorer nations affected most by it.

The "Paris Agreement" was hammered out in Le Bourget, France, in December, at a summit of diplomats and leaders including U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who flew back from Saudi Arabia Thursday night in time to take part in Friday's signing ceremony.

Does childish screaming make your comments better? Or do you just FEEL better?

There are 258 countries, territories and dependent areas. What did the 171 agree mutually to do? Who are the 87 countries who are not even a part of the "agreement"?

Exactly what has China and India agreed to do?

Like childish screaming "its a conspiracy of Scientist" pulling the wool over our eyes but never showing any proof of such a thing ?

Throughout history it has been the frauds, charlatans, and criminals who have attempted to muzzle all talk and debate about the relevant subject. Who is it that is trying to prosecute people for daring to question the scriptures? oh...right. It's you clowns.

What a liar you are, Mr. Westwall.



NATURE | EDITORIAL

• 日本語要約
  Science subpoenaed
  Nature
  
  465,
  
  135–136
  
  (13 May 2010)
  
  doi:10.1038/465135b
  Published online
  
  12 May 2010

The University of Virginia should fight a witch-hunt by the state's attorney general.

Climate science is under scrutiny once again, this time over a modest half-a-million dollars — the collective sum of five federal and state grants being investigated by Kenneth Cuccinelli, a firebrand conservative who was elected late last year as attorney general of Virginia. The grants had multiple recipients, but the official target of the probe is Michael Mann, an internationally respected climate scientist who was an investigator on all five grants while working at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville between 1999 and 2005.

On 23 April, Cuccinelli filed what amounts to a subpoena ordering the University of Virginia to hand over, by 26 July, all available documents, computer code and data relating to Mann's research on the five grants. He also demanded all correspondence, including e-mails — from 1999 to the present — between Mann, now at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, and dozens of climate scientists worldwide, as well as some climate sceptics. The order stated that Cuccinelli was investigating Mann's possible violation of the 2002 Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act — although no evidence of wrongdoing was given to explain invoking the law, which is intended to prosecute individuals who make false claims in order to access government funds.

Since when has anybody stating that AGW is a fact tried to prosecute someone for publishing a scientific paper?

 

[Old Rocks]

We agree that the earth is warming...or cooling...where we disagree is the unsubstantiable claim that man is responsible.

The 97% consensus on global warming
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science.More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers

Which, for the umpteenth time is a logical fallacy given that EVERY ONE of those societies derives funding from perpetuating the fraud. It is not a legitimate argument.

Ah yes, all the Scientific Societies in every nation, all the Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world are in on an international transcultural conspiracy. LOL. Mr. Westwall, you are truly a card.

 

[elektra]

We agree that the earth is warming...or cooling...where we disagree is the unsubstantiable claim that man is responsible.

The 97% consensus on global warming
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science.More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers

Which, for the umpteenth time is a logical fallacy given that EVERY ONE of those societies derives funding from perpetuating the fraud. It is not a legitimate argument.

Ah yes, all the Scientific Societies in every nation, all the Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world are in on an international transcultural conspiracy. LOL. Mr. Westwall, you are truly a card.

All? your basis of a consensus is one man's opinion!

 

[SSDD]

Hmmmm...obviously you did not notice that there has been no increase in temperature the past 18+ years and your chart only goes to 2010.

But, thank you for the effort.

2015 is warmest year on record, NOAA and NASA say ...
as you see NOAA and NASA say 2015 was hottest in history...who is saying otherwise may I ask ?

Known data fabricators and manipulators say this...how credible are they in your eyes?

 

[SSDD]

The thing is, if we look at some charts, we should be seeing massive natural global cooling. Perhaps what we're seeing is natural global cooling along with man made global warming.

But warming we are seeing. You might think it is insignificant, I'm not sure why you think it's insignificant, but hey.

It is insignificant because it is the result of data manipulation...when someone claims a shattering record by a hundredth of a degree after the data has been heavily massaged and manipulated, how much credibility can you really place in the claim? Tell me what is the margin of error in the global mean temperature data base?....is it greater than a hundredth of a degree?....is it greater than half a degree?

 

[SSDD]

So what you're saying is you'll only accept 100% fact, and any fact I present you'll basically say it isn't fact.

You do realize we're not dealing with 100%s here. We can't say something for certain because there's always going to be interpretation of the facts.

.

The fanatical denialist did not arrive at their conclusions using facts. This is why facts have no effects on their opinions about Global warming...

When the Hurricane center forecasts the movement of a Vortex in the atmosphere...they create a cone of probability as to the position of the storm in the future they do not declare with total certainty "the storm will be at some particular location"...that is Science...different Hurricane forecasting Computer models interpret the data differently so they vary in the forecast positions ... a consensus is reached via a "cone of probability" using the different models interpretation of data...

We agree that the earth is warming...or cooling...where we disagree is the unsubstantiable claim that man is responsible.

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

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

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

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Known data fabricators and manipulators say this...how credible are they in your eyes?

Are you under the delusion that your declarations are somehow more credible than NASA and NOAA ?
If you have data post it...If you have link to some Internationally respected agencies who says NASA and NOAA are data fabricators posts the links...simply declaring "everything I disagree with is fake even though it comes from respected agencies " does not make it so.

Grand accusations like that require Proof .....that you do not have ...or can have because its NOT REAL

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

It is insignificant because it is the result of data manipulation...

Can you provide some corroboration to your grand declaration that it is "data manipulation" you have links ?

 

[SSDD]

We agree that the earth is warming...or cooling...where we disagree is the unsubstantiable claim that man is responsible.

The 97% consensus on global warming
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science.More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers

Which, for the umpteenth time is a logical fallacy given that EVERY ONE of those societies derives funding from perpetuating the fraud. It is not a legitimate argument.

Ah yes, all the Scientific Societies in every nation, all the Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world are in on an international transcultural conspiracy. LOL. Mr. Westwall, you are truly a card.

And for all that bluster, you can't produce a single bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical world in support of the A in AGW. Since there is no actual debate ending evidence in existence, the only other thing that could create that sort of consensus is big old buckets full of money...nothing creates consensus faster than money...ask any lawyer.

 

[SSDD]

Known data fabricators and manipulators say this...how credible are they in your eyes?

Are you under the delusion that your declarations are somehow more credible than NASA and NOAA ?
If you have data post it...If you have link to some Internationally respected agencies who says NASA and NOAA are data fabricators posts the links...simply declaring "everything I disagree with is fake even though it comes from respected agencies " does not make it so.

Grand accusations like that require Proof .....that you do not have ...or can have because its NOT REAL

When actual evidence of the manipulation is out there for anyone to see....yes...in fact anyone who claims that they are credible when clear and undeniable evidence of data manipulation exists in the public sphere is nothing more than a political hack...

You can't even begin to give a rational scientifically valid reason for the data manipulation but you believe....not based on any scientific knowledge but upon your political leaning and nothing more. You are apparently willing to ignore any and all data manipulation and evidence of it in order to maintain your politically motivated belief.

 

[SSDD]

It is insignificant because it is the result of data manipulation...

Can you provide some corroboration to your grand declaration that it is "data manipulation" you have links ?

Already gave them to you multiple times...ignoring them does not change the fact of their existence in the least.