Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[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.

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

Gee whiz, I was not aware that the membership of the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, and the Royal Society of Great Britain were all composed of just one man. Thank you for informing us all of this.

 

[jc456]

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.

Exactly. What is it you missed?

As I've stated before, Judith Curry stated so with the APS. If one then all, period fk!

 

[elektra]

Gee whiz, I was not aware that the membership of the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, and the Royal Society of Great Britain were all composed of just one man. Thank you for informing us all of this.

We know you are not aware of much, but the claim is 97%, which does come from the opinion of one man.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

What the fuck are you talking about, you ignorant ass?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-levels-for-february-eclipsed-prehistoric-highs/

February is one of the first months since before months had names to boast carbon dioxide concentrations at 400 parts per million.* Such CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have likely not been seen since at least the end of the Oligocene 23 million years ago, an 11-million-year-long epoch of gradual climate cooling that most likely saw CO2 concentrations drop from more than 1,000 ppm. Those of us alive today breathe air never tasted by any of our ancestors in the entire Homo genus.

You guys just flap your silly yaps, and never research anything that you claim. You are dead wrong, at the beginning of the last ice age, the CO2 levels were between 280 and 300 ppm.

 

[Old Rocks]

Gee whiz, I was not aware that the membership of the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, and the Royal Society of Great Britain were all composed of just one man. Thank you for informing us all of this.

We know you are not aware of much, but the claim is 97%, which does come from the opinion of one man.

Silly ass, find us some Scientific Societies that state AGW is not a fact. How about a National Academy of Science, even of Outer Slobovia? Or a major University that states AGW is not a fact. Come on, boy, you can do it.

 

[elektra]

Silly ass, find us some Scientific Societies that state AGW is not a fact. How about a National Academy of Science, even of Outer Slobovia? Or a major University that states AGW is not a fact. Come on, boy, you can do it.

The University of Michigan

 

[Old Rocks]

Silly ass, find us some Scientific Societies that state AGW is not a fact. How about a National Academy of Science, even of Outer Slobovia? Or a major University that states AGW is not a fact. Come on, boy, you can do it.

The University of Michigan

http://closup.umich.edu/files/ieep-nsee-2015-fall-climate-belief.pdf

Acceptance of Global Warming Among Americans Reaches Highest Level Since 2008

a report from the National Surveys on Energy and Environment Number 25 |
October 2015 Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy

Introduction

For the first time since 2008 at least 7 out of 10 Americans indicate that they believe there is solid evidence of global warming over the past four decades. This 70% belief level is the second highest mark in the history of the National Surveys on Energy and the Environment (NSEE) falling just short of the 72% record level reported in Fall 2008. This increased level of acceptance of evidence of global warming coincides with the lowest percentage of Americans expressing doubt in solid evidence of global warming in the history of the NSEE. The Fall 2015 survey shows that only 16% of adult Americans currently believe there is not solid evidence of global warming, a mark 1% lower than the previous record of 17% recorded in Fall 2008.

Key Findings:

1. More Americans than at any time since 2008 indicate that there is solid evidence of increasing temperatures on Earth with 70% of residents now maintaining that view. Similarly, a record low number of Americans (16%) say that there is not evidence of global warming.

2. A majority of Republicans (56%) now believe that there is solid evidence of global warming, up from 47% a year ago, joining solid majorities of Democrats (79%) and Independents (69%).

3. Americans who believe there is evidence of global warming are also increasingly confident in their belief, with a record 65% saying they are “very confident” in their appraisal.

4. Severe drought across many parts of the United States has become the factor most cited by Americans as having a “very large” effect on their position that global warming is occurring. A record 61% of Americans who indicate there is evidence of global warming said severe droughts were having a very large effect on their belief.

5. In previous NSEE surveys, large majorities of American who do not believe there is evidence of global warming have pointed to local weather observations as the basis for their position. In the Fall 2015 survey, however, more than a third (34%) of those doubtful of global warming said local weather observation has “no effect” on their views about climate change, the highest percentage in the history of the NSEE.

From the University of Michigan.

 

[elektra]

Either way, it is a study of papers, an opinion of papers that states there is a consensus. Let us see the papers, all of them, let us read them, and let us read the papers that Cook rejected.

Yep, there is consensus, as dictated, that you simply can not see, you must accept the dictate of Government as fact.

 

[Old Rocks]

National Surveys on Energy and Environment | Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy
National Surveys on Energy and Environment
Summary
The National Surveys on Energy and Environment (NSEE), a core activity in CLOSUP'sEnergy and Environmental Policy Initiative, reflects a formal partnership between theMuhlenberg Institute of Public Opinion at Muhlenberg College and the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy at the University of Michigan's Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. NSEE surveys include twice per year national opinion surveys on issues directly related to climate change, as well as other surveys conducted on a range of topics such as hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"), the Great Lakes, and wider issues of energy and environment.

NSEE is co-directed by professor Barry Rabe at the University of Michigan, and professorChristopher Borick at Muhlenberg College. For more information on the collaboration between the University of Michigan and Muhlenberg College, please see the recent article from Muhlenberg Magazine. For more information about the NSEE, contact CLOSUP staff at 734-647-4091 or [email protected].

Funding and Financial Disclosure
Funding for the NSEE surveys to-date has been provided by general revenues of the University of Michigan Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy, and the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion.

Reports from the National Surveys on Energy and the Environment
American Attitudes about the Clean Power Plan and Policies for Compliance


Acceptance of Global Warming Rising for Americans of all Religious Beliefs


Acceptance of Global Warming Among Americans Reaches Highest Level Since 2008


Belief in Global Warming Among Americans Gradually Increases Following the Winter of 2015


Cap-and-Trade Support Linked to Revenue Use


Widespread Public Support for Renewable Energy Mandates Despite Proposed Rollbacks


Acceptance of Global Warming Among Americans Moderately Increases in Late 2014


Public Support for Regulation of Power Plant Emissions Under the Clean Power Plan


Public Opinion on Hydraulic Fracturing in the province of Quebec: A Comparison with Michigan and Pennsylvania


Public Perceptions of Shale Gas Extraction and Hydraulic Fracturing in New York and Pennsylvania


Public Views on a Carbon Tax Depend on the Proposed Use of Revenue


American Acceptance of Global Warming Retreats in Wake of Winter 2014


Public Opinion on Climate Change and Support for Various Policy Instruments in Canada and the US

My goodness, the U of M seems to be among those Universities whose policies state that AGW is real. Anything that you would like to add, Elektra?

 

[elektra]

Silly ass, find us some Scientific Societies that state AGW is not a fact. How about a National Academy of Science, even of Outer Slobovia? Or a major University that states AGW is not a fact. Come on, boy, you can do it.

The University of Michigan

http://closup.umich.edu/files/ieep-nsee-2015-fall-climate-belief.pdf

Acceptance of Global Warming Among Americans Reaches Highest Level Since 2008

a report from the National Surveys on Energy and Environment Number 25 |
October 2015 Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy

Introduction

For the first time since 2008 at least 7 out of 10 Americans indicate that they believe there is solid evidence of global warming over the past four decades. This 70% belief level is the second highest mark in the history of the National Surveys on Energy and the Environment (NSEE) falling just short of the 72% record level reported in Fall 2008. This increased level of acceptance of evidence of global warming coincides with the lowest percentage of Americans expressing doubt in solid evidence of global warming in the history of the NSEE. The Fall 2015 survey shows that only 16% of adult Americans currently believe there is not solid evidence of global warming, a mark 1% lower than the previous record of 17% recorded in Fall 2008.

Key Findings:

1. More Americans than at any time since 2008 indicate that there is solid evidence of increasing temperatures on Earth with 70% of residents now maintaining that view. Similarly, a record low number of Americans (16%) say that there is not evidence of global warming.

2. A majority of Republicans (56%) now believe that there is solid evidence of global warming, up from 47% a year ago, joining solid majorities of Democrats (79%) and Independents (69%).

3. Americans who believe there is evidence of global warming are also increasingly confident in their belief, with a record 65% saying they are “very confident” in their appraisal.

4. Severe drought across many parts of the United States has become the factor most cited by Americans as having a “very large” effect on their position that global warming is occurring. A record 61% of Americans who indicate there is evidence of global warming said severe droughts were having a very large effect on their belief.

5. In previous NSEE surveys, large majorities of American who do not believe there is evidence of global warming have pointed to local weather observations as the basis for their position. In the Fall 2015 survey, however, more than a third (34%) of those doubtful of global warming said local weather observation has “no effect” on their views about climate change, the highest percentage in the history of the NSEE.

From the University of Michigan.

You said a University that states the Universities position is that man has caused the World to warm.

The study you linked to is a paper stating what people believe, not what the University's position is.

The study you linked to specifically states Global Warming, it does not state Man Made Global Warming.

What people believe does not establish fact, and the study you produced does not address AGW, nice try, Crock.

 

[Old Rocks]

My goodness, Elektra, going to lie about your lies? Now that is doubling down on failure.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS05-20.pdf

Climate Change: Policy and Mitigation

The Challenge

Climate change is a global problem that will require global cooperation to address. The objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which virtually all nations, including the U.S., have ratified, is to stabilize greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations at a level that will not cause “dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system.”1 Due to the persistence of the increased concentrations of GHGs, significant emissions reductions must be achieved in coming decades to meet the UNFCCC objective. Unrestricted growth in global emissions is projected to lead to a 5% increase in CO2 concentration levels from 2011 to 2030 and between a 74-202% increase by 2100.2 Stabilizing CO2 at 450 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere by the year 2100 (which will likely keep temperature change below 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels) will require lowering global CO2 emissions in 2050 by 40-70% compared to 2010, and will require emissions levels near zero GtCO2 e in 2100.2 Stabilization at 500 ppm, almost double the pre-industrial concentration, could be achieved by holding GHG emissions constant for 50 years and then reducing emissions by two-thirds over the following 50 years.3 In 2013, U.S. GHG emissions were 6.7 GtCO2 e.4

Elektra, time to admit to the lie.

 

[elektra]

So we can see, that according to a study, people's opinion is based on false facts, or incomplete information, like the supposed drought of 2014, what would the opinion be if the people knew that in 2014 the drought ridden areas of the west produced a record tonnage of grapes for wine? What would the opinion be if they knew California has a 80$ Billion dollar plan to "fix" the "drought"?

 

[elektra]

My goodness, Elektra, going to lie about your lies? Now that is doubling down on failure.

Lies, you stated AGW, not Global Warming, you produced a study of opinions, not facts or proof, of a professor, not the position of a University.

Not as easy as PIE for you, Crock.

 

[elektra]

http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS05-20.pdf

Climate Change: Policy and Mitigation

The Challenge

Climate change is a global problem that will require global cooperation to address. The objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which virtually all nations, including the U.S., have ratified, is to stabilize greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations at a level that will not cause “dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system.”1 Due to the persistence of the increased concentrations of GHGs, significant emissions reductions must be achieved in coming decades to meet the UNFCCC objective. Unrestricted growth in global emissions is projected to lead to a 5% increase in CO2 concentration levels from 2011 to 2030 and between a 74-202% increase by 2100.2 Stabilizing CO2 at 450 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere by the year 2100 (which will likely keep temperature change below 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels) will require lowering global CO2 emissions in 2050 by 40-70% compared to 2010, and will require emissions levels near zero GtCO2 e in 2100.2 Stabilization at 500 ppm, almost double the pre-industrial concentration, could be achieved by holding GHG emissions constant for 50 years and then reducing emissions by two-thirds over the following 50 years.3 In 2013, U.S. GHG emissions were 6.7 GtCO2 e.4

Elektra, time to admit to the lie.

Old Crock is God, and will control the Climate! It is dictated by the all powerful, United Nations, to save the World from the pesky Humans. All hail to the new Gods, all hail and obey.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Elektra once again has been shown to be a liar. Make really stupid statements, get your ass handed to you.

 

[elektra]

LOL. Elektra once again has been shown to be a liar. Make really stupid statements, get your ass handed to you.

Old Crock is making a statement without addressing a post, without quoting, Old Crock, you are the liar, you proved much when you posted the wrong formula for Power and could not admit it was wrong.

But, either way, the solution you propose to AGW, is the problem, manufacturing 1000 ton wind turbines, millions of them, produces billions of tons of CO2. The solution destroys the World, if we accept your false premise that CO2 increases the temperature of the Earth.

The only thing that will happen when you lower the levels of CO2 is plants will not produce as much food, plants will not grow as much.

As it is, to build more Wind Turbines and to build more Solar panels, to build millions more forever, using coal and hydrocarbons, increases the level of CO2.

 

[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?

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.

The Earth has changed. In the past CO2 was much higher. Then again it didn't have the current crop of animals on the planet for the most part.

Co2 levels may very well have changed dramatically killing off everything in the seas, or it may well have changed over time allowing for evolution to take its time in changing those creatures and allowing them to adapt.

However this isn't necessarily the point here.

The point is that we are killing the seas. We're going somewhere where we don't know the consequences of our actions.

Now, the planet will probably survive. But will humans? Will CO2 levels rise to a point where the seas die, leading to CO2 and other greenhouse gases making the planet inhospitable to humans?

This is really the main point about what we're doing to the planet.

 

[westwall]

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.

The Earth has changed. In the past CO2 was much higher. Then again it didn't have the current crop of animals on the planet for the most part.

Co2 levels may very well have changed dramatically killing off everything in the seas, or it may well have changed over time allowing for evolution to take its time in changing those creatures and allowing them to adapt.

However this isn't necessarily the point here.

The point is that we are killing the seas. We're going somewhere where we don't know the consequences of our actions.

Now, the planet will probably survive. But will humans? Will CO2 levels rise to a point where the seas die, leading to CO2 and other greenhouse gases making the planet inhospitable to humans?

This is really the main point about what we're doing to the planet.

CO2 can't do anything that is claimed. It is NOT a pollutant. It IS the fundamental building block of all life on this planet. It is not a desired vitamin or amino acid it is absolutely necessary for life on this planet. Anyone who claims it is a pollutant is a moron.

 

[SSDD]

What the fuck are you talking about, you ignorant ass?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-levels-for-february-eclipsed-prehistoric-highs/

February is one of the first months since before months had names to boast carbon dioxide concentrations at 400 parts per million.* Such CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have likely not been seen since at least the end of the Oligocene 23 million years ago, an 11-million-year-long epoch of gradual climate cooling that most likely saw CO2 concentrations drop from more than 1,000 ppm. Those of us alive today breathe air never tasted by any of our ancestors in the entire Homo genus.

You guys just flap your silly yaps, and never research anything that you claim. You are dead wrong, at the beginning of the last ice age, the CO2 levels were between 280 and 300 ppm.

Sorry rocks...I keep forgetting that you are one of those poor dupes who believes that the earth has exited the ice age that began at the mid point of the tertiary period and continues today and will continue till such time as there is no ice at the poles....as you can see from the graph below, when the decent into the ice age that continues today began, atmospheric CO2 was at about 1000ppm...

Do yourself a quick google of the term "current ice age" and read some of the 15,000 odd hits you get...learn something rocks...