Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[SSDD]

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.

Silly ass...provide some of...hell just provide one piece of actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable, real world that supports the A in AGW....the fact that you can't should seriously wonder for what reason the so called consensus exists...and ask your stupid self, what creates consensus more quickly than anything else in the absence of actual evidence...answer.....money.

 

[SSDD]

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.

And there you are wrong...Most animals we see today evolved during the later Mesozoic and through the Cenozoic....as you can see, CO2 concentrations were far higher than today...

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.

Fairy tales....look to see during which period most modern marine life evolved...you will find that they evolved at a time when CO2 was much higher....Atmospheric CO2 levels never killed anything....do you have any idea what the CO2 level is in the breath you exhale? Learn something.

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

True enough...but CO2 has nothing to do with it...we are killing the seas with pollution but real problems such as that will not be addressed so long as the AGW hoax continues to suck all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers.

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?

Now you are just talking out of your ass....if we burned every bit of fossil fuel on earth we could not raise the Ph levels enough to kill anything...hell daily variances in Ph are often huge....we can't kill the seas with our CO2....it is bullshit.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

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

University of Michigan Climate Change Research
Earth's climate has experienced tremendous change throughout Earth history, from ice ages to greenhouse worlds, and is currently undergoing unprecedented warming due to human activities. The Climate Change Research Group at the University of Michigan, led by Professor Chris Poulsen, investigates these changes using both theoretical and observational methods in order to ultimately understand how climate dynamics, feedbacks, and variability.

 

[Old Rocks]

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...

Lordy, lordy, Cannot read a simple graph, eh. The current ice ages began about 2 million years ago. And the CO2 level was considerably less than 1000 ppm at that time. Since the Tertiary is roughly 65 millions years in length, two million years ago is hardly the midpoint.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

And there you are wrong...Most animals we see today evolved during the later Mesozoic and through the Cenozoic....as you can see, CO2 concentrations were far higher than today...

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.

Fairy tales....look to see during which period most modern marine life evolved...you will find that they evolved at a time when CO2 was much higher....Atmospheric CO2 levels never killed anything....do you have any idea what the CO2 level is in the breath you exhale? Learn something.

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

True enough...but CO2 has nothing to do with it...we are killing the seas with pollution but real problems such as that will not be addressed so long as the AGW hoax continues to suck all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers.

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?

Now you are just talking out of your ass....if we burned every bit of fossil fuel on earth we could not raise the Ph levels enough to kill anything...hell daily variances in Ph are often huge....we can't kill the seas with our CO2....it is bullshit.

Actually I'm not wrong. What you said is they EVOLVED, yes, some died out, like dinosaurs, latest thinking is the dinosaurs were dying out, and potentially because of the changing climate. Other animals would have thrived more, adapted a bit and many others would have disappeared.

Fairy tales? Jeez, again, things adapted. However things can adapt through one and towards another and then die out. Nothing you have said or shown disproves anything. I'm not saying the will die out, I'm saying they could.

Also, what you're pointing to are natural changes, which yes, did kill off a lot of stuff, and other stuff evolved.

My point is, would humans and other animals evolve or die out because of a sudden drastic change to the atmosphere or the seas?

Yes, we're also killing the seas with other stuff, however CO2 is also killing the seas, and could potentially do it on its own if we continue to fill it with CO2.

As for you statement about raising PH levels. PROVE 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

University of Michigan Climate Change Research
Earth's climate has experienced tremendous change throughout Earth history, from ice ages to greenhouse worlds, and is currently undergoing unprecedented warming due to human activities. The Climate Change Research Group at the University of Michigan, led by Professor Chris Poulsen, investigates these changes using both theoretical and observational methods in order to ultimately understand how climate dynamics, feedbacks, and variability.

Your link does not lead to the University of Michigan, it takes us to a .com? It is the private site of an individual.

 

[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

And when asked for even one shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis, none of you warmers seems to be able to provide it....if there is no actual evidence, upon what is that consensus based? A non empirical evidenced based consensus?...what the hell good is that? You know what makes consensus better than even evidence???.....money, that's what.

 

[SSDD]

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.

He is a member in good standing of the union of Concerned Scientists...here is a relatively recent photo of another member in good standing of the union of concerned scientists reviewing some literature she received in the mail from that august organization... Her name is Kenji..

 

[SSDD]

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.

I am far more interested in finding some observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from out here in the real world that strongly suggests that AGW is fact...actual evidence trumps a bought and paid for consensus any day....and when asked for such evidence, none of you blow hard warmists with your endless claims of evidence could produce even the first bit of anything approaching actual evidence in support of the A in AGW.

 

[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...

Lordy, lordy, Cannot read a simple graph, eh. The current ice ages began about 2 million years ago. And the CO2 level was considerably less than 1000 ppm at that time. Since the Tertiary is roughly 65 millions years in length, two million years ago is hardly the midpoint.

So rocks....in order to melt the ice at one or both poles, and effectively end the ice age, the average mean temperature would need to reach about 18C...when has that happened?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

A non empirical evidenced based consensus?...what the hell good is that? You know what makes consensus better than even evidence???.....money, that's what.

You and the crazy denialist have some gall asking for data ,...where is your data ...support your position..where is your data ...put up some links...you all make outlandish claims that every one in Science is corrupt...well where are your non corrupt scientist LOL...put up something instead of repeating your OPINIONS over and over

 

[jc456]

A non empirical evidenced based consensus?...what the hell good is that? You know what makes consensus better than even evidence???.....money, that's what.

You and the crazy denialist have some gall asking for data ,...where is your data ...support your position..where is your data ...put up some links...you all make outlandish claims that every one in Science is corrupt...well where are your non corrupt scientist LOL...put up something instead of repeating your OPINIONS over and over

that's funny dude. Billy's been posting them, and you all claim they're inaccurate. I think there have been many times the data sets have been posted. Ian, SSDD. You have seen them.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

that's funny dude. Billy's been posting them, and you all claim they're inaccurate. I think there have been many times the data sets have been posted. Ian, SSDD. You have seen them.

you all simply repeat your mantras over and over "all of science is corrupt" over and over ...one Crazy claimed that U of Michigan denies AGW ..as soon as someone posted that I destroyed it..post something anything..LOL

 

[jc456]

that's funny dude. Billy's been posting them, and you all claim they're inaccurate. I think there have been many times the data sets have been posted. Ian, SSDD. You have seen them.

you all simply repeat your mantras over and over "all of science is corrupt" over and over ...one Crazy claimed that U of Michigan denies AGW ..as soon as someone posted that I destroyed it..post something anything..LOL

What I do know is that no one has an experiment that can prove the temperature from 20 PPM of CO2.

And I know that if LWIR goes down, so do temperatures. And yet you warmers all got warmest evah going on in the fruitcake. And with decreased LWIR that is fking impossible.

 

[jc456]

like I said, you got nothing.

 

[SSDD]

A non empirical evidenced based consensus?...what the hell good is that? You know what makes consensus better than even evidence???.....money, that's what.

You and the crazy denialist have some gall asking for data ,...where is your data ...support your position..where is your data ...put up some links...you all make outlandish claims that every one in Science is corrupt...well where are your non corrupt scientist LOL...put up something instead of repeating your OPINIONS over and over

My position is that there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical data in support of the A in AGW...the inability of all warmers everywhere supports my position...the fact that there is claimed consensus, and that the debate is over and that the science is settled when there exists no actual empirical data to support the claims of the consensus points a very suspicious finger at the consensus and their claims.

 

[SSDD]

that's funny dude. Billy's been posting them, and you all claim they're inaccurate. I think there have been many times the data sets have been posted. Ian, SSDD. You have seen them.

you all simply repeat your mantras over and over "all of science is corrupt" over and over ...one Crazy claimed that U of Michigan denies AGW ..as soon as someone posted that I destroyed it..post something anything..LOL

And the inability of the warmers to provide the requested data supporting the A in AGW lends creedence to the claim...

 

[Markle]

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

As you know, the 97% "consensus" thingy is totally bogus. The website you cite's soul purpose is to destroy any and all DENIERS. Don't let the facts confuse the Global Warming lovers.

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

By
JOSEPH BAST And

ROY SPENCER
May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET
839 COMMENTS

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

[...]

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

 

[Markle]

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.

PLEASE show us your legitimate, reliable source and link to large groups of people and legislators, trying to prosecute people who question the scriptures. If you cannot...that would make you the clown.

 

[Markle]

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 ?

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 ?

As you know, Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University. Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information. The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever. Data used by the United Nations IPCC and NASA findings came from EAU.


14th February, 2010


Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED!

There has been no global warming since 1995

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be.


WHAT????


[…]

Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.


Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this worldwide scam.


Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws. In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature.


We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative." No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities. But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken. Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.


Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995


Read more: Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995