Time for failed global warming predictions.

[cnm]

And thats is my point about the old days when it comes to manually reading and recording it is only as good as the person doing it

Which will be averaged out over years of recordings.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You mad bro that none of the global warming predictions have come true?

I don't know about that. To everyone but dumb fuck rightards worried about a global scam to rip them off, the prediction made by climate scientists of increasing global temperatures is shown to be true.

I wonder why it is so hard to get the data right?



Climate Skeptic: Temperature Measurement



Anthony Watt does this analysis from USHCN raw all the way through to the GISS adjusted number (the USHCN adjusts the number, and then the GISS adds their own adjustments on top of these adjustments). The result: 100%+ of the 20th century global warming signal comes from the adjustments. [Update: I was not very clear on this — this is merely an example for one single site — it is not for the USHCN or GISS index as a whole. This is merely an example of the low signal to noise ratio in much of the surface temperature record] There is actually a cooling signal in the raw data:



Now, I really, really don’t want to be misinterpreted on this, so a few notes are necessary:

1. Many of the adjustments are quite necessary, such as time of observation adjustments, adjustments for changing equipment, and adjustments for changing site locations and/or urbanization. However, all of these adjustments are educated guesses. Some, like the time of observation adjustment, probably are decent guesses. Some, like site location adjustments, are terrible (as demonstrated at surfacestations.org).The point is that finding a temperature change signal over time with current technologies is a measurement subject to a lot of noise. We are looking for a signal on the order of magnitude of 0.5C where adjustments to individual raw instrument values might be 2-3C. It is a very low signal-noise environment, and one that is inherently subject to biases (researches who expect to find a lot of warming will, not surprisingly, adjust a lot of measurements higher).

 

[couch protester]

Which will be averaged out over years of recordings.

I didn't know Jim Jones victims survived from drinking the kool aid.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You mad bro that none of the global warming predictions have come true?

I don't know about that. To everyone but dumb fuck rightards worried about a global scam to rip them off, the prediction made by climate scientists of increasing global temperatures is shown to be true.

I wonder why it is so hard to get the data right?



Climate Skeptic: Temperature Measurement



Anthony Watt does this analysis from USHCN raw all the way through to the GISS adjusted number (the USHCN adjusts the number, and then the GISS adds their own adjustments on top of these adjustments). The result: 100%+ of the 20th century global warming signal comes from the adjustments. [Update: I was not very clear on this — this is merely an example for one single site — it is not for the USHCN or GISS index as a whole. This is merely an example of the low signal to noise ratio in much of the surface temperature record] There is actually a cooling signal in the raw data:



Now, I really, really don’t want to be misinterpreted on this, so a few notes are necessary:

1. Many of the adjustments are quite necessary, such as time of observation adjustments, adjustments for changing equipment, and adjustments for changing site locations and/or urbanization. However, all of these adjustments are educated guesses. Some, like the time of observation adjustment, probably are decent guesses. Some, like site location adjustments, are terrible (as demonstrated at surfacestations.org).The point is that finding a temperature change signal over time with current technologies is a measurement subject to a lot of noise. We are looking for a signal on the order of magnitude of 0.5C where adjustments to individual raw instrument values might be 2-3C. It is a very low signal-noise environment, and one that is inherently subject to biases (researches who expect to find a lot of warming will, not surprisingly, adjust a lot of measurements higher).

After 5 minutes of searching lucky me found a little soft data

Global Mean Annual Temperature Average per Decade

°C. °F
1880s13.73. 56.71
1890s13.75. 56.74
1900s13.74. 56.73
1910s13.72. 56.70
1920s13.83. 56.89
1930s13.96. 57.12
1940s14.04. 57.26
1950s13.98. 57.16
1960s13.99. 57.18
1970s14.00. 57.20
1980s14.18. 57.52
1990s14.31. 57.76
2000s14.51. 58.12








.

 

[Wyatt earp]

We like hard science, we still don't have enough data.

Only over 120 years worth. More than that from natural records.

Hmmmmm

Unadjusted data of long period stations in GISS show a virtually flat century scale trend

Temperature trends for all stations in GISS

The temperature trends for rural and non-rural US stations in GISS are shown in Figure
1.


Figure 1: Temperature trends and station counts for all US stations in GISS between 1850 and 2010. The slope for the rural stations is 0.0039 deg/year, and for the other stations 0.0059 deg/year.

This figure resembles other renderings of the same raw dataset. The most notable feature in this graph is not in the temperature but in the station count. Both to the left of 1900 and to the right of 2000 there is a steep drop in the number of available
stations. While this seems quite understandable before 1900, the even steeper drop after 2000 seems peculiar.

If we simply lop off these two time periods, we obtain the trends shown in Figure
2.


Figure 2: Temperature trends and station counts for all US stations in GISS between 1900 and 2000. The slope for the rural stations is 0.0034 deg/year, and for the other stations 0.0038 deg/year.

The upward slope of the average temperature is reduced; this reduction is more pronounced with non-rural stations, and the remaining difference between rural and non-rural stations is negligible.

 

[Wyatt earp]

We like hard science, we still don't have enough data.

Only over 120 years worth. More than that from natural records.

Wonder how come Great Britian temperture records didn't show anything substantial?

 

[cnm]

I wonder why it is so hard to get the data right?

Because there's a vast global conspiracy to rip off dumb fuck rightards. I thought everyone knew that.

 

[cnm]

Wonder how come Great Britian temperture records didn't show anything substantial?

Because of course Great Britain is the globe. It's part of the great global conspiracy to rip off a few dumb fuck American rightards. Woo hoo! Bring on the grant money!

 

[SSDD]

The last two years have turned out to be so fucking hot how the hell could you make a post like this?

Matthew, are you really this stupid...The last two years "records" have been "so fucking hot" by a hundredth of a degree which was only achieved through data manipulation and a cooling of the 1940's to give the appearance of unusual warming. There is nothing happening in the climate that could be considered new, unprecedented, rapid, or scary.

 

[SSDD]

New York will be under water in 2015.....Al Gore

FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015

That was a dumb prediction by ABC! Sea level would have to rise over 3-5 feet in 8 years for such to happen. We may raise that much by 2100.

Of course it was....all the predictions that have been made based on the AGW hypothesis are stupid....but you know what?.....a quick review of posts made during those time periods, when those stupid predictions were being made show you guys not calling them stupid at the time...not one warmer called out against stupid predictions....or fear mongering.....or baseless claims of catastrophe....you were all on board warning us of the coming global disaster.....and those predictions were not just made up by the press....they were reporting what climate science was telling them.

 

[SSDD]

And still you ignore climate scientists, as though the Pentagon, the DoD, all the US agencies, all the world governments except Saudi...Saudi! are so dumb as to be taken in by a conspiracy only ignorant rightards are clever enough to perceive. What a dumb fuck rightard. But I repeat myself.

You witter about 97% yet produce no climate models created by denying scientists. Because their assertions, let alone the models they have not produced have all been proved ludicrous by observed temperatures. What a useful idiot rightard. But I repeat myself, again.

The CIA was taken in by the coming ice age scare of the 70's....you think the best and brightest work for government...think again.

 

[SSDD]

That the proposed solutions to global warming are tax increases is the major clue that its a lie.

Yes. A vast conspiracy just to rip off dumb fuck rightards. Damn, you've seen through it.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

Here is just a bit of fact for you....

See the end of the highlighted section....that's NOAA stating clearly that the global climate cooled from 1921 to 1979....back during that time, if you looked at a graph of temperature trends, you could actually see a cooling trend from 1921 to 1979....now take a look at your graph above after adjustment after adjustment after adjustment and show me the global cooling trend between 1921 and 1979 that NOAA had recorded....are you going to tell me that you believe the adjustments that have been made actually make the record more accurate and that way back in 1989 NOAA couldn't determine a global temperature trend or that in the years between 1921 and 1979 we hadn't yet learned to read thermometers?

The bulk of claimed climate change is a hoax....it is the result of a pursuit of grant money and political power...not anything like scientific truth.

 

[SSDD]

are Scientist ever wrong? ever? or are they a new god to some?

The scientific consensus is the best knowledge we have at any particular point in time. When better knowledge is available it replaces the previous knowledge.

And history shows that it is damned near always wrong....consensus is a political phrase, not a scientific word.

 

[SSDD]

Meanwhile, prediction after prediction turns out to be totally false. They still cling to their claims.

How about a prediction from a climate scientist that turned out to be totally false?

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

Sure...how about the prediction of a tropospheric hot spot which would get steadily warmer as more CO2 enters the atmosphere....it was supposed to be the smoking gun of anthropogenic effect on the climate....a million radiosondes still say that it doesn't exist...and as a result the AGW hypothesis was falsified,....and if we were talking about real science, the hypothesis would have been scrapped at that time and a revised, hypothesis put forward till such time as it failed a prediction and on the process of real science goes...but not so with climate science...they double down on the failed predictions, and are propped up by the press and politicians who see climate change as a means to more power.

 

[SSDD]

Lol.....

??

Both those graphs show a warming trend.

What is it with dumb fuck rightards?

Here, have another look... NOAA stated clearly in 1989 that there was a global cooling trend between 1921 and 1979....do you see any evidence of that cooling trend in your modern graph based on a heavily adjusted temperature record? Any rational explanation for the disappearance of the trend NOAA had detected back then?

 

[SSDD]

I cannot tell if this loser is admitting the predictions were utterly false or if he is acting like a snotty nosed brat and being the sore loser that he is.

Post some more predictions from politicians and journalists while ignoring climate scientists. It's great, reinforces the rightard dumb fuck impression.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

Here....explain where the cooling trend NOAA had recorded from 1921 to 1979 can be found on your graph based on heavily adjusted temperature data....

 

[SSDD]

“Beginning in a decade or two [i.e. by 2005], scientists expect the warming of the atmosphere to melt the polar icecaps…”

IDEAS & TRENDS (CONTINUED); A DIRE LONG-RANGE FORECAST

——————–

2007: U.N. Scientists say only eight years left to avoid worst effects

UN scientists warn time is running out to tackle global warming

——————–

2009: ABC News Envisioned Apocalyptic 2015 Triggered By Climate Change

Flashback: ABC News Envisioned Apocalyptic 2015 Triggered By Climate Change [VIDEO]

——————–

In August 2009, then Senator John Kerry said the Arctic would be ice-free by the summer of 2013

In August 2009, then Senator John Kerry... - Senator Ted Cruz | Facebook

——————–

“‘Excessively high temperatures’ are ‘already’ harming public health nationwide…”

— Barack Obama, Nov. 1, 2013

Executive Order: 'Excessively High Temperatures' 'Already' Harming Public Health

——————–

Inconvenient Truths: 2014 Atmospheric Natural Disasters Way Down …No Trend In Tornado/Cyclones Since 1950!

Inconvenient Truths: 2014 Global Natural Disasters Down Massively! …No Trend In Tornado/Cyclones Since 1950!

I have a lot more.

Oooops was this suppose to be in the environmental section or political? I think political, don't you?

And what did the other side predict? Nothing. Why? Because they don't have an argument, they simply bash everything the other side does.

One side is based around education and trying to understand. The other is based on hatred.

Why we don't predict abything about weather/climate and mother nature?


Because we are not stupid ducks.



We like hard science, we still don't have enough data.



.

Sure, don't have enough data. Who is getting the data? The people making predictions. Predictions are just that. The problem is many people will take predictions as PURE FACT and then slam them when they're wrong.

What do you expect?

You seem to think that we'll just suddenly understand everything one day. Maybe, once we've completely destroyed the planet, then, and only then, will we be 100% sure.

Tell me buckwheat....back when those crazy predictions were being made, were you speaking out saying that we don't have enough data to make such predictions?...were you speaking out saying that they were just predictions and didn't really hold any weight?...or were you, like you are today, right behind all the predictions being made today that won't come to pass...then when those predictions fail, will you be making the same excuse then?

 

[SSDD]

We like hard science, we still don't have enough data.

Only over 120 years worth. More than that from natural records.

No. those are not from natural records...your graph is the result of extensive data tampering....in 1980, NOAA stated clearly that they had observed a global temperature decline between the years of 1921 and 1979...where is that decline evident in your graph....what rational, scientifically valid explanation can you give for altering the record so heavily that the cooling trend NOAA detected then is no longer present in the record?

 

[SSDD]

You mad bro that none of the global warming predictions have come true?

I don't know about that. To everyone but dumb fuck rightards worried about a global scam to rip them off, the prediction made by climate scientists of increasing global temperatures is shown to be true.

This graph is evidence of a scam...ONCE AGAIN...in 1989 NOAA said that between the years of 1921, and 1979 there was a global cooling trend and that most of the warming they had seen up to that time happened before 1920....is that what your graph, based on heavily manipulated, and tampered data looks like today?....Got a rational, scientifically valid reason to explain the alteration of the historical data record?....anything?....Buler?.....Buler?....Buler?.....

 

[SSDD]

Before this it was the ozone hole

What, the ozone hole doesn't exist in dumb fuck rightardia?

So you believed that scam also? How does the ozone layer form?