Time for failed global warming predictions.

[Wyatt earp]

Dumb fuck rightards are invincibly ignorant, except they've worked out that the whole rest of the world has invented this scam to rip them off. They're pretty clever after all, eh? And to think I was going to make a fortune off them. So much for the grant money.

No world wide scam stupid fuck, just egotistical drama queen scientist.

You are the stupid fuck who buys into it hook line and sinker no matter what common sense tells you.


.

 

[jc456]

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

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

Now I would expect a dumbass like you to get their predictions on climate from a journalist.

In the meantime, those with reasonable intelligence and sanity will get them from the scientists actually studying the problem.

so when will you post up tests conducted by those you hold dear?

 

[jc456]

The irony of this poster is that the other side gets loads of funding from oil companies. Hmmmm forgot to mention that or you were using a biased cartoon?

As for getting stuck in ice, well, it's not our fault you don't understand how the world works.

obviously, neither do those scientists who got stuck, eh?

 

[Crick]

Which one Bear?

 

[ScienceRocks]

The one prediction that matters is we're still warming and the oceans are still going up. And basic physics says that when you add co2 = warming.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What will you do Stephanie when oil costs $1,000/bbl?

It will never happen, we will never run out ever of oil.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Which one Bear?

Tim flannery from Australia, Joseph Romm and Micheal Mann from the U.S. are perfect examples

.

 

[jc456]

The one prediction that matters is we're still warming and the oceans are still going up. And basic physics says that when you add co2 = warming.

it does? oh wait, that's right you can't supply that evidence, oh well, just more bullshit from whakie mattie.

 

[jc456]

What will you do Stephanie when oil costs $1,000/bbl?

It will never happen, we will never run out ever of oil.

they all think oil is from dead dinosaurs. I laugh at that. what a wives tail they believe. The earth's core makes it. It will always make it.

 

[RollingThunder]

What will you do Stephanie when oil costs $1,000/bbl?

It will never happen, we will never run out ever of oil.

they all think oil is from dead dinosaurs. I laugh at that. what a wives tail they believe. The earth's core makes it. It will always make it.

And JustCrazy and BearButt once again reveal just how completely crazy they really are by trying to push another deranged bit of discredited crackpot pseudo-science that they 'believe in' for purely political/ideological reasons, with no science involved.

Abiogenic petroleum origin - Wikipedia- is a term used to describe a number of different hypotheses which propose that petroleum and natural gas are formed by inorganic means rather than by the decomposition of organisms. The two principal abiogenic petroleum hypotheses, the deep gas hypothesis of Thomas Gold and the deep abiotic petroleum hypothesis, have been scientifically discredited and are obsolete.[1] Scientific opinion on the origin of oil and gas is that all natural oil and gas deposits on Earth are fossil fuels, and are therefore not abiogenic in origin.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What will you do Stephanie when oil costs $1,000/bbl?

It will never happen, we will never run out ever of oil.

they all think oil is from dead dinosaurs. I laugh at that. what a wives tail they believe. The earth's core makes it. It will always make it.

And JustCrazy and BearButt once again reveal just how completely crazy they really are by trying to push another deranged bit of discredited crackpot pseudo-science that they 'believe in' for purely political/ideological reasons, with no science involved.

Abiogenic petroleum origin - Wikipedia- is a term used to describe a number of different hypotheses which propose that petroleum and natural gas are formed by inorganic means rather than by the decomposition of organisms. The two principal abiogenic petroleum hypotheses, the deep gas hypothesis of Thomas Gold and the deep abiotic petroleum hypothesis, have been scientifically discredited and are obsolete.[1] Scientific opinion on the origin of oil and gas is that all natural oil and gas deposits on Earth are fossil fuels, and are therefore not abiogenic in origin.

What will you do Stephanie when oil costs $1,000/bbl?

It will never happen, we will never run out ever of oil.

they all think oil is from dead dinosaurs. I laugh at that. what a wives tail they believe. The earth's core makes it. It will always make it.

And JustCrazy and BearButt once again reveal just how completely crazy they really are by trying to push another deranged bit of discredited crackpot pseudo-science that they 'believe in' for purely political/ideological reasons, with no science involved.

Abiogenic petroleum origin - Wikipedia- is a term used to describe a number of different hypotheses which propose that petroleum and natural gas are formed by inorganic means rather than by the decomposition of organisms. The two principal abiogenic petroleum hypotheses, the deep gas hypothesis of Thomas Gold and the deep abiotic petroleum hypothesis, have been scientifically discredited and are obsolete.[1] Scientific opinion on the origin of oil and gas is that all natural oil and gas deposits on Earth are fossil fuels, and are therefore not abiogenic in origin.

Why you quoting me nut sack? I was talking in the economic sense.
.

Predictions that we will run out of oil after a certain period of time are based on an ignorance of the economic way of thinking



the predictor realizes that with new drilling technology we can gain access to more oil, he will incorporate this into his estimate of #1 making a more optimistic prediction of when the oil will run out. If the predictor incorporates population growth and the fact that demand for oil per person often rises he will incorporate this into his estimate for #2 making a more pessimistic prediction. These predictions, however, are inherently flawed because they violate basic economic principles. By using economic principles, we will see that:


At least not in a physical sense. There will still be oil in the ground 10 years from now, and 50 years from now and 500 years from now. This will hold true no matter if you take a pessimistic or optimistic view about the amount of oil still available to be extracted. Let's suppose that the supply really is quite limited. What will happen as the supply starts to diminish? First we would expect to see some wells run dry and either be replaced with new wells that have higher associated costs or not be replaced at all. Either of these would cause the price at the pump to rise. When the price of gasoline rises, people naturally buy less of it; the amount of this reduction being determined by the amount of the price increase and the consumer's elasticity of demand for gasoline. This does not necessarily mean that people will drive less (though it is likely), it may mean that consumers trade in their SUVs for smaller cars, hybrid vehicles, or cars that run on alternative fuels. Each consumer will react to the price change differently, so we would expect to see everything from more people bicycling to work to used car lots full of Lincoln Navigators.

If we go back to Economics 101, this effect is clearly visible. The continual reduction of the supply of oil is represented by a series of small shifts of the supply curve to the left and an associated move along the demand curve. Since gasoline is a normal good, Economics 101 tells us that we will have a series of price increases and a series of reductions in the total amount of gasoline consumed. Eventually the price will reach a point where gasoline will become a niche good purchased by very few consumers, while other consumers will have found alternatives to gas. When this happens there will still be plenty of oil in the ground,

 

[RollingThunder]

In relation to this whole deranged, bullshit filled denier cult thread....LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

In the real world...

Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative
Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming
Scientific American
By Glenn Scherer
December 6, 2012
(excerpts)
Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic. Climate experts warn that the IPCC's failure to adequately project the threats that rising global carbon emissions represent has serious consequences: The IPCC’s overly conservative reading of the science, they say, means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming.

"We're underestimating the fact that climate change is rearing its head," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of key sections of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports. "And we're underestimating the role of humans, and this means we're underestimating what it means for the future and what we should be planning for." A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990. The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years. Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection. Yet since that 2007 assessment, numerous observations and studies have shown that the speed and ferocity of climate change are outpacing IPCC projections on many fronts, including CO2 emissions, temperature rise, continental ice-sheet melt, Arctic sea ice decline, and sea level rise.

 

[Wyatt earp]

In relation to this whole deranged, bullshit filled denier cult thread....LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

In the real world...

Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative
Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming
Scientific American
By Glenn Scherer
December 6, 2012
(excerpts)
Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic. Climate experts warn that the IPCC's failure to adequately project the threats that rising global carbon emissions represent has serious consequences: The IPCC’s overly conservative reading of the science, they say, means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming.

"We're underestimating the fact that climate change is rearing its head," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of key sections of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports. "And we're underestimating the role of humans, and this means we're underestimating what it means for the future and what we should be planning for." A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990. The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years. Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection. Yet since that 2007 assessment, numerous observations and studies have shown that the speed and ferocity of climate change are outpacing IPCC projections on many fronts, including CO2 emissions, temperature rise, continental ice-sheet melt, Arctic sea ice decline, and sea level rise.

So proof positive another failed prediction according to your link

Lmao...



Btw....Where is the sea level rising retard?


What temperture rise????????.


Any idiot has a 50/50 chance Will be colder or hotter next year.


.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The irony of this poster is that the other side gets loads of funding from oil companies. Hmmmm forgot to mention that or you were using a biased cartoon?

As for getting stuck in ice, well, it's not our fault you don't understand how the world works.

obviously, neither do those scientists who got stuck, eh?

Er..... they probably do. However when you're in such places, you're always taking a risk.

People assume that the further the ice spreads, the more ice there is. Not true. It's been said that the ice cap in Antarctica has spread because the ice has melted, then when it freezes again the wind is taking it out further and making the ice sheet larger, even though there is a lot less ice actually there.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What will you do Stephanie when oil costs $1,000/bbl?

It will never happen, we will never run out ever of oil.

And this advertisement was brought to you by oil companies.

 

[frigidweirdo]

In relation to this whole deranged, bullshit filled denier cult thread....LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

In the real world...

Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative
Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming
Scientific American
By Glenn Scherer
December 6, 2012
(excerpts)
Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic. Climate experts warn that the IPCC's failure to adequately project the threats that rising global carbon emissions represent has serious consequences: The IPCC’s overly conservative reading of the science, they say, means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming.

"We're underestimating the fact that climate change is rearing its head," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of key sections of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports. "And we're underestimating the role of humans, and this means we're underestimating what it means for the future and what we should be planning for." A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990. The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years. Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection. Yet since that 2007 assessment, numerous observations and studies have shown that the speed and ferocity of climate change are outpacing IPCC projections on many fronts, including CO2 emissions, temperature rise, continental ice-sheet melt, Arctic sea ice decline, and sea level rise.

So proof positive another failed prediction according to your link

Lmao...



Btw....Where is the sea level rising retard?


What temperture rise????????.


Any idiot has a 50/50 chance Will be colder or hotter next year.


.

Actually it's not 50/50 it will be hotter or colder next year. It's probably a 66% chance it will be hotter next year.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What will you do Stephanie when oil costs $1,000/bbl?

It will never happen, we will never run out ever of oil.

And this advertisement was brought to you by oil companies.

Nope I explained it economic illiterate.



.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Posting a fabrication by SKS over and over again doesn't make it true...

 

[RollingThunder]

In relation to this whole deranged, bullshit filled denier cult thread....LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

In the real world...

Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative
Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming
Scientific American
By Glenn Scherer
December 6, 2012
(excerpts)
Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic. Climate experts warn that the IPCC's failure to adequately project the threats that rising global carbon emissions represent has serious consequences: The IPCC’s overly conservative reading of the science, they say, means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming.

"We're underestimating the fact that climate change is rearing its head," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of key sections of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports. "And we're underestimating the role of humans, and this means we're underestimating what it means for the future and what we should be planning for." A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990. The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years. Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection. Yet since that 2007 assessment, numerous observations and studies have shown that the speed and ferocity of climate change are outpacing IPCC projections on many fronts, including CO2 emissions, temperature rise, continental ice-sheet melt, Arctic sea ice decline, and sea level rise.

So proof positive another failed prediction according to your link

So....BearButt....if you can read what I just posted and draw that absurd conclusion, you are even more insane and retarded than I had assumed.

The rather conservative predictions produced by the IPCC on global warming, CO2 emissions increases, acceleration of ice melting and sea level rise, have not only been successfully met, they have been exceeded. That DOES NOT equal "another failed prediction", you pathetic moron.

Btw....Where is the sea level rising?

Almost everywhere, dumbass.

Sea levels rising at fastest rate in 2,800 years due to global warming, studies show
Higher temperatures as a result of industrialisation blamed for the acceleration, as scientists warn of potential for 131cm rise by year 2100
The Guardian
22 February 2016
(excerpts)

A young girl wades through the incoming sea water that flooded her house and village in Kiribati. (Photograph: Jonas Gratzer/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Sea levels are rising several times faster than they have in the past 2,800 years, with the process accelerating because of manmade global warming, according to new studies. An international team of scientists examined two dozen locations across the globe to chart rising and falling seas over centuries and millennia. Until the 1880s and the world’s industrialisation, the fastest seas rose was about 3cm to 4cm a century. During that time global sea levels did not get much higher or lower than 7.6cm above or below the 2,000-year average. But in the 20th century the world’s seas rose 14cm. Two different studies published on Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said that by 2100 the world’s oceans would rise between 28cm to 131cm, depending on how much heat-trapping gas Earth’s industries and vehicles expel.

Rutgers earth and planetary sciences professor Bob Kopp, lead author of the study, which looked back at sea levels over the past three millennia, said: “There’s no question that the 20th century is the fastest. It’s because of the temperature increase in the 20th century which has been driven by fossil fuel use.” Sea level rise in the 20th century was mostly manmade, the study authors said. A separate, not-yet-published study by Kopp and others found that since 1950 about two-thirds of the US coastal floods in 27 locales were linked to manmade warming. Study co-author Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that if seas continued to rise as projected, another 45cm would cause lots of problems and expense, especially with surges during storms. “There is such a tight relationship between sea level and temperature,” he said. “I wish there wasn’t, then we wouldn’t be as worried.”

What temperture rise????????.
Any idiot has a 50/50 chance Will be colder or hotter next year.

LOLOLOLOL. That's hilarious.....and very insane.

2015 was the hottest year on record, surpassing 2014, the previous record holder. 2016 will very likely be even hotter. Every year since 1998 has been hotter than every year before 1998. Just released analysis indicates that this last March was the hottest March on record, following the hottest February on record. With this new record hot March, the Earth's seven highest monthly temperature departures from average on record have all occurred in the past seven months. March 2016 also marks the 11th consecutive month that a monthly global temperature record has been broken, another new all time record in itself. March also marked the 375th consecutive month with temperatures higher than the twentieth century average, going back to December 1984, over 30 years. It was also the most any month has been above average in the 135-year instrumental temperature record.

Global Average Surface Temperature Anomalies

 

[ScienceRocks]

We will have to see if the nina forms or not before concluding that 2016 will beat out 2015's .86c. I think I'll be close.