Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say

[threegoofs]

Also have read a lot of IPCC results. Can you give me the "mission statement" for the IPCC and point out any bias in it?? Do you know what their mission is?? Maybe you ought to investigate..

You're not real good at posting links, eh?

If you grasp the science, you'd understand there is no bias. It's like a cardiology consensus paper on heart failure that assumes heart failure is a real condition, and ignores the 3% of chiropractors that say it's just a misaligned vertebra.

Wow! Just wow. What a stupid straw man analogy.

It's an analogy. Not a straw man.

Calling something a straw man analogy would be the stupid move.

 

[PredFan]

It's the sun stupid!

 

[threegoofs]

Looks to me like the point estimates and error bars are solidly in the range of the AR4 projections, and as we know now, the last two years have been record anomalies, thus putting them well into the 'orange'. In fact, most of those datapoints fall into the ranges of ALL the IPCC projections, if you look at the far right.

I love how you think there was some conspiracy to make the graph look better, when its pretty clear its in line with the latest IPCC projections. That's an interesting spin. Had to come from some nutjob like Watts, not an actual scientist.

 

[Wyld Kard]

Obama is a serial liar.

Obama continually claims AGW is a fact as he did today in Alaska.

Why would anyone believe anything a liar says?

What reason have I to give anything you post credibility?

And every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is a fact and that it is also a clear and present danger.

What reason should anyone give anything you post concerning AGW/CC any credibility?

After all, you do enjoy repeating the lies don't you?

In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.

If you think he's wrong, I'm sure you can come up with a list of organizations that deny AGW is a problem, right?

Here's a hint- you might want to skip all the major organizations/ the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, the Royal Society, etc. because their statements are clear.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.

That's because you are just as gullible as he is.

Global warming: The BIGGEST LIE exposed

LOL.

The Heartland Institute.

The same guys who fought for tobacco companies, and then when they lost and the money dried up, they went to coal and oil companies.

And yet you're just gullible enough to believe the IPCC which misleads by misrepresenting the science of climate change and it's potential consequences.

LOL.

 

[threegoofs]

What reason have I to give anything you post credibility?

And every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is a fact and that it is also a clear and present danger.

What reason should anyone give anything you post concerning AGW/CC any credibility?

After all, you do enjoy repeating the lies don't you?

In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.

If you think he's wrong, I'm sure you can come up with a list of organizations that deny AGW is a problem, right?

Here's a hint- you might want to skip all the major organizations/ the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, the Royal Society, etc. because their statements are clear.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.

That's because you are just as gullible as he is.

Global warming: The BIGGEST LIE exposed

LOL.

The Heartland Institute.

The same guys who fought for tobacco companies, and then when they lost and the money dried up, they went to coal and oil companies.

And yet you're just gullible enough to believe the IPCC which misleads by misrepresenting the science of climate change and it's potential consequences.

LOL.

You mean the organization which has had its main findings endorsed by virtually every important body of science in the world?

What do you know that the NAS doesn't know? (And if you've never heard of the NAS, you are....outta your league).

 

[Wyatt earp]

Go find a consensus TODAY... It doesn't exist.. Unless the questions are juvenile and unimportant.. Like is the climate changing? Or does man "have a role" in that change.

A consensus certainly exists today. And it's stronger than its been in the past. Look at the last IPCC. Heck- glance at any scientific journal, from the top ones to Scientific American- they all agree with the NAS, AGU, and the AAAS.

You're living in the hottest year of the hottest decade ever directly recorded. And it was predicted almost 30 years ago, fairly closely. That's pretty good evidence right there.

It was predicted 30 years ago fool?

Post a link?

And if you say you are a "scientist"

Give me day to day data of the oceans temperature between 1870 (when great Britains challenger was launched to for that one year cruise )~ 2004 when we started monitoring the oceans temperatures

 

[IanC]

Looks to me like the point estimates and error bars are solidly in the range of the AR4 projections, and as we know now, the last two years have been record anomalies, thus putting them well into the 'orange'. In fact, most of those datapoints fall into the ranges of ALL the IPCC projections, if you look at the far right.

I love how you think there was some conspiracy to make the graph look better, when its pretty clear its in line with the latest IPCC projections. That's an interesting spin. Had to come from some nutjob like Watts, not an actual scientist.

Do you actually doubt that it came from the IPCC? Hahahahaha.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Looks to me like the point estimates and error bars are solidly in the range of the AR4 projections, and as we know now, the last two years have been record anomalies, thus putting them well into the 'orange'. In fact, most of those datapoints fall into the ranges of ALL the IPCC projections, if you look at the far right.

I love how you think there was some conspiracy to make the graph look better, when its pretty clear its in line with the latest IPCC projections. That's an interesting spin. Had to come from some nutjob like Watts, not an actual scientist.

What reason should anyone give anything you post concerning AGW/CC any credibility?

After all, you do enjoy repeating the lies don't you?

In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.

If you think he's wrong, I'm sure you can come up with a list of organizations that deny AGW is a problem, right?

Here's a hint- you might want to skip all the major organizations/ the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, the Royal Society, etc. because their statements are clear.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.

That's because you are just as gullible as he is.

Global warming: The BIGGEST LIE exposed

LOL.

The Heartland Institute.

The same guys who fought for tobacco companies, and then when they lost and the money dried up, they went to coal and oil companies.

And yet you're just gullible enough to believe the IPCC which misleads by misrepresenting the science of climate change and it's potential consequences.

LOL.

You mean the organization which has had its main findings endorsed by virtually every important body of science in the world?

What do you know that the NAS doesn't know? (And if you've never heard of the NAS, you are....outta your league).

Again post a link that 30 years ago it would be the hottest year on record today fool.

I will be waiting.

 

[IanC]

threegoofs is a newbie who doesn't know much of anything but what the gullible press spoonfeeds the public. As is evident by his posts and responses.

 

[Wyatt earp]

threegoofs is a newbie who doesn't know much of anything but what the gullible press spoonfeeds the public. As is evident by his posts and responses.

No shit a high school kid.

 

[Old Rocks]

You say --
"They are NOT the consensus --- but they reflect the consensus." Do I have that correct?

Actually -- those statements generally say that the Earth is warming (sometimes with an unjustified "unprecedented" in there) and that man made emissions is the approximate cause..

I AGREE to those conditions. In that some or a majority of the warming we've seen MAY LIKELY be due to man emissions.. That's NOT what the panicked and scary predictions are predicated on. But if the bottom line is 1 or 1.5 degC of warming by 2100 -- this wouldn't even justify 1/10th of the exaggerated media and political hysteria.

But, if they are somewhere between 2 and 4 degrees, or even more, there may be some major problems. In fact, even at 1.5 degrees, we may see some major problems. But you are saying not to worry, nothing might happen.

You theory says that the Planet we live on is a lemon. And that it will destroy itself --- irreversibly --- without any help from man if we reach a 2degC (or so) trigger. And the panic is about hysterical projections made back in the 80s and 90s about 6 to 12 degF by 2100 and likely up to 20degF in the Northern Hemi by that time.. You need to understand the subtle but important nuance in that CO2 emissions alone by man -- does NOT get you to those numbers invented to scare people... That's the magical part of GW theory that I disagree with.

No, we are not saying this planet is a lemon. Another one of your damned strawmen. What we are saying is that with the present and future human population, we are probably making some real problems for ourselves. We are sure as hell going to find out what the cost of our adding GHGs to the atmosphere is.


The skeptics have already prevailed on those projections and the earth itself has failed to cooperate. Since the temperatures have barely risen over the last 12 to 18 years. And the RATE of warming is now down to about 0.13degC/decade for the last 80 or 100 years. NO accelerations, just a lot of excuses for the failure of the IPCC models in less than 20 years since they were run... And an embarrassment that climate science (IPCC science at least) has not appreciated the NATURAL volatility in temperature vis a vis man's contributions.

Hmmmm......... So the increases in storms we are seeing this year, and the damage from the drought in the West are not in line with the predictions? One of the primary predictions of global warming is that the weather will have wider and wilder swings, with an overall warming, and that is exactly what we are seeing on a global scale.

Go find a consensus TODAY... It doesn't exist.. Unless the questions are juvenile and unimportant.. Like is the climate changing? Or does man "have a role" in that change.

No consensus today? So tell me, which Scientific Societies, which National Academies of Science, and which major Universities have changed their stance on AGW? Please post a link to their statements as to the change, and what inspired it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

He is online right now vigorously trying to find me links...

Waiting.... Tick tock and silly proxy graphs don't count bitch..

 

[flacaltenn]

In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.

If you think he's wrong, I'm sure you can come up with a list of organizations that deny AGW is a problem, right?

Here's a hint- you might want to skip all the major organizations/ the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, the Royal Society, etc. because their statements are clear.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

You hit all the paid poster crap in one shot.. congratulations! You must be a proud reader of Skeptical Crap and Lies Science..

Can't find one, huh?

I'll assume 3goofs -- you are what you say.. That's just how I am.. Read my tag line. So lemme take a whack at your challenge. NONE of these institutions polled their membership, offered any questions to be answered by the membership -- nor did they ask for APPROVAL of these statements.

You want an interesting story on what happens when a prestigious institution puts up a statement like this to their general membership???



Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.

After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.

Mr Hutton said the issue “had the potential to be too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole.”

The backdown, published in the GSA quarterly newsletter, is the culmination of two rejected position statements and years of furious correspondence among members. Some members believe the failure to make a strong statement on climate change is an embarrassment that puts Australian earth scientists at odds with their international peers.

It undermines the often cited stance that there is near unanimity among climate scientists on the issue.

GSA represents more than 2000 Australian earth scientists from academe, industry, government and research organisations.

Should have just let the old one ride. Want to quote me any REVISIONS of policy statements made by those orgs since 2011 or so? Gonna be WAAAAY hard to find. As it is in "polls" after 2012.. Because the projections have largely failed ALREADY and the hype was too transparent and the scientists involved have more principles than activism ..

Yup. Consensus drops precipitously once the questions go beyond the absolute basics.

It should be noted that there have been some pretty high profile physicists who have publicly resigned because of their disgust with global warming alarmism decreed by politically motivated leadership in many of these associations.

I can't see sigs on Tapatalk.

And frankly, the forum quoting makes posts pretty tough to read on the app, too.

So let's see...no, the organizations didn't poll their members generally. But few got any pushback. You found one, there have been a few others where people resigned in a huff, but that's pretty rare.

The deal is that there is a very solid consensus that the climate is warming, and man, specifically from CO2 burning, is the primary cause. The degree of warming is not known, but the general consensus is that if we don't actively try to mitigate emissions soon, it will be a bad outcome. This is less a scientific consensus than a policy one, since science isn't really equipped to answer questions of cost utility as well as physics. But the physics say we are headed for a 3-5 degree rise byn2100 if we do nothing, and that's widely seen as bad.

Actually the physics says the warming power of CO2 alone is somewhere around 1degC/doubling of concentration in the atmosphere. Since we're not even at first doubling since the industrial truely kicked (280 to 560ppm) the next doubling is 560 to 1120ppm which we likely won't hit til at least CLOSE to 2100 -- So -- the "physics" says maybe another 1.5degC by 2100.. If you're quoting fahrenheit -- we'll let it slide.

"Widely seen as bad" is a very non-scientific and subjective term. And the numbers WE are talking about here are NOT the numbers that prompted all those declarations that you like to quote -- because they've been revised way the hell down in the past 6 or 8 years. Along with the "magic multipliers" or global climate sensitivity numbers that were driving this propaganda.. Widely seen as bad ----- is more in the province of demagogue politicians and international movements that have an agenda to spread. Or say -- by a Pope..

Also man MIGHT be responsible for 30 to 60% of the warming, but the remainder is clearly the juxtaposition of many known and natural cycles that oscillate and periodically gang up on thermometers.

The Shaman side of Global Warming was to embellish the warming powers of CO2 and postulate wildly about doom and destruction due to an inherent instability of the planet's climate system.. If the system was unstable, we would have likely not had 4 previous glacial cycles and a recovery from each that gives a rather BRIEF period for the hospitable life as mankind knows it..

 

[Wyld Kard]

What reason should anyone give anything you post concerning AGW/CC any credibility?

After all, you do enjoy repeating the lies don't you?

In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.

If you think he's wrong, I'm sure you can come up with a list of organizations that deny AGW is a problem, right?

Here's a hint- you might want to skip all the major organizations/ the National Academy of Sciences, AAAS, the Royal Society, etc. because their statements are clear.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

In my short time here, he seems like he's spot on.

That's because you are just as gullible as he is.

Global warming: The BIGGEST LIE exposed

LOL.

The Heartland Institute.

The same guys who fought for tobacco companies, and then when they lost and the money dried up, they went to coal and oil companies.

And yet you're just gullible enough to believe the IPCC which misleads by misrepresenting the science of climate change and it's potential consequences.

LOL.

You mean the organization which has had its main findings endorsed by virtually every important body of science in the world?

What do you know that the NAS doesn't know? (And if you've never heard of the NAS, you are....outta your league).

You mean the organization which has had its main findings endorsed by virtually every important body of science in the world?

No I mean the organization that is believed to be a scientific body, but is rather a corrupt political organization masquerading as scientific, and manipulates by quoting the scientists who promote the lies and misinformation based on fraudulent science and ignores those who don't.

 

[flacaltenn]

You say --
"They are NOT the consensus --- but they reflect the consensus." Do I have that correct?

Actually -- those statements generally say that the Earth is warming (sometimes with an unjustified "unprecedented" in there) and that man made emissions is the approximate cause..

I AGREE to those conditions. In that some or a majority of the warming we've seen MAY LIKELY be due to man emissions.. That's NOT what the panicked and scary predictions are predicated on. But if the bottom line is 1 or 1.5 degC of warming by 2100 -- this wouldn't even justify 1/10th of the exaggerated media and political hysteria.

But, if they are somewhere between 2 and 4 degrees, or even more, there may be some major problems. In fact, even at 1.5 degrees, we may see some major problems. But you are saying not to worry, nothing might happen.

You theory says that the Planet we live on is a lemon. And that it will destroy itself --- irreversibly --- without any help from man if we reach a 2degC (or so) trigger. And the panic is about hysterical projections made back in the 80s and 90s about 6 to 12 degF by 2100 and likely up to 20degF in the Northern Hemi by that time.. You need to understand the subtle but important nuance in that CO2 emissions alone by man -- does NOT get you to those numbers invented to scare people... That's the magical part of GW theory that I disagree with.

No, we are not saying this planet is a lemon. Another one of your damned strawmen. What we are saying is that with the present and future human population, we are probably making some real problems for ourselves. We are sure as hell going to find out what the cost of our adding GHGs to the atmosphere is.


The skeptics have already prevailed on those projections and the earth itself has failed to cooperate. Since the temperatures have barely risen over the last 12 to 18 years. And the RATE of warming is now down to about 0.13degC/decade for the last 80 or 100 years. NO accelerations, just a lot of excuses for the failure of the IPCC models in less than 20 years since they were run... And an embarrassment that climate science (IPCC science at least) has not appreciated the NATURAL volatility in temperature vis a vis man's contributions.

Hmmmm......... So the increases in storms we are seeing this year, and the damage from the drought in the West are not in line with the predictions? One of the primary predictions of global warming is that the weather will have wider and wilder swings, with an overall warming, and that is exactly what we are seeing on a global scale.

Go find a consensus TODAY... It doesn't exist.. Unless the questions are juvenile and unimportant.. Like is the climate changing? Or does man "have a role" in that change.

No consensus today? So tell me, which Scientific Societies, which National Academies of Science, and which major Universities have changed their stance on AGW? Please post a link to their statements as to the change, and what inspired it.

With all respect --- you are seeing zebras when you hear hoofbeats if you believe that omens of the Warming gods are upon us.. Can't reach thru that haze to rescue you.. Outside of Hansen and few activist zealots -- there are very few scientists blaming a particular drought or forest fire on 0.6degC change in your lifetime..

I'm asking YOU why these statements from Societies have not been UPDATED to reflect the mountain of knowledge gained since they were issued.... Won't find it.. Won't find NEW polls of "climate scientists" or any meaningful public debate or NEW statements of increased concern. And as I wrote -- what is said in those statements is frivolous since even I (Chief of Operations -- CC Denial -- Tenn branch) agree with most of them.

NONE of them says to look out your window and interpret every weather related event as climate change.. ZERO --- not a one.. OK maybe Zimbabwe Academy of Science --- but they cannot even afford pencils anymore..

 

[Old Rocks]

Name those natural cycles. And how they are in effect right now. One I will name, is the El Nino. Yet, even though we knew that we would eventually have a strong El Nino again, our resident 'Phd' was stating five years ago that by today we would be seeing a major cooling. And here we are, with the three very warm years we have had 2005 to today, giving lie to all the people claiming that Hansen and the rest were wrong, and we are cooling.

 

[Old Rocks]

AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION RELEASES REVISED POSITION STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
STATEMENT HIGHLIGHTS HOW HUMAN ACTIVITIES ARE CHANGING EARTH’S CLIMATE AND THE HARMFUL IMPACT OF THAT CHANGE ON SOCIETY

5 August 2013

2



WASHINGTON, DC—The American Geophysical Union today released a revised version of its position statement on climate change. Titled “Human-induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action,” the statement declares that “humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years” and that ”rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” AGU develops position statements to provide scientific expertise on significant policy issues related to Earth and space science. These statements are limited to positions that are within the range of available geophysical data or norms of legitimate scientific debate.

”AGU has a responsibility to help policy makers and the public understand the impacts our science can have on public health and safety, economic stability and growth, and national security,” said Gerald North, chair of AGU’s Climate Change Position Statement Review Panel. ”Because our understanding of climate change and its impacts on the world around us has advanced so significantly in the last few years, it was vitally important that AGU update its position statement. The new statement is more reflective of the current state of scientific knowledge. It also calls greater attention to the specific societal impacts we face and actions that can diminish the threat.”

AGU’s position statements are renewed every 4 years. The climate change position statement was first adopted in December 2003. It was then revised and reaffirmed in December 2007, and again in February 2012.

AGU’s Position Statement Task Force reviews each statement to determine if it should be renewed as is, modified, or eliminated. In March 2012, the Task Force determined that the climate change position statement would require updating prior to renewal.

With input from AGU’s Council, relevant section and focus group leadership, the Position Statement Task Force, and staff, a panel of experts was subsequently formed to review the statement and make any necessary modifications. A draft of the updated statement was printed in Eos in November 2012, and all AGU members were encouraged to submit comments. After further revisions by the review panel based on the comments received, the statement was then adopted by the AGU Council in June 2013 and by the AGU Board in August 2013.

Well, seems like the AGU statement was revised 2 years ago. That recent enough for you? Or would you prefer a weekly revision?

 

[westwall]

Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say
Even though there are still several months left in the year to gather temperature readings from around the world, climate researchers believe nothing short of a Krakatoa-sized volcanic eruption that cuts out sunlight for months on end can now stop last year’s record being beaten.
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...on-record-by-a-mile-experts-say-10477138.html


Utterly amazing! Nino enhanced warmth!!!!

This year will probably end up well into the .8c's on both surface datasets.

And after they have falsified the data I am sure it will be. And we will have yet another summer without ever breaking 100 degrees no doubt.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Name those natural cycles. And how they are in effect right now. One I will name, is the El Nino. Yet, even though we knew that we would eventually have a strong El Nino again, our resident 'Phd' was stating five years ago that by today we would be seeing a major cooling. And here we are, with the three very warm years we have had 2005 to today, giving lie to all the people claiming that Hansen and the rest were wrong, and we are cooling.

Manufactured warming.. by pencil whipping..

IT has been cooling since 2002.. but again you will believe your adjusted crap and ignore empirical evidence..

 

[ScienceRocks]

GOD BLESS THE NOAA AND NASA!!!! They make me proud. Better then living in the cave like a africans or muslims!!!