Climate Science -- Fifty Years of Getting Everything Right

Oh, and still no warming these past 2 decades
LOLOL.....you really still believe that thoroughly debunked denier cult myth and propaganda meme? LOL.

Temperatures have continued to rise over the last two decades at the same rate or faster than they did in the 1990s. 14 of the 15 hottest years on record happened in this century. 2015 is set to surpass 2014 as the new hottest year on record, beating the previous record holders, 2010 and 2005. That means three of the hottest years on record since at least 1880 will have happened in the last five years.

Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming
NOAA
June 4, 2015



(Credit: NOAA)

A new study published online today in the journal Science finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century. The study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or "hiatus" in the rate of global warming in recent years.

The study is the work of a team of scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information* (NCEI) using the latest global surface temperature data.

"Adding in the last two years of global surface temperature data and other improvements in the quality of the observed record provide evidence that contradict the notion of a hiatus in recent global warming trends," said Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D., Director, NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information. "
Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century."
so the IPCC AR5 report is a denier. funny stuff jean.

excerpt from the report:
"As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}"

So go for it genius, state that you don't agree with the report.

LOLOLOL.....I post recent research from June of this year, and you point to older research that just points out a flaw in using 1998, a super El Niño year with highly elevated temperatures as a start point for trend analysis.

So, you accept the validity of the IPCC AR5 report? Accept this then:

OBSERVED IMPACTS, VULNERABILITY, AND ADAPTATION IN A COMPLEX AND CHANGING WORLD
IPCC FIFTH ASSESSMENT REPORT


A-1. Observed Impacts, Vulnerability, and Exposure

In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Evidence of climate-change impacts is strongest and most comprehensive for natural systems. Some impacts on human systems have also been attributed5 to climate change, with a major or minor contribution of climate change distinguishable from other influences. See Figure SPM.2. Attribution of observed impacts in the WGII AR5 generally links responses of natural and human systems to observed climate change, regardless of its cause.6

In many regions, changing precipitation or melting snow and ice are altering hydrological systems, affecting water resources in terms of quantity and quality (medium confidence). Glaciers continue to shrink almost worldwide due to climate change (high confidence), affecting runoff and water resources downstream (medium confidence). Climate change is causing permafrost warming and thawing in high- latitude regions and in high-elevation regions (high confidence).7

Many terrestrial, freshwater, and marine species have shifted their geographic ranges, seasonal activities, migration patterns, abundances, and species interactions in response to ongoing climate change (high confidence). See Figure SPM.2B. While only a few recent species extinctions have been attributed as yet to climate change (high confidence), natural global climate change at rates slower than current anthropogenic climate change caused significant ecosystem shifts and species extinctions during the past millions of years (high confidence).8

Based on many studies covering a wide range of regions and crops, negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts (high confidence). The smaller number of studies showing positive impacts relate mainly to high-latitude regions, though it is not yet clear whether the balance of impacts has been negative or positive in these regions (high confidence). Climate change has negatively affected wheat and maize yields for many regions and in the global aggregate (medium confidence). Effects on rice and soybean yield have been smaller in major production regions and globally, with a median change of zero across all available data, which are fewer for soy compared to the other crops. Observed impacts relate mainly to production aspects of food security rather than access or other components of food security. See Figure SPM.2C. Since AR4, several periods of rapid food and cereal price increases following climate extremes in key producing regions indicate a sensitivity of current markets to climate extremes among other factors (medium confidence).11

At present the worldwide burden of human ill-health from climate change is relatively small compared with effects of other stressors and is not well quantified. However, there has been increased heat-related mortality and decreased cold-related mortality in some regions as a result of warming (medium confidence). Local changes in temperature and rainfall have altered the distribution of some water- borne illnesses and disease vectors (medium confidence).12

Differences in vulnerability and exposure arise from non-climatic factors and from multidimensional inequalities often produced by uneven development processes (very high confidence). These differences shape differential risks from climate change. See Figure SPM.1. People who are socially, economically, culturally, politically, institutionally, or otherwise marginalized are especially vulnerable to climate change and also to some adaptation and mitigation responses (medium evidence, high agreement). This heightened vulnerability is rarely due to a single cause. Rather, it is the product of intersecting social processes that result in inequalities in socioeconomic status and income, as well as in exposure. Such social processes include, for example, discrimination on the basis of gender, class, ethnicity, age, and (dis)ability.13

Impacts from recent climate-related extremes, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, cyclones, and wildfires, reveal significant vulnerability and exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to current climate variability (very high confidence). Impacts of such climate-related extremes include alteration of ecosystems, disruption of food production and water supply, damage to infrastructure and settlements, morbidity and mortality, and consequences for mental health and human well-being. For countries at all levels of development, these impacts are consistent with a significant lack of preparedness for current climate variability in some sectors.14

Climate-related hazards exacerbate other stressors, often with negative outcomes for livelihoods, especially for people living in poverty (high confidence). Climate-related hazards affect poor people’s lives directly through impacts on livelihoods, reductions in crop yields, or destruction of homes and indirectly through, for example, increased food prices and food insecurity. Observed positive effects for poor and marginalized people, which are limited and often indirect, include examples such as diversification of social networks and of agricultural practices.15

Violent conflict increases vulnerability to climate change (medium evidence, high agreement). Large-scale violent conflict harms assets that facilitate adaptation, including infrastructure, institutions, natural resources, social capital, and livelihood opportunities.16
nice deflection sherrif ricochet. I will take that as you don't accept the IPCC report so therefore everything in the report is suspect right?

bing, bing, bing ricochet rabbit.
 
Indeed........50 years of getting it right on climate change has gotten the AGW religion exactly what? They hung their hats on Cap and Trade resulting from their "50 years of getting it right"!!

What did they get instead???????????


Here ya go >>>>

Light Bulb Replacement Guide


Fucking light bulb legislation!!!!:funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::funnyface::fu:

Tell us our power plants were killing the fish with mercury and lead out of one side of their mouths and then force us to put those same chemicals, at higher concentrations, into our homes for our children to breath when they crack or are broken... All the while screaming... IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN...



The Stupidity, It BURNS!
 
It's around the fiftieth anniversary of one of the landmarks of climate science

After all this time, why is there still even a debate? Is money from Big Coal and Big Oil that much more powerful than science and facts?

Well, unfortunately...yes....at least with the scientifically ignorant, ideologically obsessed, low intelligence, 'conspiracy theory wacko', GOP voter base...which, sadly, seems to be most of them at this point.....as the fact that the T'Rump and Carson are leading in the rightwingnut sweepstakes completely confirms.
 
Last edited:
It's around the fiftieth anniversary of one of the landmarks of climate science

After all this time, why is there still even a debate? Is money from Big Coal and Big Oil that much more powerful than science and facts?

Well, unfortunately...yes....at least with the scientifically ignorant, ideologically obsessed, low intelligence, 'conspiracy theory wacko', GOP voter base...which, sadly, seems to be most of them at this point.....as the fact that the T'Rump and Carson are leading in the rightwingnut sweepstakes completely confirms.



Got light bulbs s0n...........we're all real impressed!!:spinner:
 
It's around the fiftieth anniversary of one of the landmarks of climate science

After all this time, why is there still even a debate? Is money from Big Coal and Big Oil that much more powerful than science and facts?

Well, unfortunately...yes....at least with the scientifically ignorant, ideologically obsessed, low intelligence, 'conspiracy theory wacko', GOP voter base...which, sadly, seems to be most of them at this point.....as the fact that the T'Rump and Carson are leading in the rightwingnut sweepstakes completely confirms.



You mean the scientifically ignorant, ideologically obsessed, low intelligence, 'conspiracy theory wacko', GOP voter base that has cleaned the clocks of the progressives the past two mid-terms? = nada climate legislation.

THAT base?:2up::eusa_dance::eusa_dance::eusa_dance::eusa_dance:


IDK.....I think you fags need to up the hysterical stuff waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more.:coffee:
 
It's around the fiftieth anniversary of one of the landmarks of climate science
After all this time, why is there still even a debate? Is money from Big Coal and Big Oil that much more powerful than science and facts?
Well, unfortunately...yes....at least with the scientifically ignorant, ideologically obsessed, low intelligence, 'conspiracy theory wacko', GOP voter base...which, sadly, seems to be most of them at this point.....as the fact that the T'Rump and Carson are leading in the rightwingnut sweepstakes completely confirms.
You mean the scientifically ignorant, ideologically obsessed, low intelligence, 'conspiracy theory wacko', GOP voter base that has.....
....gotten its ass kicked to the curb by the Progressives in the last two Presidential elections....just as it will in the next Presidential election....yup, that's the ones, completely clueless dumbfucks...
 
It's around the fiftieth anniversary of one of the landmarks of climate science
After all this time, why is there still even a debate? Is money from Big Coal and Big Oil that much more powerful than science and facts?
Well, unfortunately...yes....at least with the scientifically ignorant, ideologically obsessed, low intelligence, 'conspiracy theory wacko', GOP voter base...which, sadly, seems to be most of them at this point.....as the fact that the T'Rump and Carson are leading in the rightwingnut sweepstakes completely confirms.
You mean the scientifically ignorant, ideologically obsessed, low intelligence, 'conspiracy theory wacko', GOP voter base that has.....
....gotten its ass kicked to the curb by the Progressives in the last two Presidential elections....just as it will in the next Presidential election....yup, that's the ones, completely clueless dumbfucks...

You can only win with low information voters who võte popularity over policy...

Remember nim rod Obamas policy was on the line in 2014.
 
Well, unfortunately...yes....at least with the scientifically ignorant, ideologically obsessed, low intelligence, 'conspiracy theory wacko', GOP voter base...which, sadly, seems to be most of them at this point.....as the fact that the T'Rump and Carson are leading in the rightwingnut sweepstakes completely confirms.
You mean the scientifically ignorant, ideologically obsessed, low intelligence, 'conspiracy theory wacko', GOP voter base that has.....
....gotten its ass kicked to the curb by the Progressives in the last two Presidential elections....just as it will in the next Presidential election....yup, that's the ones, completely clueless dumbfucks...

You can only win with low information voters who võte popularity over policy...
That would be good advice for you to send to all of the Repuking Presidential candidates. Low information, low intelligence voters like you are all they have going for them at this point.
 
It's around the fiftieth anniversary of one of the landmarks of climate science
After all this time, why is there still even a debate? Is money from Big Coal and Big Oil that much more powerful than science and facts?
Well, unfortunately...yes....at least with the scientifically ignorant, ideologically obsessed, low intelligence, 'conspiracy theory wacko', GOP voter base...which, sadly, seems to be most of them at this point.....as the fact that the T'Rump and Carson are leading in the rightwingnut sweepstakes completely confirms.
You mean the scientifically ignorant, ideologically obsessed, low intelligence, 'conspiracy theory wacko', GOP voter base that has.....
....gotten its ass kicked to the curb by the Progressives in the last two Presidential elections....just as it will in the next Presidential election....yup, that's the ones, completely clueless dumbfucks...

You can only win with low information voters who võte popularity over policy...
That would be good advice for you to send to all of the Repuking Presidential candidates. Low information, low intelligence voters like you are all they have going for them at this point.
and yet you're debating here with your definition of low intelligence voter and getting your ass kicked daily. So you still are the lower intelligence no matter how hard you claw at the wall.
 
It's around the fiftieth anniversary of one of the landmarks of climate science
After all this time, why is there still even a debate? Is money from Big Coal and Big Oil that much more powerful than science and facts?
Well, unfortunately...yes....at least with the scientifically ignorant, ideologically obsessed, low intelligence, 'conspiracy theory wacko', GOP voter base...which, sadly, seems to be most of them at this point.....as the fact that the T'Rump and Carson are leading in the rightwingnut sweepstakes completely confirms.
You mean the scientifically ignorant, ideologically obsessed, low intelligence, 'conspiracy theory wacko', GOP voter base that has.....
....gotten its ass kicked to the curb by the Progressives in the last two Presidential elections....just as it will in the next Presidential election....yup, that's the ones, completely clueless dumbfucks...

You can only win with low information voters who võte popularity over policy...
That would be good advice for you to send to all of the Repuking Presidential candidates. Low information, low intelligence voters like you are all they have going for them at this point.
and yet you're debating here with your definition of low intelligence voter and getting your ass kicked daily. So you still are the lower intelligence no matter how hard you claw at the wall.
Actually, I'm kicking your ass daily, JustCrazy, and debunking your deranged myths and crackpot conspiracy theories as fast as you can spew them, you poor demented troll.
 
It's around the fiftieth anniversary of one of the landmarks of climate science
After all this time, why is there still even a debate? Is money from Big Coal and Big Oil that much more powerful than science and facts?
Well, unfortunately...yes....at least with the scientifically ignorant, ideologically obsessed, low intelligence, 'conspiracy theory wacko', GOP voter base...which, sadly, seems to be most of them at this point.....as the fact that the T'Rump and Carson are leading in the rightwingnut sweepstakes completely confirms.
You mean the scientifically ignorant, ideologically obsessed, low intelligence, 'conspiracy theory wacko', GOP voter base that has.....
....gotten its ass kicked to the curb by the Progressives in the last two Presidential elections....just as it will in the next Presidential election....yup, that's the ones, completely clueless dumbfucks...

You can only win with low information voters who võte popularity over policy...
That would be good advice for you to send to all of the Repuking Presidential candidates. Low information, low intelligence voters like you are all they have going for them at this point.
and yet you're debating here with your definition of low intelligence voter and getting your ass kicked daily. So you still are the lower intelligence no matter how hard you claw at the wall.
Actually, I'm kicking your ass daily, JustCrazy, and debunking your deranged myths and crackpot conspiracy theories as fast as you can spew them, you poor demented troll.
ahhh looky looky, the little fella got offended, and is playing his PeeWee Herman card, I know you are what am I line. Funny stuff when no facts can support your position.

Fifty years of science and that's all you got.
 
It's around the fiftieth anniversary of one of the landmarks of climate science
After all this time, why is there still even a debate? Is money from Big Coal and Big Oil that much more powerful than science and facts?
Well, unfortunately...yes....at least with the scientifically ignorant, ideologically obsessed, low intelligence, 'conspiracy theory wacko', GOP voter base...which, sadly, seems to be most of them at this point.....as the fact that the T'Rump and Carson are leading in the rightwingnut sweepstakes completely confirms.
You mean the scientifically ignorant, ideologically obsessed, low intelligence, 'conspiracy theory wacko', GOP voter base that has.....
....gotten its ass kicked to the curb by the Progressives in the last two Presidential elections....just as it will in the next Presidential election....yup, that's the ones, completely clueless dumbfucks...

You can only win with low information voters who võte popularity over policy...
That would be good advice for you to send to all of the Repuking Presidential candidates. Low information, low intelligence voters like you are all they have going for them at this point.
and yet you're debating here with your definition of low intelligence voter and getting your ass kicked daily. So you still are the lower intelligence no matter how hard you claw at the wall.
Actually, I'm kicking your ass daily, JustCrazy, and debunking your deranged myths and crackpot conspiracy theories as fast as you can spew them, you poor demented troll.

A legend in your own mind...

My guess is you are 13 years old ..
 
It's around the fiftieth anniversary of one of the landmarks of climate science
After all this time, why is there still even a debate? Is money from Big Coal and Big Oil that much more powerful than science and facts?
Well, unfortunately...yes....at least with the scientifically ignorant, ideologically obsessed, low intelligence, 'conspiracy theory wacko', GOP voter base...which, sadly, seems to be most of them at this point.....as the fact that the T'Rump and Carson are leading in the rightwingnut sweepstakes completely confirms.
You mean the scientifically ignorant, ideologically obsessed, low intelligence, 'conspiracy theory wacko', GOP voter base that has.....
....gotten its ass kicked to the curb by the Progressives in the last two Presidential elections....just as it will in the next Presidential election....yup, that's the ones, completely clueless dumbfucks...

You can only win with low information voters who võte popularity over policy...
That would be good advice for you to send to all of the Repuking Presidential candidates. Low information, low intelligence voters like you are all they have going for them at this point.
and yet you're debating here with your definition of low intelligence voter and getting your ass kicked daily. So you still are the lower intelligence no matter how hard you claw at the wall.
Actually, I'm kicking your ass daily, JustCrazy, and debunking your deranged myths and crackpot conspiracy theories as fast as you can spew them, you poor demented troll.






Sure you are junior.:laugh::laugh: The fact remains that every prediction your hero's have made has failed. Every single one. Hell, well known charlatans have a better predictive rate than you clowns.
 
....gotten its ass kicked to the curb by the Progressives in the last two Presidential elections....just as it will in the next Presidential election....yup, that's the ones, completely clueless dumbfucks...

You can only win with low information voters who võte popularity over policy...
That would be good advice for you to send to all of the Repuking Presidential candidates. Low information, low intelligence voters like you are all they have going for them at this point.
and yet you're debating here with your definition of low intelligence voter and getting your ass kicked daily. So you still are the lower intelligence no matter how hard you claw at the wall.
Actually, I'm kicking your ass daily, JustCrazy, and debunking your deranged myths and crackpot conspiracy theories as fast as you can spew them, you poor demented troll.
Sure you are junior. The fact remains that every prediction your hero's have made has failed. Every single one. Hell, well known charlatans have a better predictive rate than you clowns.

Your demented and very fraudulent denier cult myths are as bogus as ever. Surely you know that you are lying through your teeth.

The scientific predictions about human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes have proved to be quite accurate, no matter what your moronic denier cult myths fraudulently claim.

1981 Climate Change Predictions Were Eerily Accurate
A paper published in the journal Science in August 1981 made several projections regarding future climate change and anthropogenic global warming based on manmade CO2 emissions that have proven to be rather accurate - and their future is now our present.

UniverseToday
APRIL 6, 2012

Global warming predictions prove accurate
Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures

The Guardian
27 March 2013

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
December 6, 2012

Contrary To Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
Not only have the IPCC surface temperature projections been remarkably accurate, but they have also performed much better than predictions made by climate contrarians
 
“More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”

Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.

The big list of failed climate predictions
 

Nothing to see here...


That link is way to comical...



That assertion, of course, is exactly the opposite of what the UN “settled science” IPCC predicted in its 2001 global-warming report, which claimed that the planet would see “warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change.” Ironically, perhaps, Holdren warned decades ago that human CO2 emissions would lead to a billion deaths due to global warming-fueled global cooling — yes, cooling, which he said would lead to a new ice age by 2020.
 

Forum List

Back
Top