Here's a climate prediction from 2007.

[Caligirl]

So, this stable temperature phase that we're sort of in right now was predicted in 2007 in the journal Science. It also predicted rapid warming after 2009, concurrent with el nino, ... which has now officially formed in the pacific.

Global warming will step up after 2009: scientists

Thu Aug 9, 2007 2:13pm EDT

In research published in the journal Science, Smith and his colleagues predicted that the next three or four years would show little warming despite an overall forecast that saw warming over the decade.

<snip>

The real heat will start after 2009, they said.

Until then, the natural forces will offset the expected warming caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, which releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

Global warming will step up after 2009: scientists | Reuters

Should be interesting to see what effects this has on 2010 and 2012 political races, if weather heats up and some politicians claim we shouldn't do anything about it.

 

[The T]

So, this stable temperature phase that we're sort of in right now was predicted in 2007 in the journal Science. It also predicted rapid warming after 2009, concurrent with el nino, ... which has now officially formed in the pacific.

Global warming will step up after 2009: scientists

Thu Aug 9, 2007 2:13pm EDT

In research published in the journal Science, Smith and his colleagues predicted that the next three or four years would show little warming despite an overall forecast that saw warming over the decade.

<snip>

The real heat will start after 2009, they said.

Until then, the natural forces will offset the expected warming caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, which releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

Global warming will step up after 2009: scientists | Reuters

Should be interesting to see what effects this has on 2010 and 2012 political races, if weather heats up and some politicians claim we shouldn't do anything about it.

I think you've got spomething here. (Good Article). As to the effects on 2010/2012? I think as the business enviroment continues to deterioate (thanks to man-made and more specifically government induced causes),
The climate (weather) of the planet will be the least of the worries of the Statists/Leftist/Democratics foisting this false doom and gloom scenario on the world, and specifically the United States.

Their worries will be having to stand in line to find a job and trying to reclaim their credibility. (As IF they had it to start with)...

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh my, now the wingnuts are falling all over themselves to disavow their predictions of cooling. Totally amazing. Even quoting real scientists. Do you note that they state unequivicolly that GHGs from the burning of fossil fuels are what are driving the warming?

Yes, as we get a hot summer in 2010, it will be good to remind the retarded Republicans that their whole shtick about AGW has been nothing but paid lies for the energy companies.

 

[The T]

Oh my, now the wingnuts are falling all over themselves to disavow their predictions of cooling. Totally amazing. Even quoting real scientists. Do you note that they state unequivicolly that GHGs from the burning of fossil fuels are what are driving the warming?

Yes, as we get a hot summer in 2010, it will be good to remind the retarded Republicans that their whole shtick about AGW has been nothing but paid lies for the energy companies.

OWLGORE JOKE<Parody

AN INCONVENIENT 'AL'<PARODY

 

[Old Rocks]

T, you are a dumb asshole. You make statements without the slightest evidence to back them up. You know only wingnut talking points, not a single thing about science.

The scientists made a definate prediction. You and the rest of the fools here were yapping about the cooling. Now it is warming. Perhaps you would be able to learn from that? No, not possible. Reality is foriegn to you.

As Caligirl pointed out, the scientists made the prediction when all of you were stating that we were in a cooling period, in spite of the fact it was the warmest decade yet on record. Now we will see 2010 to 2019 as another warmest on record decade.

Do you dare predict differantly? Or are you going to go into a spell of saying it has nothing to do with the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere? Are you so fucking stupid that you don't know that the absorbtion spectra for CO2 was done by Tyndal in 1858? Yes, I do believe you are that fucking stupid.

Substituting an false patriotism for independent thought. You are everything that is wrong with our nation. You will condemn our nation to third world status with your stupidity.

 

[The T]

T, you are a dumb asshole. You make statements without the slightest evidence to back them up. You know only wingnut talking points, not a single thing about science.

The scientists made a definate prediction. You and the rest of the fools here were yapping about the cooling. Now it is warming. Perhaps you would be able to learn from that? No, not possible. Reality is foriegn to you.

As Caligirl pointed out, the scientists made the prediction when all of you were stating that we were in a cooling period, in spite of the fact it was the warmest decade yet on record. Now we will see 2010 to 2019 as another warmest on record decade.

Do you dare predict differantly? Or are you going to go into a spell of saying it has nothing to do with the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere? Are you so fucking stupid that you don't know that the absorbtion spectra for CO2 was done by Tyndal in 1858? Yes, I do believe you are that fucking stupid.

Substituting an false patriotism for independent thought. You are everything that is wrong with our nation. You will condemn our nation to third world status with your stupidity.

I'm Soooo HURT!



Ok...Not so much...

YOU have had yer ass handed to you so many times...I just don't take you serious. I cannot in good conscience find it within myself to do so. It just ain't happenin'.

You have put your trust in scientists that have shown the propensity to cook the books with faulty data for their pecuniary interests instead of REAL science.

They have gotten a black eye, as have REAL Scientists that are more strict on themselves for the sake of REAL DATA...and so have YOU received a nice shiner for you buying into their bullsqueeze...

I salute you, however...

Meh, not so much...

 

[saveliberty]

There's a prediction that the world is going to end in 2012 too. There is a prediction jobs will recover in the second quarter of 2010. There's a prediction white people will be a minority by 2050. There is a prediction a lot of people will be drunk New Year's Eve.

I predict that no significant agreement will come out of Copenhagen. That poor countries will continue to distrust rich ones. That this is all about redistribution of wealth and not climate issues. That Thanksgiving will fall on a Thursday next year.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So, this stable temperature phase that we're sort of in right now was predicted in 2007 in the journal Science. It also predicted rapid warming after 2009, concurrent with el nino, ... which has now officially formed in the pacific.

Global warming will step up after 2009: scientists

Thu Aug 9, 2007 2:13pm EDT

In research published in the journal Science, Smith and his colleagues predicted that the next three or four years would show little warming despite an overall forecast that saw warming over the decade.

<snip>

The real heat will start after 2009, they said.

Until then, the natural forces will offset the expected warming caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, which releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

Global warming will step up after 2009: scientists | Reuters

Should be interesting to see what effects this has on 2010 and 2012 political races, if weather heats up and some politicians claim we shouldn't do anything about it.

woohoo.....that'll be great....better warmer than cooler....

Historically there have been many swings in temperture.....don't believe Al Gore or any other politicians had anything to do with them either....

 

[saveliberty]

So, this stable temperature phase that we're sort of in right now was predicted in 2007 in the journal Science. It also predicted rapid warming after 2009, concurrent with el nino, ... which has now officially formed in the pacific.

Global warming will step up after 2009: scientists

Thu Aug 9, 2007 2:13pm EDT

In research published in the journal Science, Smith and his colleagues predicted that the next three or four years would show little warming despite an overall forecast that saw warming over the decade.

<snip>

The real heat will start after 2009, they said.

Until then, the natural forces will offset the expected warming caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, which releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

Global warming will step up after 2009: scientists | Reuters

Should be interesting to see what effects this has on 2010 and 2012 political races, if weather heats up and some politicians claim we shouldn't do anything about it.

woohoo.....that'll be great....better warmer than cooler....

Historically there have been many swings in temperture.....don't believe Al Gore or any other politicians had anything to do with them either....

But...but...carbon dioxide...man-made crisis...Waaaaaaaaaah!!! Nice chart ScreamingEagle. Yep, volcanoes, the sun and ocean currents.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Here's my climate change perdiction for December 18, 2010 for northwestern Illinois. It will be pretty damned cold and maybe some snow.

 

[The T]

So, this stable temperature phase that we're sort of in right now was predicted in 2007 in the journal Science. It also predicted rapid warming after 2009, concurrent with el nino, ... which has now officially formed in the pacific.

Global warming will step up after 2009: scientists

Thu Aug 9, 2007 2:13pm EDT

In research published in the journal Science, Smith and his colleagues predicted that the next three or four years would show little warming despite an overall forecast that saw warming over the decade.

<snip>

The real heat will start after 2009, they said.

Until then, the natural forces will offset the expected warming caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, which releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

Global warming will step up after 2009: scientists | Reuters

Should be interesting to see what effects this has on 2010 and 2012 political races, if weather heats up and some politicians claim we shouldn't do anything about it.

woohoo.....that'll be great....better warmer than cooler....

Historically there have been many swings in temperture.....don't believe Al Gore or any other politicians had anything to do with them either....

Dang! Those smokestacks, and the enormity of those SUV's were really rockin' @ 1100 B.C. !

Maybe the Pharoe shoulda listened to MOSES?

 

[frazzledgear]

So, this stable temperature phase that we're sort of in right now was predicted in 2007 in the journal Science. It also predicted rapid warming after 2009, concurrent with el nino, ... which has now officially formed in the pacific.

Global warming will step up after 2009: scientists

Thu Aug 9, 2007 2:13pm EDT

In research published in the journal Science, Smith and his colleagues predicted that the next three or four years would show little warming despite an overall forecast that saw warming over the decade.

<snip>

The real heat will start after 2009, they said.

Until then, the natural forces will offset the expected warming caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, which releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

Global warming will step up after 2009: scientists | Reuters

Should be interesting to see what effects this has on 2010 and 2012 political races, if weather heats up and some politicians claim we shouldn't do anything about it.

Enough of this hoax already. FYI -until the global warming liars showed up, it was well accepted REALITY among scientists that determining REAL major climate change (with the exception of periods involving sharply increased volcanic activity) could NOT be done over the course of a few years AS IT WAS BEING EXPERIENCED -or over the course of a few decades or even over the course of a few hundred years. But required three to five THOUSAND years in RETROSPECT to be able to accurately identify any REAL change from the WIDELY and often EXTREME fluctuations in temperatures that occur as part of earth's NORMAL weather pattern at any given time. Temperature changes over the course of a few decades are MEANINGLESS because major climate change doesn't happen in a few decades (only exception again is sharply increased volcanic activity combined with a drop in solar radiation exposure -and DARN that isn't man-made so it can't count!) - but over the course of many THOUSANDS of years. DURING that time, temperatures will still widely fluctuate as part of NORMAL variations and fluctuations even from year to year. Which is why a REAL pattern of change cannot be identified on the basis of a few years or decades!

We cannot reliably predict the weather more than five days out or so and THAT includes temperatures. We do not know why the earth entered or left ANY ice age. Not one. So this PRETENSE that we know all there is to know about climate change NOW is a MASSIVe LIE. So you want to offer up a piece of lying ass crap pretending it can reliably predict temperatures and climate a few years from now? Are you serious? Well here are some other interesting sites and predictions as well -more recently made too.

New ice age coming? Google Image Result for http://hypsithermal.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/sunspot_free_days_cycle24_200806251.png

Global warming phony: Chattanooga Times Free Press | Phony 'global warming'

Emails exchanged among these LYING ASS scam artist "scientists":
* scientist at the university admits using a "trick" to "hide the decline" in recent world temperatures.

* In another e-mail, a U.S. climatologist, addressing recent temperature declines, wrote, "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

* Some e-mail suggested ways that believers in global warming could destroy the scientific reputation of Dr. Patrick Michaels, a climatologist who is skeptical about some claims surrounding global warming. (Note -LEGITIMATE science doesn't require the equivalent of religious belief.)

* Others sought ways to ensure that dissenting voices would be kept out of a U.N. report faulting mankind for warming. Some even talked about how to keep skeptical writers' work out of scientific journals -- yet the skeptics are routinely condemned for not publishing enough articles in those journals!

And a scientific challenge to the phony-ass doctored up Michael Mann chart pretending to show a sharp rise in temperatures that was immediately and is STILL challenged by thousands of scientists as totally INACCURATE, MISLEADING and FALSE -but still used by global warming liars. Google Image Result for http://media.kusi.com/images/chart2.jpg

 

[Caligirl]

The point was simply that we (our scientists) made a prediction in 2007 that natural factors would offset warming until after 2009.

So, the argument that 'it isn't so hot this year so warming is wrong' isn't very good.

That's all.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The point was simply that we (our scientists) made a prediction in 2007 that natural factors would offset warming until after 2009.

So, the argument that 'it isn't so hot this year so warming is wrong' isn't very good.

That's all.

The 2007 prediction is an axiom or a theorem, it is based on science. The hysterical sarcasm by the usual right wing posters is based not on science, it is based on heresay (i.e. talking points).

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The point was simply that we (our scientists) made a prediction in 2007 that natural factors would offset warming until after 2009.

So, the argument that 'it isn't so hot this year so warming is wrong' isn't very good.

That's all.

The 2007 prediction is an axiom or a theorem, it is based on science. The hysterical sarcasm by the usual right wing posters is based not on science, it is based on heresay (i.e. talking points).

Right wing hysteria my ass.....the only "hysteria" is coming from the "global warming" believers who are falling for the world-wide hoax engendered to rip off America....there is no real proof....only different models that are guessing....

We could very well be in a general warming trend.....or not....the earth has done this many times before...

Do you believe there was a Little Ice Age? If so, how do you account for the "global warming" afterwards? There were no man-made CO2 emissions back then....

 

[Charles Stucker]

Dang! Those smokestacks, and the enormity of those SUV's were really rockin' @ 1100 B.C. !

Maybe the Pharoe shoulda listened to MOSES?

Drat. I was about to say the same thing.

 

[JimH52]

Maybe all the dying Dinosaurs released gas in unison, those forming a greenhouse cloud over the earth. Just an idea?

 

[Charles Stucker]

The point was simply that we (our scientists) made a prediction in 2007 that natural factors would offset warming until after 2009.

So, the argument that 'it isn't so hot this year so warming is wrong' isn't very good.

That's all.

If you got enough astrologers' predictions together you might find one with a consistent degree of accuracy - that does not make astrology an accurate forecasting tool.
This is just one of many models, and may even be correct - 2010 may be quite warm - but it does not prove itself from a few predictions.

 

[Caligirl]

When predictions are (much) more often right than wrong, then it is time to see if there is a way that we can benefit from them.

 

[saveliberty]

When predictions are (much) more often right than wrong, then it is time to see if there is a way that we can benefit from them.

The weather service forecasts for my area every day. They are more often wrong than right. While it is good to be aware of the possibilities, I understand predicting the weather is not an exact science yet. Climate is even a more difficult guess. Pardon me if I am not convinced, particularly when the Scientists are being straightforward with their data and conclusions.