Models Fail so badly NOAA now looking at reality......

[Flash]

Predictions are only true if the measurements are accurate. What we have found out is that the AGW scammers have created false measurements to cover up reality. They get caught at it all the time. That even admitted it in the emails exposed by Climategate I&II. Obama even corrupted NASA abd NOAA to create false data.

AGW is a big scam. We all know that as a fact. The stupid Moon Bats may not know it but they are as ignorant of Climate Science as they are of Economics, History, Biology, Ethics, The Constitution and just about everything else.

Quoted for TRUTH!

As it is with any cultist, your cult anti-reality bubble can't be penetrated. You've cut yourself off from reality.

Did someone present inconvenient data that contradicts sacred cult scripture? Just scream it's fraudulent! Problem solved!

At this stage, you're only interesting as an example of abnormal cult psychology.

Go on, keep calling me a heretic if it makes you feel better. That will gain you major brownie points with the cult. After all, I have insulted your sacred religious scripture with hard facts and data, and your cult can never forgive such crimes.

James Hansen, High Priest of the Church of the Warming Globe, predicted in 1988 that New York City would be underwater in 20-40 years.

You said no one made such a prediction.

You were undeniable wrong. Period. End of story.

Pretending the proof of your heresy isn't there doesn't mean it is, cultist. You're going to burn in Socialist Hell.

In 2004 Florida got hit by four hurricanes and the AGW scammers said that it was just the beginning. Global warming was going to devastate Florida with hurricanes. However, it was 12 years before another hurricane hit Florida. We had 10-12 years of quiet hurricane seasons.

Nothing they ever say comes true.

They lost their credibility a long time ago.

Wrong.
First of all, there were 2 hurricanes in 2005 as well.

{...
Storm Saffir-Simpson
Category Date of landfall Year Landfall Intensity
(in knots) Landfall Location
Great Middle Florida 3 August 23 1851 100 Panama City
Unnamed 3 August 17 1871 100 Jupiter Island
Unnamed 3 October 7 1873 100 Captiva Island
Unnamed 3 October 3 1877 100 Panama City
Unnamed 3 September 10 1882 110 Navarre
Unnamed 3 August 16 1888 110 Miami Beach
Unnamed 3 October 9 1894 105 Panama City
Unnamed 3 September 29 1896 110 Cedar Key
Unnamed 3 October 18 1906 105 Marathon
Unnamed 3 October 11 1909 100 Marathon
Unnamed 3 September 29 1917 100 Fort Walton Beach
Unnamed 4 September 10 1919 130 Dry Tortugas
Great Miami 4 September 18–20 1926 125 Palmetto Bay
Okeechobee 4 September 17 1928 125 Palm Beach
Unnamed 3 September 4 1933 110 Jupiter
Labor Day 5 September 3 1935 160 Craig Key
Unnamed 3 October 18 1944 105 Dry Tortugas
Unnamed 4 September 15 1945 115 North Key Largo
Unnamed 4 September 17 1947 115 Fort Lauderdale
Unnamed 4 September 21–22 1948 115 Near Chokoloskee
Unnamed 4 August 26 1949 115 Lake Worth
Easy 3 September 5 1950 105 Near Cedar Key
King 4 October 18 1950 115 Coconut Grove, Miami
Donna 4 September 10 1960 125 Conch Key
Betsy 3 September 8 1965 110 Tavernier
Eloise 3 September 23 1975 110 Near Destin
Elena 3 September 2 1985 100 Gulfport, MS*
Andrew 5 August 24 1992 145 Near Homestead
Opal 3 October 4 1995 100 Pensacola Beach
Charley 4 August 13 2004 130 Cayo Costa
Ivan 3 September 16 2004 105 Near Gulf Shores, AL*
Jeanne 3 September 26 2004 105 Hutchinson Island
Dennis 3 July 10 2005 105 Santa Rosa Island
Wilma 3 October 24 2005 105 Cape Romano
Irma 4 September 10 2017 115 Cudjoe Key
Michael 5 October 10 2018 140 Mexico Beach
...}

Second is that when hurricanes have more power from the greater heat, they tend to move faster and that simply causes them to miss Florida.
So Florida not getting hit does not mean that weather is not more extreme.

You are confused Moon Bat. Those were minor hurricane years not only for Florida but for the US.

We had about 10-12 years of minimal hurricane events.

Much to the chagrin of you stupid Environmental Wackos driving around in my gas guzzling Trundra truck doesn't produce hurricanes.

Wrong. If you look at Texas for example, you see increasing numbers of hurricanes. And no one suggested that global warming would increase the number of hurricanes necessarily, but that with more heat, the hurricanes would have more energy, so have higher winds, move faster and further, carry more water, etc. All of which is true.

And by the way, even the lull Florida had has been over for years.

I have lived in Florida all my life. I know the hurricane pattern. I have been through several of them. The worst hurricane I ever experienced was Hurricane Donna in 1960. Was Eisenhower to blame? You stupid Moon Bats seem to blame climate on politics. That is just the kind of idiots you Environmental Wackos are.

By the way you are confused about the recent frequency of hurricanes. You Moon Bats are confused about many things, aren't you?

US in Longest 'Hurricane Drought' in Recorded History

US in Longest 'Hurricane Drought' in Recorded History

 

[Rigby5]

Quoted for TRUTH!

James Hansen, High Priest of the Church of the Warming Globe, predicted in 1988 that New York City would be underwater in 20-40 years.

You said no one made such a prediction.

You were undeniable wrong. Period. End of story.

Pretending the proof of your heresy isn't there doesn't mean it is, cultist. You're going to burn in Socialist Hell.

In 2004 Florida got hit by four hurricanes and the AGW scammers said that it was just the beginning. Global warming was going to devastate Florida with hurricanes. However, it was 12 years before another hurricane hit Florida. We had 10-12 years of quiet hurricane seasons.

Nothing they ever say comes true.

They lost their credibility a long time ago.

Wrong.
First of all, there were 2 hurricanes in 2005 as well.

{...
Storm Saffir-Simpson
Category Date of landfall Year Landfall Intensity
(in knots) Landfall Location
Great Middle Florida 3 August 23 1851 100 Panama City
Unnamed 3 August 17 1871 100 Jupiter Island
Unnamed 3 October 7 1873 100 Captiva Island
Unnamed 3 October 3 1877 100 Panama City
Unnamed 3 September 10 1882 110 Navarre
Unnamed 3 August 16 1888 110 Miami Beach
Unnamed 3 October 9 1894 105 Panama City
Unnamed 3 September 29 1896 110 Cedar Key
Unnamed 3 October 18 1906 105 Marathon
Unnamed 3 October 11 1909 100 Marathon
Unnamed 3 September 29 1917 100 Fort Walton Beach
Unnamed 4 September 10 1919 130 Dry Tortugas
Great Miami 4 September 18–20 1926 125 Palmetto Bay
Okeechobee 4 September 17 1928 125 Palm Beach
Unnamed 3 September 4 1933 110 Jupiter
Labor Day 5 September 3 1935 160 Craig Key
Unnamed 3 October 18 1944 105 Dry Tortugas
Unnamed 4 September 15 1945 115 North Key Largo
Unnamed 4 September 17 1947 115 Fort Lauderdale
Unnamed 4 September 21–22 1948 115 Near Chokoloskee
Unnamed 4 August 26 1949 115 Lake Worth
Easy 3 September 5 1950 105 Near Cedar Key
King 4 October 18 1950 115 Coconut Grove, Miami
Donna 4 September 10 1960 125 Conch Key
Betsy 3 September 8 1965 110 Tavernier
Eloise 3 September 23 1975 110 Near Destin
Elena 3 September 2 1985 100 Gulfport, MS*
Andrew 5 August 24 1992 145 Near Homestead
Opal 3 October 4 1995 100 Pensacola Beach
Charley 4 August 13 2004 130 Cayo Costa
Ivan 3 September 16 2004 105 Near Gulf Shores, AL*
Jeanne 3 September 26 2004 105 Hutchinson Island
Dennis 3 July 10 2005 105 Santa Rosa Island
Wilma 3 October 24 2005 105 Cape Romano
Irma 4 September 10 2017 115 Cudjoe Key
Michael 5 October 10 2018 140 Mexico Beach
...}

Second is that when hurricanes have more power from the greater heat, they tend to move faster and that simply causes them to miss Florida.
So Florida not getting hit does not mean that weather is not more extreme.

You are confused Moon Bat. Those were minor hurricane years not only for Florida but for the US.

We had about 10-12 years of minimal hurricane events.

Much to the chagrin of you stupid Environmental Wackos driving around in my gas guzzling Trundra truck doesn't produce hurricanes.

Wrong. If you look at Texas for example, you see increasing numbers of hurricanes. And no one suggested that global warming would increase the number of hurricanes necessarily, but that with more heat, the hurricanes would have more energy, so have higher winds, move faster and further, carry more water, etc. All of which is true.

And by the way, even the lull Florida had has been over for years.

I have lived in Florida all my life. I know the hurricane pattern. I have been through several of them. The worst hurricane I ever experienced was Hurricane Donna in 1960. Was Eisenhower to blame? You stupid Moon Bats seem to blame climate on politics. That is just the kind of idiots you Environmental Wackos are.

By the way you are confused about the recent frequency of hurricanes. You Moon Bats are confused about many things, aren't you?

US in Longest 'Hurricane Drought' in Recorded History

US in Longest 'Hurricane Drought' in Recorded History

That is silly because clearly heat is the cause of all violent weather, and if you increase the heat, you have to increase both the frequency and intensity of violent weather.
And yes, global warming actually started with the industrial revolution, about 1840 or so.

And you did not read your own article on the supposed "Hurricane Drought".
It actually said:
{...
"When we looked qualitatively at the nine-year drought, they aren't inactive seasons," Hall said. The researchers found no significant change in the number of North Atlantic tropical cyclones, the amount of energy powering them or any other hurricane metric, according to the blog.

In fact, the hurricane drought may last another year. El Niño, which has developed in the Pacific, can lead to strong winds blowing over the Atlantic. These strong winds can stall hurricane formation, the researchers said.
...}

So there was no reduction overall, and what seemed like less in FL, was due to global warming actually.

 

[mamooth]

There was a big billboard put up by you stupid Moon Bat on I-4 in Orlando after the four hurricanes in 2004 blaming Bush for the hurricanes for the hurricanes so you stupid Environmental Wackos thought there was a connection between this silly AGW theory and hurricanes..

As usual, you're being hilariously stupid.

Here, you're actually claiming a billboard that someone put up represents the science and the opinion of everyone.

But then, it's a given that you're a moron. People of normal intelligence see through denier propaganda. Only the dumbest of the dumb get sucked into the denier cult.

 

[SSDD]

For example, the reality is CO2 is missing. We know how much additional CO2 is added from fossil fuel consumption. But apparently volcanism that we normally associate with additional CO2 release, is also absorbing huge amounts of CO2 from the silicates turning into carbonates. So the models are being tweaked to account for that.

That is questionable as well. The published, peer reviewed literature calls into question whether we are having any real effect on the atmospheric CO2 content at all. The fact is that we don't produce enough CO2 to even overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

Here, have a look at some of the published literature on the topic.

For example, termites alone produce two times as much CO2 as we make...the soil produces 9 times more CO2 than we do and as the earth greens, the soil area is expanding producing even more CO2... Just considering those two sources which produce eleven times more CO2 than we do, it is clear that the claim that our relative wisp of CO2 is causing the globe to warm is pseudoscience of the foulest sort.

Here...have a look at the actual scientific literature rather than believe a "hollywood" scientist who is little more than a paid whore for the climate industry. His story doesn't jibe with the peer reviewed published literature on the topic..


https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

“A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming isthat there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … Results do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenicemissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

“The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”
“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

Conclusion:
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whetherrepresenting sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

“The warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

“With the short (5−15 year) RT residence time results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”



https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/011006/meta

“However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”


There is plenty more actual evidence that our effect on the atmospheric CO2 concentration is negligible...how much more would you like to see?

That is just silly.
We clearly have increased CO2 content in the atmosphere by over 30% in less than 30 years.

I just provided you with seven peer reviewed published scientific papers which call our effect on atmospheric CO2 into question. Is peer reviewed, published scientific literature silly in your circles?

Do you have any peer reviewed, published literature that says how much we have increased CO2 and makes a good case, or are you simply referring to the information you have picked up on opinion sites...places where the actual scientific literature isn't as important as the message?

There is no natural cause that could possibly be at fault, and we know it is us because we can calculate the amount of CO2 we release from the fossil fuel we burn, and the only thing is that we actually release far more than the increase. Not the other way around.

Where do you get this malarky? Like I said, termites alone produce far more CO2 than we do with all our industry. An increase or decrease in termite population world wide could have a significant effect on the total atmospheric CO2.

Then there are volcanoes...for a long time science said that volcanoes don't produce much CO2 and that claim was based on the output of 6 or 8 land volcanoes known to be active... That claim has proven to be false.. Science is learning that they have grossly underestimated the amount of CO2 coming from volcanoes as the are discovering the sheer magnitude of undersea volcanic activity. Literally hundreds of thousands of volcanoes and vents pumping CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses 24/7/365.

We human beings don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the yearly variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery... There are about 750 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere...Humans produce about 23 gigatons a year and the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 5 to 8 years...To put that in perspective termites produce about 175 gigatons of CO2 annually.

The earth's own natural CO2 producing machinery, termites, outgassing from ocean, decay, volcanoes, etc is about 210 gigatons per year and that varies by about 12%... 12% of 210 gigatons is 25.2 gigatons...that is more than we produce in a year.

Talking about natural sources of CO2 is just silly because that not only has never changed, but we can calculate for sure that we have added over 5 trillion tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere, and it is accumulative.

You keep saying this is silly and that is silly but you aren't providing any actual science to back you up while I am producing published paper after published paper which says that you are wrong.

And the very idea that natural CO2 never changes is simply ignorant...as I have pointed out, the natural variation in atmospheric CO2 from year to year is more than all the CO2 we produce... I don't think you have any actual concept of just how small our CO2 production is.

Here is a pretty straight forward demonstration of how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to our activity...Maybe this will allow you to put our CO2 production into some context...

Your attempt to blame CO2 changes on El Nino are pathetic since it is clear there is ocean acidification from an increase in CO2 on a global scale. It is killing coral. It is unprecedented.

When did I ever make such a claim? As to ocean acidification, that is a dead horse. No respectable climate scientist is trying to push that bullshit any more. To begin with, corals evolved when atmospheric CO2 was in the neighborhood of 4000ppm...and the pH in any given patch of ocean can change more than 10 times the amount of acidification that CO2 is claimed to be causing. That claim is dead on arrival...it is, and always was nonsense. Corals are being killed by pollution, not by CO2.

Sure volcanic events cause cooling, but that has nothing to do with the CO2 emissions, but with particulated that shade and reflect solar light.

You couldn't be more wrong...as I pointed out, science has discovered that they have grossly underestimated the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere by volcanoes because they had overlooked literally hundreds of thousands of volcanoes and vents scattered across the ocean floor. It is as yet, unclear how much CO2 is being vented by undersea volcanoes. My guess is that the amount is staggering since they freely admit that they grossly underestimated the amount.

It is clear humans are the ONLY source of CO2 change, as not only have all other causes always existed, but the ice age killed off most plant life and cause the largest natural increase of CO2 in the normal ice age/warming cycle.

It is clear that you don't have a clue....but do step on up to the plate and provide a peer reviewed, published paper or two that say that humans are the only possible cause for changes in atmospheric CO2...I, for one would be damned interested in seeing even one...and frankly would be surprised if you could find one since the claim is absurd.

The speed of the current CO2 increase not only is unprecedented, but directly correlated with human CO2 production. For example, the years when gasoline prices increase and less is purchased, the CO2 increase is less.

Upon what proxy study do you make that claim? I would like to see it. And I have already provided you with 7 peer reviewed, published papers which state and show that there is no discernible trend in atmospheric CO2 that can be ascribed to us humans...how many more papers would you like to see? There are plenty.

It is preposterous to claim that it is ocean temperature change that is responsible for CO2 amounts when we clearly burn and release over 5 trillion tons of CO2 annually. And it is accumulative, since CO2 does not naturally decay.

What is preposterous is for you to keep making claims that you can't back up with any sort of published science when you have been provided with paper after paper which states clearly that your belief is wrong.

There simply is not other cause of source of the CO2 increase, so it has to be from humans, but even if it were not, that does not mean we don't have to decrease our contribution.

As I have shown, the natural variation in yearly natural CO2 production is greater than our total CO2 production...the fact that you believe that we are the only possible source of atmospheric CO2 change only serves to highlight how little you know about the topic.

Regardless of the source, CO2 is dangerously high, and it has to be reduced by whatever means possible. The planet is retaining more heat, and that is not at all sustainable.

Actually, CO2 is dangerously low. At less than 270ppm, plants start dying off. For most of earth's history, including the period just prior to the onset of the present ice age, atmospheric CO2 has been above 1000ppm and has been as high as 7000ppm with no hint of any sort of run away warming scenario... The fact is that at present, CO2 is dangerously low.

 

[SSDD]

It isn't surprising that NOAA climate models are way off. It would be interesting to

False.
Models have always been expected to not be accurate.
That is because they assume everything else is static other than the CO2 emissions increase.
And there are several obvious variables.
For example, the higher the CO2 concentrations, the more CO2 will be absorbed by expanded plant growth.
Another is that this also includes possible increase in carbonate shell production, like plankton.
Finally, it also depends on things like volcanoes and landslides, because fresh rock is known to absorb lots of CO2.
Another is that with warming air, you get more water vapor, and that can end up producing more clouds, which can then block more sunlight and cause cooling.
All of these variables had been considered ahead of time, and everyone expected the models to need works.
Models are never the basis for predictions or concerns.
All we need to do is extrapolate existing data graphs to get really worried.

Huh? Models have always been expected to be inaccurate? Al Gore made a fortune off of those models. He told us the polar ice caps were turning to slush and there would be beachfront property in Kansas cuz the models told him so. The Church of Climatology raked in billions based on the doom and gloom in those models.

Totally and completely wrong.

Gore had nothing at all to do with climate models.
The trends were already ACTUALLY happening, with polar and glacial ice melts, ocean rising, air temperatures increasing, hurricane increases, etc.

Climate models are ONLY about guessing when accelerators, like water vapor and methane are going to kick in. And no one ever said they could even remotely predict when or how that would likely happen. All we could do is suggest possibilities. For example, we don't know how more heat is going to cause more global warming from increased water vapor because more water vapor in the atmosphere could also create more reflective clouds. We don't know how much frozen methane hydrate in under the ocean or in tundra, so we can't know when or how much that will effect things. There is no way to model these things, and everyone always knew that. Models were only used to give a max/min range. Anyone who claims models were used for actual predictions is just lying.

Predictions made by climate models

Predictions of Future Global Climate

The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly

Climate Models & Predictions for the Future

Climate models are often used to predict the climate of an Earth in which the carbon dioxide concentration has doubled. This is a prospect very likely to occur within the next 50-100 years, given the current increasing rates of anthropogenic CO2.

Below are some results of climate models run under twice the current global carbon dioxide concentration. The model predictions for future climate are based on forward estimates of the rate of fossil fuel consumption, and thus the production of CO2 and its input to the atmosphere.
​

Oh, look. Climate models being used for actual predictions...you know, the exact opposite of what you claimed.

You should just stop now.

​

Predictions are only true if the measurements are accurate. What we have found out is that the AGW scammers have created false measurements to cover up reality. They get caught at it all the time. They even admitted it in the emails exposed by Climategate I&II. Obama even corrupted NASA and NOAA to create false data.

AGW is a big scam. We all know that as a fact. The stupid Moon Bats may not know it but they are as ignorant of Climate Science as they are of Economics, History, Biology, Ethics, The Constitution and just about everything else.

That is silly because those warning of global warming do not make any money off it. They are mostly salaried government employees who would get paid the same no matter what they wrote.

Very naive if you believe that.

 

[SSDD]

How about that NYC is not under water? Is that inconvenient Al?

No such prediction was made. that's another fraud deniers push. I understand you don't know that, because you only know what your cult masters tell you, and they feed you pure bullshit.

Thanks for confirming my point, that every single thing ever denier says should always initially be assumed to be fraudulent, because that's almost always the case.

No such prediction was made?

You really ought to stop, too.

Hansen, dubbed the “godfather” of global warming, was interviewed about a study he co-authored last month, which claimed future global warming would be worse than predicted. The study found global warming would cause massive sea level rise, flooding of major cities such as New York and enormous super storms. But that’s not the first time Hansen made dire sea level rise predictions.

In 1988, a Washington Post reporter asked Hansen what a warming Earth would look like in 20 or 40 years in the future. Hansen reportedly looked out a window and said New York City’s “West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.”​

Oceans are rising at an accerating rate, and 40 years from 1988 would be 2028, which has not arrived yet.
And that is not including the fact that we have reduced our carbon emissions.
If not for these predictions by people like Hansen, then we would have increased carbon emissions instead, and then water would be even higher.
We have not seen the result of the carbon we have already added to the atmosphere yet. It takes time to slowly accumulate solar heat. But it is happening,

Scale is everything...here...have a look at the sea level increase in the past 25,000 years... The sea level rise we have seen is insignificant...it continues on at a few millimeters per year just as it has a for the past 150 years...

 

[SSDD]

How about that NYC is not under water? Is that inconvenient Al?

No such prediction was made. that's another fraud deniers push. I understand you don't know that, because you only know what your cult masters tell you, and they feed you pure bullshit.

Of course the prediction was made...gore didn’t make it though...the prediction was made by no less than Hansen himself....what a liar you are hairball...

Is it 2028 already?
My my, how time does fly.

And how many electric, hybrid, or other lower emissions cars have we switched to because of these predictions?
How much hotter would it be if the predictions had not been made and we had not reduced emissions?

Guess whoever gives you your opinion didn't tell you that making those batteries produces more CO2 than simply burning gas...the batteries don't break even on CO2 till they have been in operation longer than their life expectancy...there is more CO2 in the air because of electric cars.

 

[SSDD]

No, I know the loop and all the scientific data is coming from scientists who ALL say that human caused global warming is real, and dangerous.

Clearly you don't...and thus far, us skeptics are the only ones producing any actual science...we are providing peer reviewed, published paper after peer reviewed published paper in support of our position and all you are providing is your opinion...or the opinion of whoever gave you yours.

The fact is that there has never been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to human activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses.

And no one is altering data from the past.

Of course they are...if you are unaware of that, then you really are out of the loop. Or maybe you are just a denier...

Here are just a few examples of the degree to which the data has been altered..

Not only is that impossible because the sources of past data can't be altered, but there would be no point in doing so.

Where do you get these ridiculous ideas? Who exactly is filling your head with such bullshit. Above are just a few of the literally hundreds of examples of the temperature record being altered.

 

[SSDD]

Predictions are only true if the measurements are accurate. What we have found out is that the AGW scammers have created false measurements to cover up reality. They get caught at it all the time. That even admitted it in the emails exposed by Climategate I&II. Obama even corrupted NASA abd NOAA to create false data.

AGW is a big scam. We all know that as a fact. The stupid Moon Bats may not know it but they are as ignorant of Climate Science as they are of Economics, History, Biology, Ethics, The Constitution and just about everything else.

Quoted for TRUTH!

As it is with any cultist, your cult anti-reality bubble can't be penetrated. You've cut yourself off from reality.

Did someone present inconvenient data that contradicts sacred cult scripture? Just scream it's fraudulent! Problem solved!

At this stage, you're only interesting as an example of abnormal cult psychology.

Go on, keep calling me a heretic if it makes you feel better. That will gain you major brownie points with the cult. After all, I have insulted your sacred religious scripture with hard facts and data, and your cult can never forgive such crimes.

James Hansen, High Priest of the Church of the Warming Globe, predicted in 1988 that New York City would be underwater in 20-40 years.

You said no one made such a prediction.

You were undeniable wrong. Period. End of story.

Pretending the proof of your heresy isn't there doesn't mean it is, cultist. You're going to burn in Socialist Hell.

In 2004 Florida got hit by four hurricanes and the AGW scammers said that it was just the beginning. Global warming was going to devastate Florida with hurricanes. However, it was 12 years before another hurricane hit Florida. We had 10-12 years of quiet hurricane seasons.

Nothing they ever say comes true.

They lost their credibility a long time ago.

Wrong.
First of all, there were 2 hurricanes in 2005 as well.

{...
Storm Saffir-Simpson
Category Date of landfall Year Landfall Intensity
(in knots) Landfall Location
Great Middle Florida 3 August 23 1851 100 Panama City
Unnamed 3 August 17 1871 100 Jupiter Island
Unnamed 3 October 7 1873 100 Captiva Island
Unnamed 3 October 3 1877 100 Panama City
Unnamed 3 September 10 1882 110 Navarre
Unnamed 3 August 16 1888 110 Miami Beach
Unnamed 3 October 9 1894 105 Panama City
Unnamed 3 September 29 1896 110 Cedar Key
Unnamed 3 October 18 1906 105 Marathon
Unnamed 3 October 11 1909 100 Marathon
Unnamed 3 September 29 1917 100 Fort Walton Beach
Unnamed 4 September 10 1919 130 Dry Tortugas
Great Miami 4 September 18–20 1926 125 Palmetto Bay
Okeechobee 4 September 17 1928 125 Palm Beach
Unnamed 3 September 4 1933 110 Jupiter
Labor Day 5 September 3 1935 160 Craig Key
Unnamed 3 October 18 1944 105 Dry Tortugas
Unnamed 4 September 15 1945 115 North Key Largo
Unnamed 4 September 17 1947 115 Fort Lauderdale
Unnamed 4 September 21–22 1948 115 Near Chokoloskee
Unnamed 4 August 26 1949 115 Lake Worth
Easy 3 September 5 1950 105 Near Cedar Key
King 4 October 18 1950 115 Coconut Grove, Miami
Donna 4 September 10 1960 125 Conch Key
Betsy 3 September 8 1965 110 Tavernier
Eloise 3 September 23 1975 110 Near Destin
Elena 3 September 2 1985 100 Gulfport, MS*
Andrew 5 August 24 1992 145 Near Homestead
Opal 3 October 4 1995 100 Pensacola Beach
Charley 4 August 13 2004 130 Cayo Costa
Ivan 3 September 16 2004 105 Near Gulf Shores, AL*
Jeanne 3 September 26 2004 105 Hutchinson Island
Dennis 3 July 10 2005 105 Santa Rosa Island
Wilma 3 October 24 2005 105 Cape Romano
Irma 4 September 10 2017 115 Cudjoe Key
Michael 5 October 10 2018 140 Mexico Beach
...}

Second is that when hurricanes have more power from the greater heat, they tend to move faster and that simply causes them to miss Florida.
So Florida not getting hit does not mean that weather is not more extreme.

You are confused Moon Bat. Those were minor hurricane years not only for Florida but for the US.

We had about 10-12 years of minimal hurricane events.

Much to the chagrin of you stupid Environmental Wackos driving around in my gas guzzling Trundra truck doesn't produce hurricanes.

Wrong. If you look at Texas for example, you see increasing numbers of hurricanes. And no one suggested that global warming would increase the number of hurricanes necessarily, but that with more heat, the hurricanes would have more energy, so have higher winds, move faster and further, carry more water, etc. All of which is true.

And by the way, even the lull Florida had has been over for years.

Do you even bother to look up any of your bullshit or do you just accept whatever you are told to repeat...it isn't as if it is difficult to look up.

And hurricanes are not caused by warming...hurricanes are the result of temperature differences between the poles and the equator...the less difference there is, the weaker the storms are. You seem to be wrong on everything and the fact that you are wrong while speaking as if you are some authority is getting to be quite funny.

 

[Flash]

No, I know the loop and all the scientific data is coming from scientists who ALL say that human caused global warming is real, and dangerous.

Clearly you don't...and thus far, us skeptics are the only ones producing any actual science...we are providing peer reviewed, published paper after peer reviewed published paper in support of our position and all you are providing is your opinion...or the opinion of whoever gave you yours.

The fact is that there has never been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to human activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses.

And no one is altering data from the past.

Of course they are...if you are unaware of that, then you really are out of the loop. Or maybe you are just a denier...

Here are just a few examples of the degree to which the data has been altered..

Not only is that impossible because the sources of past data can't be altered, but there would be no point in doing so.

Where do you get these ridiculous ideas? Who exactly is filling your head with such bullshit. Above are just a few of the literally hundreds of examples of the temperature record being altered.

Trying to educate these Moon Bats with facts is a waste of time. They are not capable of absorbing anything they have not already been brainwashed on.

 

[SSDD]

You just admitted again that clouds can't get to the top of the troposphere. And clouds are not just water vapor, but the death of water vapor, as it condenses back to falling water.

To the contrary....I just demonstrated that the tops of cumulonimbus clouds reach the top of the troposphere...as well as cirrus clouds...why lie?

And your graph from Bob Tilsdale is less than worthless because Tilsdale has been proven to be a fraud decades ago.

I will be happy to provide you with one from a different source...how about NOAA....it isn't as if they are hard to come by. It's interesting that you reject information based on who it comes from rather than checking to see whether or not it is accurate....flawed logic. Clearly research isn't your thing.

He makes millions selling books that are worthless and contain no science at all. Anyone who thinks about it for a second would realize that even if the data were real and the earth were radiation more energy now than before, that would be perfectly natural since the earth is warming.

Guess you never read one of his books....

The evidence humans are causing global warming is obvious.

Is it now? The fact is that there is not a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....nor is there a single piece of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...nor has there ever been a peer reviewed paper published in which the claimed warming due to human activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on so called greenhouse gasses.

that being the case, what exactly makes it "obvious"?

Natural climate cycles like ice ages are over 110 thousand years long.

NEWSFLASH...the present ice age has been going on for multiple millions of years...it seems that you are mistaken on everything you think you know.

We are adding over 5 trillion tons of carbon to the atmosphere every single year,

Absolute bullshit...there are only 750 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere...All the CO2 in the whole damned atmosphere amounts to less than a trillion tons and you are claiming we produce 5 trillion tons a year? You are laughable...You sound like Cliff Claven on the old Cheers TV show...a blow hard know it all who actually didn't know jack...and certainly didn't know that he was wrong on damned near everything he thought he knew.


And your belief on the money aspect is as laughable as every thing else you have had to say...

 

[SSDD]

Of course it is easy to detect changes in global temperature. In general, you do not try to measure air temperatures because air is too mobile. Instead it is far easier and reliable to simply measure denser and slower material like oceans or ice. {/quote]

And yet, the global surface temperature is measured a couple of meters above the surface...yet another thing you are completely wrong about...

by the way..the oceans are cooling.

And NO, there is not more Greenland ice now than in the past.

Of course there is...the temperature reconstructions make that abundantly clear. Do you simply deny everything that disagrees with your skewed world view? There is more ice on greenland now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years...that is a demonstrable fact evidenced by the CIMP2 temperature reconstruction...which by the way, is the gold standard in temperature reconstructions according to climate science.

You just don't understand the graph at all. The over all green is supposed to be declining because the warming that ended the last ice ages is supposed to be over. It is supposed to be cooling now. But it is warming instead. So you are not supposed to just consider the current warm temperature, but contrast it with the even cooler temperature is really is supposed to be now.

Are you kidding? How completely unsurprising..yet another warmer who can't even read a simple graph. And based on what science do you claim that any thing is "supposed" to be happening now? I would like to see some of the published papers that support your claims...or are you just making this bullshit up as you go?

 

[SSDD]

Trying to educate these Moon Bats with facts is a waste of time. They are not capable of absorbing anything they have not already been brainwashed on.

I don't thing he has said a single thing so far that he could support with anything like peer reviewed, published literature...and it looks like he is oblivious to the fact that it is us skeptics who are producing actual science to support our positions while he is doing nothing but spewing nonsense that flies in the face of the actual science with every word he says.

 

[otto105]

The hordes of climate skeptics continues to grow. It's a beautiful thing.

Only in your mind as the world changes for the worse.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Quoted for TRUTH!

James Hansen, High Priest of the Church of the Warming Globe, predicted in 1988 that New York City would be underwater in 20-40 years.

You said no one made such a prediction.

You were undeniable wrong. Period. End of story.

Pretending the proof of your heresy isn't there doesn't mean it is, cultist. You're going to burn in Socialist Hell.

In 2004 Florida got hit by four hurricanes and the AGW scammers said that it was just the beginning. Global warming was going to devastate Florida with hurricanes. However, it was 12 years before another hurricane hit Florida. We had 10-12 years of quiet hurricane seasons.

Nothing they ever say comes true.

They lost their credibility a long time ago.

Wrong.
First of all, there were 2 hurricanes in 2005 as well.

{...
Storm Saffir-Simpson
Category Date of landfall Year Landfall Intensity
(in knots) Landfall Location
Great Middle Florida 3 August 23 1851 100 Panama City
Unnamed 3 August 17 1871 100 Jupiter Island
Unnamed 3 October 7 1873 100 Captiva Island
Unnamed 3 October 3 1877 100 Panama City
Unnamed 3 September 10 1882 110 Navarre
Unnamed 3 August 16 1888 110 Miami Beach
Unnamed 3 October 9 1894 105 Panama City
Unnamed 3 September 29 1896 110 Cedar Key
Unnamed 3 October 18 1906 105 Marathon
Unnamed 3 October 11 1909 100 Marathon
Unnamed 3 September 29 1917 100 Fort Walton Beach
Unnamed 4 September 10 1919 130 Dry Tortugas
Great Miami 4 September 18–20 1926 125 Palmetto Bay
Okeechobee 4 September 17 1928 125 Palm Beach
Unnamed 3 September 4 1933 110 Jupiter
Labor Day 5 September 3 1935 160 Craig Key
Unnamed 3 October 18 1944 105 Dry Tortugas
Unnamed 4 September 15 1945 115 North Key Largo
Unnamed 4 September 17 1947 115 Fort Lauderdale
Unnamed 4 September 21–22 1948 115 Near Chokoloskee
Unnamed 4 August 26 1949 115 Lake Worth
Easy 3 September 5 1950 105 Near Cedar Key
King 4 October 18 1950 115 Coconut Grove, Miami
Donna 4 September 10 1960 125 Conch Key
Betsy 3 September 8 1965 110 Tavernier
Eloise 3 September 23 1975 110 Near Destin
Elena 3 September 2 1985 100 Gulfport, MS*
Andrew 5 August 24 1992 145 Near Homestead
Opal 3 October 4 1995 100 Pensacola Beach
Charley 4 August 13 2004 130 Cayo Costa
Ivan 3 September 16 2004 105 Near Gulf Shores, AL*
Jeanne 3 September 26 2004 105 Hutchinson Island
Dennis 3 July 10 2005 105 Santa Rosa Island
Wilma 3 October 24 2005 105 Cape Romano
Irma 4 September 10 2017 115 Cudjoe Key
Michael 5 October 10 2018 140 Mexico Beach
...}

Second is that when hurricanes have more power from the greater heat, they tend to move faster and that simply causes them to miss Florida.
So Florida not getting hit does not mean that weather is not more extreme.

You are confused Moon Bat. Those were minor hurricane years not only for Florida but for the US.

We had about 10-12 years of minimal hurricane events.

Much to the chagrin of you stupid Environmental Wackos driving around in my gas guzzling Trundra truck doesn't produce hurricanes.

Wrong. If you look at Texas for example, you see increasing numbers of hurricanes. And no one suggested that global warming would increase the number of hurricanes necessarily, but that with more heat, the hurricanes would have more energy, so have higher winds, move faster and further, carry more water, etc. All of which is true.

And by the way, even the lull Florida had has been over for years.

Do you even bother to look up any of your bullshit or do you just accept whatever you are told to repeat...it isn't as if it is difficult to look up.

And hurricanes are not caused by warming...hurricanes are the result of temperature differences between the poles and the equator...the less difference there is, the weaker the storms are. You seem to be wrong on everything and the fact that you are wrong while speaking as if you are some authority is getting to be quite funny.

The paradoxical warming of the poles as the mid latitudes cooled is exactly why we have had very weak storms over the last 15 years. There simply is a reduced temperature gradient and this kills the circulations that allow these storms to become monsters.

I just spent the better part of an hour reading through this mess and Rigby is wrong on just about every count he brings up. It is obvious he has no clue on atmospheric processes.

 

[Dick Foster]

How about that NYC is not under water? Is that inconvenient Al?

No such prediction was made. that's another fraud deniers push. I understand you don't know that, because you only know what your cult masters tell you, and they feed you pure bullshit.

Of course the prediction was made...gore didn’t make it though...the prediction was made by no less than Hansen himself....what a liar you are hairball...

Is it 2028 already?
My my, how time does fly.

And how many electric, hybrid, or other lower emissions cars have we switched to because of these predictions?
How much hotter would it be if the predictions had not been made and we had not reduced emissions?

Guess whoever gives you your opinion didn't tell you that making those batteries produces more CO2 than simply burning gas...the batteries don't break even on CO2 till they have been in operation longer than their life expectancy...there is more CO2 in the air because of electric cars.

It's actually much worse than that after you factor all the conversation and transmission losses into the equation. Given the state of the current power grid, electric cars are simply insane from any standpoint, especially environmental. Only a complete gullible dumbass would be suckered into buying one.

 

[SSDD]

I just spent the better part of an hour reading through this mess and Rigby is wrong on just about every count he brings up. It is obvious he has no clue on atmospheric processes.

He is precisely the sort that climate science, the media, and government want to graduate from the educational system. The sort that is so brainwashed and unable to think critically about anything that they would happily be taxed into poverty in order to avoid the climate disaster that they believe is already happening and will only get worse.

Imagine, being so unable to think for yourself that you can look around to day and actually believe you are seeing a climate disaster simply because you have been told that a disaster is happening.

Did you note that he claimed not once, but four separate times that mankind produces 5 TRILLION tons of CO2 each and every year? Where does someone even get a number that far from the truth. I visit the warmest sites occasionally just to keep up on the latest talking points and even make a point to visit one or two of the real crazy ones but have never seen anything like a claim of 5 trillion tons of anthropogenic CO2 every year. How clueless must you be to make such a claim and think it will stick?

 

[Flash]

[Q


I just spent the better part of an hour reading through this mess and Rigby is wrong on just about every count he brings up. It is obvious he has no clue on atmospheric processes.

Like I have said a couple of times in this thread, these Moon Bats are as confused about Climate Science as they are confused about Economics, History, Ethics, Biology and the Constitution.

There is climate change. Very common for the earth but there is no proof there is a significant made made component, if any.

Not even any proof that atmospheric CO2 levels like we see now has a greenhouse effect. The chemical reaction of CO2 is much more complex than any of the simplistic computer models these environmental wackos use and that is why none of their predictions ever come true.

The earth has been warmer than it is now for 90% of the time it has been around.

In human times the earth has been warmer than it is now when the CO2 levels have been lower. In other times the earth has cooler with the CO2 levels higher. Once the earth was like the ice planet Hoth and the CO2 levels were more than ten times what it is now.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It isn't surprising that NOAA climate models are way off. It would be interesting to

False.
Models have always been expected to not be accurate.
That is because they assume everything else is static other than the CO2 emissions increase.
And there are several obvious variables.
For example, the higher the CO2 concentrations, the more CO2 will be absorbed by expanded plant growth.
Another is that this also includes possible increase in carbonate shell production, like plankton.
Finally, it also depends on things like volcanoes and landslides, because fresh rock is known to absorb lots of CO2.
Another is that with warming air, you get more water vapor, and that can end up producing more clouds, which can then block more sunlight and cause cooling.
All of these variables had been considered ahead of time, and everyone expected the models to need works.
Models are never the basis for predictions or concerns.
All we need to do is extrapolate existing data graphs to get really worried.

Huh? Models have always been expected to be inaccurate? Al Gore made a fortune off of those models. He told us the polar ice caps were turning to slush and there would be beachfront property in Kansas cuz the models told him so. The Church of Climatology raked in billions based on the doom and gloom in those models.

Totally and completely wrong.

Gore had nothing at all to do with climate models.
The trends were already ACTUALLY happening, with polar and glacial ice melts, ocean rising, air temperatures increasing, hurricane increases, etc.

Climate models are ONLY about guessing when accelerators, like water vapor and methane are going to kick in. And no one ever said they could even remotely predict when or how that would likely happen. All we could do is suggest possibilities. For example, we don't know how more heat is going to cause more global warming from increased water vapor because more water vapor in the atmosphere could also create more reflective clouds. We don't know how much frozen methane hydrate in under the ocean or in tundra, so we can't know when or how much that will effect things. There is no way to model these things, and everyone always knew that. Models were only used to give a max/min range. Anyone who claims models were used for actual predictions is just lying.

You really believe that made up crap you wrote?

The IPCC in 1990 made SPECIFIC prediction that it would on average warm up .30C PER DECADE (range was .20C-.5C) Yet it never reached the .2C in any decade.

HadCrut

The increase in 28 years is only about .30C total.

Epic Fail!

 

[Sunsettommy]

You cant make this stuff up. Now NOAA is admitting their climate modeling programs run 5+ degrees C hotter than reality. And they DON'T KNOW WHY...

The Warming Meme is collapsing and cooling in all records is now evident by empirical observations. They can no longer hide their AGW failure. There is panic in the AGW political gamer's and they are now desperate to explain it away.

Climate Modellers Waiting for Observations to Catch Up with Their Predictions

Here's some empirical observations for you..dumbass:

Your reply to his is post is pure stupid because he was talking about Modeled TEMPERATURE trends versus real temperature reality.

Meanwhile no one disputes that it has declined since 1979, but at the same time ignore the hard evidence that the decline actually stopped after 2007, thus destroying that CO2 did it stupidity since there have been SIMILAR declines nearly 100 years earlier. Here is the last 12+ years sea ice data: