Predictions for 2016

[IanC]

Post up your 2016 predictions!

I think the warmist will stop ignoring the satellite temperature records when the carry over from the 2015 El Nino continues to warm the dataset, perhaps to the point where the Pause is officially over. This is a two part prediction because I think the warmists will again ignore the satellite record in 2017 when the next La Nina reinstates the Pause at 20+ years and counting.

 

[skookerasbil]

I predict all the warmist predictions will be incorrect as they are every year.

I predict the upcoming Pew and Gallup polls will once again show that nobody gives a shit about global warming in 2016.( for "concerns of the public" it will again be 20th or 21st out of 22 )

I predict the PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING thread will push way beyond 5,000 posts by years end!!!

 

[jc456]

I predict there will never be a science experiment for CO2 other than Herr Koch in 1901.

 

[IanC]

I think the experiment has been done, with disappointing results. If people found out that doubling CO2 in a 1m^3 box raised the temp by, say, 0.05 C via heatsink of excited CO2 molecules, that would 'dilute' the message. People would laugh and wonder if this was what we should be spending trillions of dollars on.

 

[IanC]

No other predictions?

I predict that the mass loss projections for the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets will continue to go down from the original estimates.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I stopped listening to the satellites after the last upgrade stopped making any sense. We're seeing the strongest nino in the past 150 years and yet there's hardly any sign of it in the satellite data?

Give me a break!


As for what I think will happen with the nino...Based on some subsurface maps I've looked at the past week it appears to be weakening slower then the 1997-1998 event. The cold pool expanding eastward is weaker then it was at the same point in those years...

I'll predict that it will remain above 2.0c to mid feb and above 1 through late May! There's a chance we may get to 0c or slightly below by Oct-Dec time period, but I honestly doubt we get the three months needed at -.5c at 3.4 to get even a weak nina this year. Of course this could change, but we're talking about 11-12 months ahead here.

With this in mind I doubt we'll cool as fast as we did in 1998 and 2016 will be at least as warm as 2015! Won't say warmer but of course that could happen if the cooling is as slow as I think it maybe.

 

[mamooth]

As this thread demonstrates, I predict the deniers here will continue their flight from reality, and will get increasingly hostile towards those in the reality-based community.

At this point, I'd like to tell the deniers why they should avoid the Sunk Cost Fallacy. Most deniers think "Given how many years I've devoted to the cult, I can't throw that effort away by giving up on it!". That's not rational thinking. Rational thinking says that past costs are not relevant. What's done is done, and only future costs and benefits matter. Since the future cost of membership in the denier cult is endless humiliation and frustration with no offsetting benefit, logic would dictate abandoning the denier cult's failed dogma.

 

[IanC]

As this thread demonstrates, I predict the deniers here will continue their flight from reality, and will get increasingly hostile towards those in the reality-based community.

At this point, I'd like to tell the deniers why they should avoid the Sunk Cost Fallacy. Most deniers think "Given how many years I've devoted to the cult, I can't throw that effort away by giving up on it!". That's not rational thinking. Rational thinking says that past costs are not relevant. What's done is done, and only future costs and benefits matter. Since the future cost of membership in the denier cult is endless humiliation and frustration with no offsetting benefit, logic would dictate abandoning the denier cult's failed dogma.

Hahahaha, any hamsters up there?

 

[mamooth]

Ian, given how hard you and your kind have failed with every prediction for so many years, why should anyone pay attention to your predictions? You deniers are so reliable at being totally wrong, the best prediction method is to look at your predictions and predict the opposite.

In contrast, mainstream science has been spot on with everything for decades, which is why it has such credibility. There's no socialist conspiracy. The science is very good, deniers are jokes, and lying about the science won't change that.

 

[Wuwei]

Post up your 2016 predictions!

I think the warmist will stop ignoring the satellite temperature records when the carry over from the 2015 El Nino continues to warm the dataset, perhaps to the point where the Pause is officially over. This is a two part prediction because I think the warmists will again ignore the satellite record in 2017 when the next La Nina reinstates the Pause at 20+ years and counting.

I know there are problems with thermometer coverage to compute the global avg temperature. Satellites have great coverage, but they can't possibly measure temperature; they measure radiation. Temperature is inferred from radiation. How do they construct a black-body curve when the thermal radiation is compromised by different altitudes emitting different spectra?

 

[IanC]

Post up your 2016 predictions!

I think the warmist will stop ignoring the satellite temperature records when the carry over from the 2015 El Nino continues to warm the dataset, perhaps to the point where the Pause is officially over. This is a two part prediction because I think the warmists will again ignore the satellite record in 2017 when the next La Nina reinstates the Pause at 20+ years and counting.

I know there are problems with thermometer coverage to compute the global avg temperature. Satellites have great coverage, but they can't possibly measure temperature; they measure radiation. Temperature is inferred from radiation. How do they construct a black-body curve when the thermal radiation is compromised by different altitudes emitting different spectra?

There is lots of info out there on how satellite measurements are converted to temps.

For satellite global temps there are two groups, one skeptical and one warmist. They keep each other 'honest'. The same cannot be said for sea level, mass measurement, etc.

You did not address my prediction. I think satellite temps will become 'fashionable' if 2016 is warm enough to bust the Pause, and will return to being ignored when the next La Nina brings it back.

We shall see. I'll certainly bump this thread if I'm right. And ignore my mistake if I'm wrong, just like climate scientists. Hahahaha.

 

[Wuwei]

There is lots of info out there on how satellite measurements are converted to temps.

It seems that the complexity of the conversion will always allow anyone to fudge what they like.

You did not address my prediction. I think satellite temps will become 'fashionable' if 2016 is warm enough to bust the Pause, and will return to being ignored when the next La Nina brings it back.

The warmers will always choose what is best for them, and the deniers will always choose what's best for them.

We shall see. I'll certainly bump this thread if I'm right. And ignore my mistake if I'm wrong, just like climate scientists. Hahahaha.

 

[mamooth]

For satellite global temps there are two groups, one skeptical and one warmist. They keep each other 'honest'. The same cannot be said for sea level, mass measurement, etc.

The honest satellite group says that satellite temperatures are too unreliable to be used for climate studies.

You did not address my prediction. I think satellite temps will become 'fashionable' if 2016 is warm enough to bust the Pause, and will return to being ignored when the next La Nina brings it back.

We shall see. I'll certainly bump this thread if I'm right. And ignore my mistake if I'm wrong, just like climate scientists. Hahahaha.

I predict major flaws will be fixed in the satellite models. That is, Mears at RSS will figure out the problem, fix it, and the satellite temps will match the surface temps much for closely. Spencer will have a fit, and cling to his bad model, and Ian will explain to us why RSS has become part of the conspiracy. You know, just like Ian did with the BEST study.

He will be right in one way. Satellite data will be considered trustworthy again if RSS fixes it.

 

[jc456]

For satellite global temps there are two groups, one skeptical and one warmist. They keep each other 'honest'. The same cannot be said for sea level, mass measurement, etc.

The honest satellite group says that satellite temperatures are too unreliable to be used for climate studies.

You did not address my prediction. I think satellite temps will become 'fashionable' if 2016 is warm enough to bust the Pause, and will return to being ignored when the next La Nina brings it back.

We shall see. I'll certainly bump this thread if I'm right. And ignore my mistake if I'm wrong, just like climate scientists. Hahahaha.

I predict major flaws will be fixed in the satellite models. That is, Mears at RSS will figure out the problem, fix it, and the satellite temps will match the surface temps much for closely. Spencer will have a fit, and cling to his bad model, and Ian will explain to us why RSS has become part of the conspiracy. You know, just like Ian did with the BEST study.

He will be right in one way. Satellite data will be considered trustworthy again if RSS fixes it.

I predict you will never agree that land coverage of thermometers is not enough to translate into a global temperature. The only way to give a global temp is to make temps up. BTW, where is that thermometer in the Arctic at? you know the one that had the temperature go up 50 degrees? where was that at?

 

[mamooth]

I predict you will never agree that land coverage of thermometers is not enough to translate into a global temperature.

Wrong. I fully agree with that. So, your prediction instantly fails.

And that's why there are so many buoys and floats measuring sea temperatures.

The only way to give a global temp is to make temps up

Damn, you're stupid. I know it's been said before, but you constantly surprise everyone with new stupidity.

BTW, where is that thermometer in the Arctic at? you know the one that had the temperature go up 50 degrees? where was that at?

I gave you a direct link to that Arctic ice buoy before.

This warm winter we're having | Page 35 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

AXIB Buoy 132472 Recent Data

Note how that buoy has gone between -8C and -41C. A 33C swing, over 50F.

You're not being stupid here. As I just showed, you're deliberately lying now. Go pound sand, liar.

 

[jc456]

I predict you will never agree that land coverage of thermometers is not enough to translate into a global temperature.

Wrong. I fully agree with that. So, your prediction instantly fails.

And that's why there are so many buoys and floats measuring sea temperatures.

The only way to give a global temp is to make temps up

Damn, you're stupid. I know it's been said before, but you constantly surprise everyone with new stupidity.

BTW, where is that thermometer in the Arctic at? you know the one that had the temperature go up 50 degrees? where was that at?

I gave you a direct link to that Arctic ice buoy before.

This warm winter we're having | Page 35 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

AXIB Buoy 132472 Recent Data

Note how that buoy has gone between -8C and -41C. A 33C swing, over 50F.

You're not being stupid here. As I just showed, you're deliberately lying now. Go pound sand, liar.

and I gave you one back:

So where does the warmth come from in the Arctic since they don't see the sun? Please, I'm interested in how at a place with no sun can be warmer than a place with 10 hours of it? Please, you have my attention.

Like the article said, abnormally strong low and high pressure weather systems caused winds that drew warm air up from the south.

Is it the concept of "wind" that confuses you? Or are you declaring that the temperatures have been faked?

well ain't chicago between the south and the Arctic? oh the stupid. Canada and Europe and Russia, and any other land mass that isn't warming in the northern hemisphere.

Yes I'm declaring the temperatures have been faked, let's see the station and the temperature set. Name a station and I'll go look it up.

Oh wait here from Freak storm pushes North Pole 50 degrees above normal to melting point

"Although there are no permanent weather stations at the North Pole (or really anywhere in the Arctic Ocean), we can use weather forecast models, which ingest data from satellites and surrounding surface observations, to estimate conditions at Earth’s most northern location.

On Wednesday morning, temperatures over a vast area around North Pole were somewhere between 30 and 35 degrees Fahrenheit, and for at least a brief moment, surpassed the 32-degree threshold at exactly 90 degrees North, according to data from the GFS forecast model."

A model, not a thermometer. it is assumed.

Oh wait here from Freak storm pushes North Pole 50 degrees above normal to melting point

"Although there are no permanent weather stations at the North Pole (or really anywhere in the Arctic Ocean), we can use weather forecast models, which ingest data from satellites and surrounding surface observations, to estimate conditions at Earth’s most northern location.

On Wednesday morning, temperatures over a vast area around North Pole were somewhere between 30 and 35 degrees Fahrenheit, and for at least a brief moment, surpassed the 32-degree threshold at exactly 90 degrees North, according to data from the GFS forecast model."

And tooth, most bouys are near land. hardly globe like.

 

[IanC]

For satellite global temps there are two groups, one skeptical and one warmist. They keep each other 'honest'. The same cannot be said for sea level, mass measurement, etc.

The honest satellite group says that satellite temperatures are too unreliable to be used for climate studies.

You did not address my prediction. I think satellite temps will become 'fashionable' if 2016 is warm enough to bust the Pause, and will return to being ignored when the next La Nina brings it back.

We shall see. I'll certainly bump this thread if I'm right. And ignore my mistake if I'm wrong, just like climate scientists. Hahahaha.

I predict major flaws will be fixed in the satellite models. That is, Mears at RSS will figure out the problem, fix it, and the satellite temps will match the surface temps much for closely. Spencer will have a fit, and cling to his bad model, and Ian will explain to us why RSS has become part of the conspiracy. You know, just like Ian did with the BEST study.

He will be right in one way. Satellite data will be considered trustworthy again if RSS fixes it.

Hahahaha. UAH came more into line with the 'honest' RSS when they went to version 6. Funny how the Pooh flinging monkey forgot to mention that. Hahahaha.

 

[mamooth]

First, "honest" and "correct" are two different things.

Second, I certainly did mention that UAH just sharply adjusted their data downwards. Thus, I wonder why Ian thought he could tell a fib like that and not get called on it. There's not much point in talking to Ian now, given his propensity to make shit up.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL....but the bouy data is rigged.


duh

 

[jc456]

First, "honest" and "correct" are two different things.

Second, I certainly did mention that UAH just sharply adjusted their data downwards. Thus, I wonder why Ian thought he could tell a fib like that and not get called on it. There's not much point in talking to Ian now, given his propensity to make shit up.

bye then