Some Failed Climate Predictions

[Sunsettommy]

[

It has NEVER even reached .20C in ANY decade.

You are easily mislead, which usually mean you lack critical thinking skills.

:^)

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia

`

The captioning text that goes with this Bitch slapping graphic

Global mean surface temperature change from 1880 to 2017, relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The black line is the global annual mean and the red line is the five-year lowess smooth. The blue uncertainty bars show a 95% confidence limit. Source: NASA GISS.

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies - Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

Land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present, with base period 1951-1980. The solid black line is the global annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year lowess smooth, i.e. a nonparametric regression analysis that relies on a k-nearest-neighbor model. The function is evaluated using a fraction of data corresponding to a ten year window of data, giving an effective smoothing of approximately five years. The blue uncertainty bars (95% confidence limit) account only for incomplete spatial sampling. This is based upon Fig. 1A in Hansen et al. (2006) and Fig. 9a in Hansen et al. (2010). The graph shows an overall long-term warming trend.

GISS is a the WORST temperature data set. It has been changed so many times now that it is junk. The erasure of a well known COOLING trend from the 1940's to the 1970's is a dead give away.

Use Old Rocks favorite Satellite set instead.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Hard evidence that NASA/GISS is junk:

2016

1981

See the obvious cooling of the past and a very different start point in 1880?

 

[Crick]

See the denier coming to unwarranted conclusions?

 

[Sunsettommy]

See the denier coming to unwarranted conclusions?

See that Crick can't accept 100% evidence from GISS/NASA themselves.

There are plenty more too.

 

[Crick]

Please explain why there are NO complaints from the thousands of climate scientists worldwide that work with that data on a daily basis and whose professional output is entirely dependent on its accuracy. The only complaints come from deniers like you.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Please explain why there are NO complaints from the thousands of climate scientists worldwide that work with that data on a daily basis and whose professional output is entirely dependent on its accuracy. The only complaints come from deniers like you.

You just answered your own question dork ..


Government grants.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Please explain why there are NO complaints from the thousands of climate scientists worldwide that work with that data on a daily basis and whose professional output is entirely dependent on its accuracy. The only complaints come from deniers like you.

What a marvelous dead on arrival reply you manage to dredge up............................

I posted the evidence, you have no answer for it, so you tried a truly stupid deflection.

You are too blind to notice that GISS two charts strongly contradicts each other. I barely scratched the surface on this and you already fell into the gutter, what a mess you are.

 

[otto105]

Please explain why there are NO complaints from the thousands of climate scientists worldwide that work with that data on a daily basis and whose professional output is entirely dependent on its accuracy. The only complaints come from deniers like you.

What a marvelous dead on arrival reply you manage to dredge up............................

I posted the evidence, you have no answer for it, so you tried a truly stupid deflection.

You are too blind to notice that GISS two charts strongly contradicts each other. I barely scratched the surface on this and you already fell into the gutter, what a mess you are.

The only thing you scratch is fleas.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Not confused at all.

Give us your climate predictions, Andy May | HotWhopper

Chew on that denier.

I can tell you didn't look in the link because it was straight off the IPCC website. Not only that the 2007 IPCC projection rate is still .30C per decade and STILL that way in the 2012 report too.It is clear you are just another warmist who can't address the well known IPCC failures, because you chose to remain ignorant.

Your link is so stupid, that I wonder YOU even read it? The article doesn't even mention RCP values at all and used the worst dataset of all in PISS. The heavily and Repeatedly adjusted dataset that erased the well known cooling trend from the 1940's to the 1970's.

The IPCC in 1990 made a PREDICTION of an average of .30C per decade warming rate and reach 1C by 2025, 3C by 2100. They based on the THEN existing emission scenarios, which over time is actually underrepresenting emission growth to this decade we are now in.

It has NEVER even reached .20C in ANY decade.

You are easily mislead, which usually mean you lack critical thinking skills.

He is using Slandering Sou's web site. Its a far lefty wacko site that wont publish truth about anything. If you need a lie to support a left wing position and power grab, slandering Sou will do.. When the AGW gods get outed about their fraud and deception this is the site they go to, to put out more propaganda.

 

[otto105]

Not confused at all.

Give us your climate predictions, Andy May | HotWhopper

Chew on that denier.

I can tell you didn't look in the link because it was straight off the IPCC website. Not only that the 2007 IPCC projection rate is still .30C per decade and STILL that way in the 2012 report too.It is clear you are just another warmist who can't address the well known IPCC failures, because you chose to remain ignorant.

Your link is so stupid, that I wonder YOU even read it? The article doesn't even mention RCP values at all and used the worst dataset of all in PISS. The heavily and Repeatedly adjusted dataset that erased the well known cooling trend from the 1940's to the 1970's.

The IPCC in 1990 made a PREDICTION of an average of .30C per decade warming rate and reach 1C by 2025, 3C by 2100. They based on the THEN existing emission scenarios, which over time is actually underrepresenting emission growth to this decade we are now in.

It has NEVER even reached .20C in ANY decade.

You are easily mislead, which usually mean you lack critical thinking skills.

He is using Slandering Sou's web site. Its a far lefty wacko site that wont publish truth about anything. If you need a lie to support a left wing position and power grab, slandering Sou will do.. When the AGW gods get outed about their fraud and deception this is the site they go to, to put out more propaganda.

You deniers label all things propaganda that are facts.

 

[Pilot1]

[

You deniers label all things propaganda that are facts.

The fact that you call people who don't buy into your theory "deniers" tells me that it is a hoax simply because you must try to demonize the opposing argument.

 

[otto105]

[

You deniers label all things propaganda that are facts.

The fact that you call people who don't buy into your theory "deniers" tells me that it is a hoax simply because you must try to demonize the opposing argument.

Your deniers because YOU deny the existence of global warming.


And that denial includes all facts to contrary by actual scientists.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Not confused at all.

Give us your climate predictions, Andy May | HotWhopper

Chew on that denier.

I can tell you didn't look in the link because it was straight off the IPCC website. Not only that the 2007 IPCC projection rate is still .30C per decade and STILL that way in the 2012 report too.It is clear you are just another warmist who can't address the well known IPCC failures, because you chose to remain ignorant.

Your link is so stupid, that I wonder YOU even read it? The article doesn't even mention RCP values at all and used the worst dataset of all in PISS. The heavily and Repeatedly adjusted dataset that erased the well known cooling trend from the 1940's to the 1970's.

The IPCC in 1990 made a PREDICTION of an average of .30C per decade warming rate and reach 1C by 2025, 3C by 2100. They based on the THEN existing emission scenarios, which over time is actually underrepresenting emission growth to this decade we are now in.

It has NEVER even reached .20C in ANY decade.

You are easily mislead, which usually mean you lack critical thinking skills.

He is using Slandering Sou's web site. Its a far lefty wacko site that wont publish truth about anything. If you need a lie to support a left wing position and power grab, slandering Sou will do.. When the AGW gods get outed about their fraud and deception this is the site they go to, to put out more propaganda.

You deniers label all things propaganda that are facts.

What facts are that, 98% of deniers are part of the 97% yet you call us deniers?

 

[Wyatt earp]

[

You deniers label all things propaganda that are facts.

The fact that you call people who don't buy into your theory "deniers" tells me that it is a hoax simply because you must try to demonize the opposing argument.

Your deniers because YOU deny the existence of global warming.


And that denial includes all facts to contrary by actual scientists.

Who the fuck denies weather and earth's changing climate ?

 

[Wyatt earp]

[

You deniers label all things propaganda that are facts.

The fact that you call people who don't buy into your theory "deniers" tells me that it is a hoax simply because you must try to demonize the opposing argument.

Your deniers because YOU deny the existence of global warming.


And that denial includes all facts to contrary by actual scientists.

Who the fuck denies weather and earth's changing climate ?

Only the AGW cult thinks it happens to fast and for some reason the weather 6,000 years ago is never suppose to change after the last ice age

 

[Billy_Bob]

[

You deniers label all things propaganda that are facts.

The fact that you call people who don't buy into your theory "deniers" tells me that it is a hoax simply because you must try to demonize the opposing argument.

Your deniers because YOU deny the existence of global warming.


And that denial includes all facts to contrary by actual scientists.

The Circular logic of an alarmist drone...

And no, there are recorded events far faster and of greater magnitude than today's little blip.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Not confused at all.

Give us your climate predictions, Andy May | HotWhopper

Chew on that denier.

I can tell you didn't look in the link because it was straight off the IPCC website. Not only that the 2007 IPCC projection rate is still .30C per decade and STILL that way in the 2012 report too.It is clear you are just another warmist who can't address the well known IPCC failures, because you chose to remain ignorant.

Your link is so stupid, that I wonder YOU even read it? The article doesn't even mention RCP values at all and used the worst dataset of all in PISS. The heavily and Repeatedly adjusted dataset that erased the well known cooling trend from the 1940's to the 1970's.

The IPCC in 1990 made a PREDICTION of an average of .30C per decade warming rate and reach 1C by 2025, 3C by 2100. They based on the THEN existing emission scenarios, which over time is actually underrepresenting emission growth to this decade we are now in.

It has NEVER even reached .20C in ANY decade.

You are easily mislead, which usually mean you lack critical thinking skills.

He is using Slandering Sou's web site. Its a far lefty wacko site that wont publish truth about anything. If you need a lie to support a left wing position and power grab, slandering Sou will do.. When the AGW gods get outed about their fraud and deception this is the site they go to, to put out more propaganda.

You deniers label all things propaganda that are facts.

Meanwhile you AVOID debating anything, such what YOU ignored this paragraph:

"I can tell you didn't look in the link because it was straight off the IPCC website. Not only that the 2007 IPCC projection rate is still .30C per decade and STILL that way in the 2012 report too. It is clear you are just another warmist who can't address the well known IPCC failures, because you chose to remain ignorant."

When will you address it?

 

[Sunsettommy]

[

You deniers label all things propaganda that are facts.

The fact that you call people who don't buy into your theory "deniers" tells me that it is a hoax simply because you must try to demonize the opposing argument.

Your deniers because YOU deny the existence of global warming.


And that denial includes all facts to contrary by actual scientists.

Why do you need to lie a lot?

I never dispute the warming trend, it is obvious in many time scales, however I DO dispute the AGW conjecture because of their provable modeling failures. I have posted hard evidence of such failures a number of times already.

All you seem to have are obnoxious one liners to throw around.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Please explain why there are NO complaints from the thousands of climate scientists worldwide that work with that data on a daily basis and whose professional output is entirely dependent on its accuracy. The only complaints come from deniers like you.

What a marvelous dead on arrival reply you manage to dredge up............................

I posted the evidence, you have no answer for it, so you tried a truly stupid deflection.

You are too blind to notice that GISS two charts strongly contradicts each other. I barely scratched the surface on this and you already fell into the gutter, what a mess you are.

The only thing you scratch is fleas.

Hello little kid, too hard for you to address the post you insulted me over?

Maybe it is too hard for you to do, which is why you offer personal attacks and insults..................

Here is the post Crick avoided replying to, maybe you can do what he can't do. Offer a cogent counterpoint......

POST #82

 

[otto105]

[

You deniers label all things propaganda that are facts.

The fact that you call people who don't buy into your theory "deniers" tells me that it is a hoax simply because you must try to demonize the opposing argument.

Your deniers because YOU deny the existence of global warming.


And that denial includes all facts to contrary by actual scientists.

Why do you need to lie a lot?

I never dispute the warming trend, it is obvious in many time scales, however I DO dispute the AGW conjecture because of their provable modeling failures. I have posted hard evidence of such failures a number of times already.

All you seem to have are obnoxious one liners to throw around.

You have posted crap.

Modeling by the IPCC has been updated many times since 1990 by faster computers and the data that they utilize.

Scientific consensus has been reached on the issue of AGW, yet you bring cherry picked BS in here and expect to convince people to applaud your idiotic denial.

Sorry not buying it.