Climate Science -- Fifty Years of Getting Everything Right

[jc456]

"Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss".--BBC News, 12 Dec 2007

Old Socks posts that the American Geophysical Union is a big supporter of manmade global climate warming change

as opposed to the previous years they stated that?

 

[PredFan]

It's around the fiftieth anniversary of one of the landmarks of climate science, the first report to a president about it, this 1965 report to President Johnson on global warming and other topics, by all the big names in the field at that time.

http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira downloads/PSAC, 1965, Restoring the Quality of Our Environment.pdf

If you read it, everything is correct. They predict the warming from human-emitted CO2. They say they can't model it yet, but they'll be able to do so soon, and they did (in 1974). They predict the sea level rise, ocean acidification, melting icecaps, everything. Scientists have been getting it all right about global warming for over 50 years now, and that's why the science has so much credibility.

Now, the crazies will say that's when the socialist conspiracy started, but nobody cares about them.

Count that as another coffin nail in the "but they predicted cooling!" nonsense. No, they predicted warming. That report is the statement of the scientific consensus at the time.

What a gullible fool you are. It wasn't a consensus back then, and it isn't now. Some scientists DID say we would have cooling. That is history and cannot be denied. Fewer and fewer people are falling for the lies on the AGW crowd. I guess you guys better use more faked data, more intimidation. Maybe enact laws that fine or arrest anyone who doesn't believe. You can't tolerate any dissention.

 

[PredFan]

^ Guam, still above water.

Guam, one of the DENIER! Islands

Damn that island! Obama and Al Gore need to get tougher on it. It needs to toe the line pronto!

 

[Wyatt earp]

It's around the fiftieth anniversary of one of the landmarks of climate science, the first report to a president about it, this 1965 report to President Johnson on global warming and other topics, by all the big names in the field at that time.

http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira downloads/PSAC, 1965, Restoring the Quality of Our Environment.pdf

If you read it, everything is correct. They predict the warming from human-emitted CO2. They say they can't model it yet, but they'll be able to do so soon, and they did (in 1974). They predict the sea level rise, ocean acidification, melting icecaps, everything. Scientists have been getting it all right about global warming for over 50 years now, and that's why the science has so much credibility.

Now, the crazies will say that's when the socialist conspiracy started, but nobody cares about them.

Count that as another coffin nail in the "but they predicted cooling!" nonsense. No, they predicted warming. That report is the statement of the scientific consensus at the time.

Mean while in the real world...



The Coming Ice Age - 1978:

 

[mamooth]

So a video based upon wishful thinking modeling released almost a decade before the data is more accurate than the actual satellite data?

Are you sure about that?

You're the only one making such an insane claim. Why? Because you can't debate honestly and address what people actually say.

I pointed that the measurement matched the model fairly well, debunking the big lie you make a point of pride to tell over and over.

 

[mamooth]

Mean while in the real world...

So according to bear here, Leonard Nimoy narrating a conspiracy show ("In Search Of ... Bigfoot!") represents the real world, and all the actual science should simply be ignored.

That sums up denier logic. Go with conspiracies and ignore the real science, science which has been consistently and correctly predicting warming since 1965.

 

[jc456]

Mean while in the real world...

So according to bear here, Leonard Nimoy narrating a conspiracy show ("In Search Of ... Bigfoot!") represents the real world, and all the actual science should simply be ignored.

That sums up denier logic. Go with conspiracies and ignore the real science, science which has been consistently and correctly predicting warming since 1965.

well tooth, as has been explained multiple times to you, you haven't shown us the science. We've all been waiting. Probably for fifty years, and still today, you haven't shown the science. You know, the one with the CO2 is evil one.

 

[westwall]

It's around the fiftieth anniversary of one of the landmarks of climate science, the first report to a president about it, this 1965 report to President Johnson on global warming and other topics, by all the big names in the field at that time.

http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira downloads/PSAC, 1965, Restoring the Quality of Our Environment.pdf

If you read it, everything is correct. They predict the warming from human-emitted CO2. They say they can't model it yet, but they'll be able to do so soon, and they did (in 1974). They predict the sea level rise, ocean acidification, melting icecaps, everything. Scientists have been getting it all right about global warming for over 50 years now, and that's why the science has so much credibility.

Now, the crazies will say that's when the socialist conspiracy started, but nobody cares about them.

Count that as another coffin nail in the "but they predicted cooling!" nonsense. No, they predicted warming. That report is the statement of the scientific consensus at the time.

They use language familiar to every charlatan ever minted. There are no predictions merely vague references to what might happen. As usual mammy is totally clueless and fails to understand the difference between facts and opinion.

 

[mamooth]

What a gullible fool you are. It wasn't a consensus back then, and it isn't now. Some scientists DID say we would have cooling. That is history and cannot be denied.

And many more said warming. That is history and cannot be denied, unless you're a liar. Thus, almost all deniers deny it.

Fewer and fewer people are falling for the lies on the AGW crowd.

That's not what the polls say. But then, your cult forbids you from looking at any outside information, so you probably have no idea how small your kook fringe political cult really is. Polls put you in the 12%-16% range and falling fast. And outside of the USA, your cult is just plain dead. Dying cults are not pleasant places to be, and I suggest you slip out into the jungle before they bring out the koolaid vat.

I guess you guys better use more faked data,

There was never any faked data, and only the most desperate and pathetic hysterics still attempt that lie. Once you see someone lie that big, you just have to assume from then on that every word he writes is a lie.

more intimidation. Maybe enact laws that fine or arrest anyone who doesn't believe. You can't tolerate any dissention.

Just lose the wuss act. Laughing at deniers because they're morons and liars is not oppression.

Also lose the hypocrisy. It's not the rational people heading a congressional committees and issuing subpoenas for everything every climate science ever wrote. That would be Lamar Smith and the Republican-Stalinist party.

And you proudly kiss the keisters of those Stalinists. I'm just clarifying where we each stand. The rational people all reject Stalinist tactics, while almost every denier enthusiastically endorses those Stalinist tactics. That's why every moral person should see it as a moral and patriotic duty to oppose the deniers.

 

[PredFan]

What a gullible fool you are. It wasn't a consensus back then, and it isn't now. Some scientists DID say we would have cooling. That is history and cannot be denied.

And many more said warming. That is history and cannot be denied, unless you're a liar. Thus, almost all deniers deny it.

Fewer and fewer people are falling for the lies on the AGW crowd.

That's not what the polls say. But then, your cult forbids you from looking at any outside information, so you probably have no idea how small your kook fringe political cult really is. Polls put you in the 12%-16% range and falling fast. And outside of the USA, your cult is just plain dead. Dying cults are not pleasant places to be, and I suggest you slip out into the jungle before they bring out the koolaid vat.

I guess you guys better use more faked data,

There was never any faked data, and only the most desperate and pathetic hysterics still attempt that lie. Once you see someone lie that big, you just have to assume from then on that every word he writes is a lie.

more intimidation. Maybe enact laws that fine or arrest anyone who doesn't believe. You can't tolerate any dissention.

Just lose the wuss act. Laughing at deniers because they're morons and liars is not oppression.

Also lose the hypocrisy. It's not the rational people heading a congressional committees and issuing subpoenas for everything every climate science ever wrote. That would be Lamar Smith and the Republican-Stalinist party.

And you proudly kiss the keisters of those Stalinists. I'm just clarifying where we each stand. The rational people all reject Stalinist tactics, while almost every denier enthusiastically endorses those Stalinist tactics. That's why every moral person should see it as a moral and patriotic duty to oppose the deniers.

Ha ha, you're funny, in a sad and pathetic kind of way.

 

[Wyatt earp]

ME thinks the AGW cult read the book 1984 to much.

Come to think about it, that is one of the liberal play books.

 

[RollingThunder]

Oh, and still no warming these past 2 decades

LOLOL.....you really still believe that thoroughly debunked denier cult myth and propaganda meme? LOL.

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

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


(Credit: NOAA)

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

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

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh, and still no warming these past 2 decades

LOLOL.....you really still believe that thoroughly debunked denier cult myth and propaganda meme? LOL.

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

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


(Credit: NOAA)

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

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

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

NOAA has no credibility, they are a hack organization that has fudged more numbers than Bernie Madoff

 

[Billy_Bob]

50 years of lying out their asses... and left tards believing every lie they spewed..

 

[RollingThunder]

NOAA has no credibility, they are a hack organization that has fudged more numbers than Bernie Madoff

50 years of lying out their asses... and left tards believing every lie they spewed..

The standard meaningless denier cult crackpot conspiracy theories....suitable for deceiving only the very ignorant, anti-science, reality-challenged devotees of FauxNews....normal people laugh...

 

[Old Rocks]

It's around the fiftieth anniversary of one of the landmarks of climate science, the first report to a president about it, this 1965 report to President Johnson on global warming and other topics, by all the big names in the field at that time.

http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira downloads/PSAC, 1965, Restoring the Quality of Our Environment.pdf

If you read it, everything is correct. They predict the warming from human-emitted CO2. They say they can't model it yet, but they'll be able to do so soon, and they did (in 1974). They predict the sea level rise, ocean acidification, melting icecaps, everything. Scientists have been getting it all right about global warming for over 50 years now, and that's why the science has so much credibility.

Now, the crazies will say that's when the socialist conspiracy started, but nobody cares about them.

Count that as another coffin nail in the "but they predicted cooling!" nonsense. No, they predicted warming. That report is the statement of the scientific consensus at the time.

They use language familiar to every charlatan ever minted. There are no predictions merely vague references to what might happen. As usual mammy is totally clueless and fails to understand the difference between facts and opinion.

So all the scientists in the AGU and the GSA are charlatans. So glad to hear that. Perhaps you would like to include the AIP in on that, also. And every other Scientific Society and the members of those societies.

The truth is known only to Westwall and other rightwingnuts.

 

[Old Rocks]

View attachment 54412

50 years of lying out their asses... and left tards believing every lie they spewed..

Link to source?

 

[skookerasbil]

50 years of what?

This thread definitely gets the 1st Place Award for "Stoopidest of the Year".

If the AGW community were getting it right, far more people would actually care about global warming. They don't......a decidedly small % of the public cares....that's a fact.

The state of renewable energy in 2015 ( and all projections out to 2050) rather shows us 50 years of fAiL.

The religion still hasn't made their case to the American public.


Of course, to the AGW internet OCD's obsessed with global warming, of course they think its all been 100% right.......that would be expected.

 

[jc456]

Oh, and still no warming these past 2 decades

LOLOL.....you really still believe that thoroughly debunked denier cult myth and propaganda meme? LOL.

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

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


(Credit: NOAA)

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

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

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

so the IPCC AR5 report is a denier. funny stuff jean.

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

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

 

[RollingThunder]

Oh, and still no warming these past 2 decades

LOLOL.....you really still believe that thoroughly debunked denier cult myth and propaganda meme? LOL.

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

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


(Credit: NOAA)

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

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

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

so the IPCC AR5 report is a denier. funny stuff jean.

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

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

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

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

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

A-1. Observed Impacts, Vulnerability, and Exposure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Violent conflict increases vulnerability to climate change (medium evidence, high agreement). Large-scale violent conflict harms assets that facilitate adaptation, including infrastructure, institutions, natural resources, social capital, and livelihood opportunities.16