Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[Crick]

Please explain why you think so.

would it make any difference to you if he did explain why he thought so? in detail, with links, etc?

I have done so in the past and you simply handwave away any evidence that politics plays a strong role in what the the IPCC states are the conclusions to be drawn from the truncated list of evidence provided in its reports.

You think it's acceptable to "handwave" away all of modern day science? You have no comment for the handwaving he's already accomplished yet you want to take me to task for something I've not yet done. Why would that be Ian?

 

[SSDD]

Please explain why you think so.

would it make any difference to you if he did explain why he thought so? in detail, with links, etc?

I have done so in the past and you simply handwave away any evidence that politics plays a strong role in what the the IPCC states are the conclusions to be drawn from the truncated list of evidence provided in its reports.

Here is a good example of IPCC "science"...

In 1995 the IPCC said that there had been no warming between 1958 and 1995....try to find a modern graph after all the "adjustments and massaging" that reflects this 1995 graph...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your sources are totally biased sites which can only exist by funds from the government and other donations. All they support is Global Warming. But, it is a cute try!

Your sources are WSJ editorial and discredited Scientist one of which [Spencer in Alabama] also denies the theory of Evolution
Dr. Roy Spencer, Please Keep Your Religion Out Of Science
Not everyone might be aware of this but Dr. Roy Spencer is someone who believes in Intelligent Design. He has often defended his support of Intelligent Design and his rejection of the Theory of Evolution quite vocally. Something I mentioned briefly in one of my blog posts.

That Spencer rejects the Theory of Evolution and replaces it with Intelligent Design brings into question his ability to assess evidence in a detached way.

Because Dr Spencer shows the fraud, using real world data and empirical evidence, you call him discredited. Then without a shred of evidence to show that what he has said is wrong you defame him..

WOW.

I am going to side with Dr Spencer who has real world empirical evidence to support him while you liars have Consensus and no evidence..

Science is about the evidence not a group of paid for liars who have no empirical evidence and claim their failed models are their proof.. Your emperor has no cloths and your wondering why we are all laughing at your silly asses..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Please explain why you think so.

would it make any difference to you if he did explain why he thought so? in detail, with links, etc?

I have done so in the past and you simply handwave away any evidence that politics plays a strong role in what the the IPCC states are the conclusions to be drawn from the truncated list of evidence provided in its reports.

Here is a good example of IPCC "science"...

In 1995 the IPCC said that there had been no warming between 1958 and 1995....try to find a modern graph after all the "adjustments and massaging" that reflects this 1995 graph...

And if you compared that graph to Karl Et Al you would see that the data before 1970 has been dropped almost 1.2 deg C and the data above 1970 has been increased by 0.6 deg C... Even the IPCC shows how massive and desperate the AGW fraud is..

 

[Crick]

That massive a fraud MUST bother someone's conscious. Have you found anyone confessing to it yet? Do you actually have any evidence that the data were adjusted without cause? It seems over and over again that your only complaint is that it's going in a direction you don't like. However, plenty of adjustments have tended to reduce warming. You just don't like to talk about those.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Time will tell rather my prediction is right or wrong...Probably should pin this and wait!

 

[SSDD]

That massive a fraud MUST bother someone's conscious. Have you found anyone confessing to it yet? Do you actually have any evidence that the data were adjusted without cause? It seems over and over again that your only complaint is that it's going in a direction you don't like. However, plenty of adjustments have tended to reduce warming. You just don't like to talk about those.

We had a big discussion on that topic...you were shown several examples of climate pseudoscientists admitting to fudging, fabricating, and altering data in their private correspondence....you claimed that they were joking.....you are the joke...

 

[SSDD]

Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records

by JAMES DELINGPOLE28 Apr 20161,726

You’ve read about the climate fraud committed ‘on an unbelievable scale’ by the shysters at NASA.
You’ve read about how NOAA overestimated US warming by 50 percent.

Now it’s NSIDC’s turn to be caught red-handed fiddling the data and cooking the books.

NSIDC – National Snow and Ice Data Center – is the US government agency which provides the official statistics on such matters as sea ice coverage in the Arctic.

Naturally its research is of paramount importance to the climate alarmists’ narrative that man-made global warming is causing the polar ice caps to melt. At least it was until those ice caps refused to play ball…

Where the alarmists have for years been doomily predicting ice free summers in the Arctic – according to Al Gore in 2007, 2008 and 2009 it would be gone by 2013 – the truth is that multi-year ice has been staging a recovery since 2009.



So what do you do if reality doesn’t suit your narrative? Simple. If you’re NSIDC (and NASA and NOAA…) you just change reality.

Read more...if you dare....
Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records

Here is a bit more ice fraud....this by UCI....

UCI News - Massive northeast Greenland glacier is rapidly melting, UCI-led team finds

The only problem with the research is that it is a complete lie...here are some photos... In fact, it appears that the glacier may have grown just a bit...did the UCI team retract their false claim?....of course not...they got the headlines and then made no attempt to correct when nature refused to agree with their findings...much like the rest of climate pseudoscience....chalk up one more failure for the models and climate pseudoscience.

 

[Crick]

That massive a fraud MUST bother someone's conscious. Have you found anyone confessing to it yet? Do you actually have any evidence that the data were adjusted without cause? It seems over and over again that your only complaint is that it's going in a direction you don't like. However, plenty of adjustments have tended to reduce warming. You just don't like to talk about those.

We had a big discussion on that topic...you were shown several examples of climate pseudoscientists admitting to fudging, fabricating, and altering data in their private correspondence....you claimed that they were joking.....you are the joke...

You lie. I was shown statements by various people which you attempted to interpret as admissions of such behavior but they were nothing of the kind. You completely failed to produce such a statement. Feel free to try again.

 

[SSDD]

That massive a fraud MUST bother someone's conscious. Have you found anyone confessing to it yet? Do you actually have any evidence that the data were adjusted without cause? It seems over and over again that your only complaint is that it's going in a direction you don't like. However, plenty of adjustments have tended to reduce warming. You just don't like to talk about those.

We had a big discussion on that topic...you were shown several examples of climate pseudoscientists admitting to fudging, fabricating, and altering data in their private correspondence....you claimed that they were joking.....you are the joke...

You lie. I was shown statements by various people which you attempted to interpret as admissions of such behavior but they were nothing of the kind. You completely failed to produce such a statement. Feel free to try again.

Sorry crick...you were the one doing the interpreting...the statements were perfectly straight forward admissions to fabricating data...here, let me refresh your memory....and your interpretation may be interesting to those who missed it the first time...

For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.. Phil Jones



Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with the early release of information (via Australia), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.?
I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time....Geoff Jenkins

So tell us again crick how they weren't actually saying what they clearly said....

 

[IanC]

Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records

by JAMES DELINGPOLE28 Apr 20161,726

You’ve read about the climate fraud committed ‘on an unbelievable scale’ by the shysters at NASA.
You’ve read about how NOAA overestimated US warming by 50 percent.

Now it’s NSIDC’s turn to be caught red-handed fiddling the data and cooking the books.

NSIDC – National Snow and Ice Data Center – is the US government agency which provides the official statistics on such matters as sea ice coverage in the Arctic.

Naturally its research is of paramount importance to the climate alarmists’ narrative that man-made global warming is causing the polar ice caps to melt. At least it was until those ice caps refused to play ball…

Where the alarmists have for years been doomily predicting ice free summers in the Arctic – according to Al Gore in 2007, 2008 and 2009 it would be gone by 2013 – the truth is that multi-year ice has been staging a recovery since 2009.



So what do you do if reality doesn’t suit your narrative? Simple. If you’re NSIDC (and NASA and NOAA…) you just change reality.

Read more...if you dare....
Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records

this is a great story to illustrate what has been going on in climate science for quite some time now...

a new methodology is developed in the model for determining ice thickness, and as usual 'things are worse than we thought'. the new data are publicized and the old data disappears down the memory hole (in this case even the wayback machine has been disabled).

I am obviously not qualified to determine which method is superior, or even if one is superior to the other. but it seems odd that all the changes seem to be in the direction of exacerbating the description of climate change. and then making the old data difficult or impossible to access.

 

[mamooth]

I am obviously not qualified to determine which method is superior, or even if one is superior to the other. but it seems odd that all the changes seem to be in the direction of exacerbating the description of climate change. and then making the old data difficult or impossible to access.

Yet you always leave out the fact the that the overall temperature adjustments have made the warming look smaller, a simple point that completely destroys your conspiracy theory.

How do you justify engaging in such brazen cherrypicking, and then immediately accusing the ethical people of using your own signature tactic of brazen cherrypicking?

To be fair, cherrypicking isn't your only tactic. Like most deniers, you're also an ad hom specialist.

 

[Old Rocks]

Your sources are totally biased sites which can only exist by funds from the government and other donations. All they support is Global Warming. But, it is a cute try!

Your sources are WSJ editorial and discredited Scientist one of which [Spencer in Alabama] also denies the theory of Evolution
Dr. Roy Spencer, Please Keep Your Religion Out Of Science
Not everyone might be aware of this but Dr. Roy Spencer is someone who believes in Intelligent Design. He has often defended his support of Intelligent Design and his rejection of the Theory of Evolution quite vocally. Something I mentioned briefly in one of my blog posts.

That Spencer rejects the Theory of Evolution and replaces it with Intelligent Design brings into question his ability to assess evidence in a detached way.

Because Dr Spencer shows the fraud, using real world data and empirical evidence, you call him discredited. Then without a shred of evidence to show that what he has said is wrong you defame him..

WOW.

I am going to side with Dr Spencer who has real world empirical evidence to support him while you liars have Consensus and no evidence..

Science is about the evidence not a group of paid for liars who have no empirical evidence and claim their failed models are their proof.. Your emperor has no cloths and your wondering why we are all laughing at your silly asses..

I see. You are going to side with this increase in temperature?
UAH Global Temperature for March Down Slightly

Nice to see that you are finally acknowledging reality.

 

[Old Rocks]

Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records

by JAMES DELINGPOLE28 Apr 20161,726

You’ve read about the climate fraud committed ‘on an unbelievable scale’ by the shysters at NASA.
You’ve read about how NOAA overestimated US warming by 50 percent.

Now it’s NSIDC’s turn to be caught red-handed fiddling the data and cooking the books.

NSIDC – National Snow and Ice Data Center – is the US government agency which provides the official statistics on such matters as sea ice coverage in the Arctic.

Naturally its research is of paramount importance to the climate alarmists’ narrative that man-made global warming is causing the polar ice caps to melt. At least it was until those ice caps refused to play ball…

Where the alarmists have for years been doomily predicting ice free summers in the Arctic – according to Al Gore in 2007, 2008 and 2009 it would be gone by 2013 – the truth is that multi-year ice has been staging a recovery since 2009.



So what do you do if reality doesn’t suit your narrative? Simple. If you’re NSIDC (and NASA and NOAA…) you just change reality.

Read more...if you dare....
Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records

Here is a bit more ice fraud....this by UCI....

UCI News - Massive northeast Greenland glacier is rapidly melting, UCI-led team finds

The only problem with the research is that it is a complete lie...here are some photos... In fact, it appears that the glacier may have grown just a bit...did the UCI team retract their false claim?....of course not...they got the headlines and then made no attempt to correct when nature refused to agree with their findings...much like the rest of climate pseudoscience....chalk up one more failure for the models and climate pseudoscience.

My, my, looks, by the snow cover, like the photos were taken at differant times of the year. You do realize such bullshit as that is just another form of lying.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

We had a big discussion on that topic...you were shown several examples of climate pseudoscientists admitting to fudging, fabricating, and altering data in their private correspondence....you claimed that they were joking.....you are the joke...

You are referring to the stolen "Climategate" e mails which supposedly showed fraud. It has been investigated at least six different times INDEPENDENTLY and no such thing has been shown in fact the Scientist were cleared...
Climategate Scientist Cleared in Inquiry, Again - Scientific

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Sorry crick...you were the one doing the interpreting...the statements were perfectly straight forward admissions to fabricating data...here, let me refresh your memory....and your interpretation may be interesting to those who missed it the first time...
..

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

In November 2009, the servers at the University of East Anglia in Britain were illegally hacked and emails were stolen. When a selection of emails betweenclimatescientists were published on the internet, a few suggestive quotes were seized upon by many claiming global warming was all just a conspiracy. A number of independent enquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing:

1. In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that"there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded"The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
2. In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
3. In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found"no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
4. In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining"there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
5. In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the IndependentClimate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that"we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."
6. In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and"found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."
7. In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found"In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found"The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
8. In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found"no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".
9. In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded"Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records

by JAMES DELINGPOLE28 Apr 20161,726

This is your expert a non Scientist

James Delingpole
Credentials
Degree in English Literature.

Here is a Key quote from James Delingpole himself
“It is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers because I simply haven't got the time … I am an interpreter of interpretations.” [4]“[URL='http://youtu.be/0wmuhKzYp4s?t=1m26s']Climate change denier James Delingpole doesn't do science,” YouTube Video uploaded by user “sciencenotvoodo0” on January 25, 2011. Adapted from BBC one's “Science Under Attack.”[/URL]

Another Key quote
“I feel a bit of an imposter talking about the science. I'm not a scientist, you may be aware. I read English Literature.” [5]“[URL='http://climateconferences.heartland.org/james-delingpole-iccc6/']James Delingpole, ICCC6,” Viddler video retrieved from climateconference.heartland.org. Uploaded July 21, 2011.[/URL]

 

[IanC]

I am obviously not qualified to determine which method is superior, or even if one is superior to the other. but it seems odd that all the changes seem to be in the direction of exacerbating the description of climate change. and then making the old data difficult or impossible to access.

Yet you always leave out the fact the that the overall temperature adjustments have made the warming look smaller, a simple point that completely destroys your conspiracy theory.

How do you justify engaging in such brazen cherrypicking, and then immediately accusing the ethical people of using your own signature tactic of brazen cherrypicking?

To be fair, cherrypicking isn't your only tactic. Like most deniers, you're also an ad hom specialist.

you always bring up the same point, yet you are unwilling to discuss the details of it. yes indeed a large downward correction was made to the early ocean temperature record, mostly to correct for bucket measurements. this correction was installed by the early 90's, and the models' hindcasting would be crippled without it.

what I dont understand is why you think that a reasonably legitimate correction put in place over twenty years ago makes up for and excuses all the other arbitrary changes since then that have all increased the trend and/or changed the shape of the trend.

 

[SSDD]

We had a big discussion on that topic...you were shown several examples of climate pseudoscientists admitting to fudging, fabricating, and altering data in their private correspondence....you claimed that they were joking.....you are the joke...

You are referring to the stolen "Climategate" e mails which supposedly showed fraud. It has been investigated at least six different times INDEPENDENTLY and no such thing has been shown in fact the Scientist were cleared...
Climategate Scientist Cleared in Inquiry, Again - Scientific

Here are a couple of the quotes I provided to crick...his interpretation of what these scientists clearly said was hilarious....lets hear what you think they are saying....


For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.. Phil Jones

Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with the early release of information (via Australia), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.? I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time....Geoff Jenkins

Clearly the "investigations"...and the "investigators" either weren't on the ball, or had a serious bias problem...the two quotes above are clear statements of data fabrication.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry crick...you were the one doing the interpreting...the statements were perfectly straight forward admissions to fabricating data...here, let me refresh your memory....and your interpretation may be interesting to those who missed it the first time...
..

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

In November 2009, the servers at the University of East Anglia in Britain were illegally hacked and emails were stolen. When a selection of emails betweenclimatescientists were published on the internet, a few suggestive quotes were seized upon by many claiming global warming was all just a conspiracy. A number of independent enquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing:

1. In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that"there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded"The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
2. In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
3. In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found"no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
4. In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining"there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
5. In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the IndependentClimate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that"we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."
6. In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and"found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."
7. In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found"In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found"The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
8. In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found"no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".
9. In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded"Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".

Can't help but notice that you deliberately left off the quotes from your reply...that is your answer?....simply ignore the clear statements of data fabrication and go on with the claims that the investigators didn't manipulate data? That is not as funny as crick's "rationalization" but it does typify the warmer mindset...