"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."
- Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell
President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
- Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell
Hey, idiot, you failed again.So, you think the predictions hold up better when they're compared against the terrestrial temperatures.
Interesting. Let's take a look at how the computer model predictions compare with the surface temperature readings.
---
I'm sorry to have to inform you that the surface temperature data still show the predictions were way off the mark.
In fact, all of the graphs that measure the observed data against the predictions show the predictions were spectacularly wrong.
Present global anomaly is 083ºC.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201506
Punch in the latest numbers and they follow that black line quite nicely in your latest chart, with the end point being exactly where predicted.
Thanks for proving that you are a total idiot who isn't smart enough to realize when they've made themselves look like an idiot.
Over and over again.
This has become so sad, it's pathetic.
Once again, Groggy inserts a different number from a different data set in order to try to create imaginary "warming."
That's because he can't find anything other than his NOAA graph that was "corrected" to create the appearance of a smidgen of warming in the 21st century.
So, so sad.
Face it, Groggy. All of the graphs that plot the predictions against the observed data show the predictions were spectacularly wrong. Your fairy-tale creations can't change that reality.
By 'different' you mean recent.
Your idiotic claims are based on you only using charts and numbers that are years out of date.
Just as you are losing our bet, your claims look more and more ridiculous every day.
All your arguments are old, tired and idiotic.
Get with the times.
Not 'mankind' MF-2 (what happened to Movie Fan 1?), but 'industrialization' perhaps.
You mean he's not using the "adjusted" data. I'll take his numbers over yours, at least they haven't been fudged. 0.5 degrees centigrade is well within the normal boundaries of natural climate change.
He most likely means since the end of the Little Ice Age. That's certainly true, but I have no idea why anyone would think such warming is unprecedented or man-made.
(As for MF-1, that was also me ... I accidentally locked myself out of my original account when I changed email addresses. Fortunately, Fred let me set up my new and improved MF-2 handle.)
By "different," I mean different.
Let's put aside Groggy's idiotic claim that data for 2014 were "years out of date" (he seems to be no better at reading a calendar than at understanding the difference between the lower and upper atmosphere). According to Groggy, the NOAA and HadCRUT4 use the same data and the data points can be transferred from one graph to another.
Here are the recorded data for 2014:
- HadCRUT4 reported the anomaly for 2014 as 0.5 degrees Celsius: http://financialpostbusiness.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/fe0617_climate_c_mf.jpeg?w=620&h=552
- The NOAA's updated data report the anomaly for 2014 was 0.78 degrees Celsius: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201506
I say 0.5 and 0.78 are "different" numbers. Groggy/Franky insists those two numbers are the exact same.
This becomes easy to test. If you agree with Groggy/Franky that 0.5 and 0.78 are the exact same, then you might have reason to believe his claims that he has found evidence of man-made warming.
If you believe that 0.5 and 0.78 are "different" numbers, then you must conclude that everything Groggy/Franky is posting is total horseshit.
I don't think it's all that difficult to decide.
We have to revisit these questions with the latest on Mann.
Check out this Twitter feed with quotes from scientists about Mann's work: https://twitter.com/JunkScience?ori...tw_p=embeddedtimeline&tw_w=427448778841260032
The quotes come from Mark Steyn's new book, A Disgrace to the Profession (http://www.steynonline.com/7091/a-disgrace-to-the-profession), and it includes quotes from skeptics and true-blue AGW believers -- including the likes of Keith Briffa and Phil Jones.
It's quite a list of quotes in that Twitter feed but it's definitely worth a read. I'm sure the book will be a great read, as well.
Frankfooter you are so full of shit..what you expect from a leftwing pinko kook!
Frankfooter you remind me of chicken little " the sky is falling run for your life" which you , Leftwing kooks ,Al Gore and David Suskei represent. Go crawl back your hole and die!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...as-made-fools-of-all-those-poor-warmists.html
How Arctic ice has made fools of all those poor warmists
The belief that the ice was vanishing has been for the warmists the ultimate poster-child for their cause.
Poles apart: in 2013, the year scientists had forecast that the Arctic would be 'ice free’, its thickness increased by a third .
Two events last week brought yet further twists to one of the longest-running farces of our modern world. One was the revelation by the European Space Agency that in 2013 and 2014, after years when the volume of Arctic ice had been diminishing, it increased again by as much as 33 per cent. The other was that Canadian scientists studying the effect of climate change on Arctic ice from an icebreaker had to suspend their research, when their vessel was called to the aid of other ships trapped in the thickest summer ice seen in Hudson Bay for 20 years.
For more than a decade now, the belief that, thanks to global warming, Arctic ice was vanishing has been for the warmists the ultimate poster-child for their cause (along with those “vanishing” polar bears). In 2007, with the aid of scientists such as Wieslaw Maslowski and Peter Wadhams, the BBC and others were telling us that the Arctic would be totally “ice free by 2013” (the Independent even cleared its front page to announce that the ice could all have disappeared within weeks).
By 2011, the BBC’s science editor Richard Black was telling us that the ice would “probably be gone within this decade”. In 2012, his colleague Roger Harrabin was reporting that the sea ice was now melting so fast that more had vanished that summer than “at any time since satellite records began”.
So taken in had others been by all these dire predictions, that in 2008 the activist Gordon Lewis Pugh, after speaking at a conference alongside
Al Gore, set out to paddle a kayak to the North Pole – only to have to abort his trip after a few days because “the ice was too thick”. In 2009, the three-man Caitlin expedition, sponsored by a “climate risk” insurance company, and backed by the BBC and the Prince of Wales, set out to walk to the North Pole. Their intention was to measure the thickness of the vanishing ice with an electronic instrument, but it froze so hard that they had to resort to a tape measure. Again, after a few weeks, they had to be airlifted back to a rescue ship because the constantly shifting ice was “too thick”.
In December 2013, the world followed agog the plight of yet another “scientific expedition”, when 52 climate activists, accompanied by reporters from the BBC and the Guardian, sailed into the Antarctic to measure the effects of global warming on its sea-ice. By Christmas their ship was so dangerously trapped by thick, multi-year ice that they had to be helicoptered to a Chinese ship 10 miles away, which itself then got so trapped in ice that they had to be airlifted again to two other ships even further away.
What made all this particularly absurd was that, despite being led by an Australian scientist, they were so taken in by the make-believe that they seemed quite oblivious to the satellite records showing that Antarctic sea-ice had long been expanding to such record levels that these more than matched any decline in the Arctic ice at the other end of the world. But wasn’t the whole point of this warming that it was meant to be “global”?
Of course, the reason why they have all wanted the ice at the poles to melt, not least on the land in Antarctica and Greenland, is that this would bring about their ultimate scare scenario: those sea levels rising by as much as 20 feet, which, as Al Gore showed in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth, would flood New York, Shanghai and many of the world’s most populous cities.
But, alas, it just isn’t happening. In recent years there has been more polar ice in the world than at any time since satellite records began in 1979. In the very year they had forecast that the Arctic would be “ice free”, its thickness increased by a third. Polar bear numbers are rising, not falling. Temperatures in Greenland have shown no increase for decades.
The greatest scare story of all simply isn’t turning out as their computer models predicted. And no one has been more dangerously taken in by this silly scare story than the warmists themselves.was vanishing has been for the warmists the ultimate poster-child for their cause
^^^^^^is a good take on the whole damn thing you pricks, just watch it. FFS! WTF!
That column was posted on July 25. I imagine Franky/Groggy will say that it is "years out of date."
I've seen it before. It's cute but it has nothing to do with science and is contrary to the idea that we should reach evidence-based conclusions.^^^^^^is a good take on the whole damn thing you pricks, just watch it. FFS! WTF!
Pascal's Wager uses the same line of reasoning to argue that everyone should seek to believe in God.
You could also use that reasoning to defend governments spending billions of dollars on weapons to protect us from a potential attack from the Klingons.
So what exactly does it get on the cute scale?
However he makes a great point, it's better to err on the side of caution, nothing to lose and less costly in the long run.
Who care about this nonsense video....IT IS NOT SCIENCE!!! Plus when global depression happens because of the wasted trillions of dollars on wasted on Global warming .. I hope it effect you and your family& childrens and your job security...i hope you become unemployed, homeless & penniless and then i hope you get sick and die !^^^^^^is a good take on the whole damn thing you pricks, just watch it. FFS! WTF!
The science already disproved the global warming theory! IT called the little mini-ice age that occured in the during the middle age.
Fucking pinko left wing kooks.. If were in gaileo time period... Frankfooter and the leftwing kooks would be preaching the earth is flat !
Show me proof !!! NOT theorIes or mathmatical model that is doctored and data massaged and fixed to
To conform your global warming thoery.
SHow me FACTS and PROOF.. THAT IS 100% proofable!
This is what Jean Chrietien said...
A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.
PS Not this bullshit Gobal Warming crap that could not be proven and then they ( LEFTWING Globalwarming freaks) rebranded and then called it as Climate change in order to sell it better!.
"Nothing to lose"?
Spoken like a true wealthy white liberal. I'm guessing you don't know much about the developing nations.
I'll stick with evidence-based conclusions, thanks all the same.
I resent the liberal pinko comment. :Eek:
Both sides are corrupt, liberal and conservative.
That said, if you don't think we're not contributing squat to our climate, you can't truly believe that, really?
Btw, what's "proofable"? Maybe that's why you don't understand Frankfooter's explanations? Grade school was tough on ya was it? lol
English is not my mother tongue I speak and write three languages! I figure you only know one language. I saw the graph ..it only a theory plus graph have been doctored. Plus North Pole and south Pole ice is increasing. Frankfooter graph cannot explain the middle age min-ice age!
That the proof i need to disproved the global warming theory.
CO2 make up less then 5% of our atmosphere and mankind only contributed i think aprox less the 10% that C02 emission the other 90% is caused by nature examples volcanoes, animal, nature, etc.
Since you obviously have very low retention capabilities,...we will do this one point at a time,...
1. The fact that 14/15 warmest years globally have happened since 2000 adds to the incontrovertible proof.
That is unrelated to Pluto.
Are you that dense that you can't understand that the earths temp has been getting hotter since records have been kept,...AND that record temps have been set NUMEROUS times since records have been kept,...nothing new there.
,... temps rose at a high rate between 1930 and 1942,...and obviously set records,...even a dumb ass understands that,...shit,...everybody must have though,...we are all going to die,...
Must have been due to Al Gore flying around spewing nonsense,...or was it natural phenomena,...let me guess,...???
2.That's the way science works, you keep at it, researching, adding better data, refining theory....
What do you think they should do, publish a paper then retire?
Of coarse you keep at the "numbers" until you get it "right",...you want to keep your job,...because you are UNEMPLOYABLE,...if you didn't get them "right",...you would have to retire,...not good.
3. That's part of 'anthropogenic' climate change.
Your expert Bloomberg site states very clearly that deforestation has not, and does NOT contribute to the unemployables claim of global warming in any way,...yet IPCC says the exact opposite,...very strange,...don't you think.
On a positive note,...you FINALLY got it through your thick scull that NASA climatologists,...also known as THE UNEMPLOYABLES,...did NOT send a "spaceship " to Pluto,...well done.
FAST
Nope, you are full of shit.
You'll have to go back and look at one of your favourite graphs, the well known and fully confirmed, 'hockey stick' graph.
The changes we are experiencing due to anthropogenic climate change are unprecedented in modern history.
