President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist

[FAST]

Its just wrong.

NOAA lists 2000 as a 0.40ºC anomaly and lists 2015 as 0.85ºC (year to date).
Thats a difference of 0.45ºC over a decade and a half, 0.30ºC per decade.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

Is it hard being wrong all the time?

You cherry picked 2 years,...out of 15,...worthless bull shit,...as usual.

And you accused me of cherry picking,...

I plotted for a span of 15 years,...2000 thru 2015,...your UNEMPLOYABLES site NOAA,...produced the numbers I stated,...2000 thru 2015, was +0.12C/decade.

It must be hard being a weasel all the time,...!!!

FAST

PS: You statement,...Meanwhile, 2015 is still going to be a record warm year and 14 of the 15 warmest years have occurred since 2000.
The evidence is overwhelming

Has to be one of the most idiotic statements you have ever said,...and that's saying a lot,...

 

[Frankfooter]

NOAA graphs produced the results,... that from 2000 thru 2015, there was +0.12C/decade warming

This is the post I replied to.

You cherry picked 2 years,...out of 15,...worthless bull shit,...as usual.

And you accused me of cherry picking,...

I plotted for a span of 15 years,...2000 thru 2015,...your UNEMPLOYABLES site NOAA,...produced the numbers I stated,...2000 thru 2015, was +0.12C/decade.
.

You picked the dates, not me.

NOAA lists 2000 as a 0.40ºC anomaly and lists 2015 as 0.85ºC (year to date).
Thats a difference of 0.45ºC over a decade and a half, 0.30ºC per decade.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

You really do owe me an apology for accusing me of cherry picking when you picked the reference dates.
And you really should admit you are wrong.

Again.

 

[Frankfooter]

PS: You statement,...Meanwhile, 2015 is still going to be a record warm year and 14 of the 15 warmest years have occurred since 2000.
The evidence is overwhelming

Has to be one of the most idiotic statements you have ever said,...and that's saying a lot,...

Just 'cuz you're really on a roll, wrong on everything, here you go:

NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record

https://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record

14 of the 15 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000, UN says

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/02/14-15-hottest-years-record-2000-un-global-warming

July 2015 was the hottest month on modern record
NOAA says 2015 will likely end up the hottest year on record, beating last year

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/july-2015-was-the-hottest-month-on-modern-record-1.3197748

Wrong again on all counts.
Well done.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Once again you show your conspiracy theorist tendencies. Do you really believe the hundreds and hundreds of of scientists working for NASA, NOAA, and AAAS are lying about their results?


(also funny because several pages ago you claimed that they all backed you view:crazy:

Instead of just posting snide and ill-informed remarks, I do wish you would take some time to learn about the subject.

The best analyses I have read of the sea surface temperature adjustments point to areas where the increases have been extremely exaggerated. Thus, I share the conclusion reached by some skeptics that the NOAA has cooked the books.

Furthermore, there is no contradiction with my earlier posts. Even with the cooked books now showing minuscule warming, the fact remains that temperatures have been stagnant in the 21st century. Unlike you and Groggy, I don't get too excited about an increase of 2/100s or 3/100s of a degree C (see post 684 above).

And, actually, while we're on that point -- whatever happened to your July 17 claim that updated graphs would show an increase of nearly 0.2 degrees C for 2014 over 2010?: https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ng-Scientist&p=5300753&viewfull=1#post5300753

When I explained that you were wrong, you went so far as to call me "an outright liar to the groggy extreme": https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ng-Scientist&p=5302064&viewfull=1#post5302064

However...

The Japan Meteorological Agency graph that you cited shows the temperature for 2014 was statistically the same as 2010.

Even your inflated NASA numbers only show a 0.03 degrees Celsius increase from 2010 to 2014 -- statistically the same.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Answered in post #658.

Nonsense.

Since we're never going to get an answer from Groggy/Franky, let's examine this for ourselves.

Here are the key results of the Netherlands survey:

The results show that 66 per cent (actually 65.9 per cent) of respondents believe man-made emissions have been the dominant cause of warming since 1950. That means about one-third of respondents don't support the AGW hypothesis.

Franky's link -- the one he says I'm "lying" about -- claims 85 per cent of overall respondents support anthropogenic climate change. (I don't know when 85 per cent became a "consensus," but we'll ignore that.)

http://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-the-article-scientists-views-about-attribution-of-global-warming

Perhaps Franky can explain to us where the 85 per cent figure comes from.

Here's the fun part: If he figures it out, his explanation will confirm that the "consensus" is a load of B.S.

 

[Moviefan-2]

As noted here, its just one of a few studies that all came to the same view.

Your graph is total crap.

For example, the source for four of the bars -- Doran and Zimmerman -- never asked about anthropogenic climate change. As Ross McKitrick notes in the column below, the question that was asked was "vague to the point of meaninglessness."

http://business.financialpost.com/f...sts-support-climate-alarm-cannot-be-supported

Anderegg et al is only based on a select review of cherry-picked literature and never asked climate researchers for their views on anthropogenic climate change.

Without really spending much time on this, we have already eliminated five of the bars on your graph.

 

[K Douglas]

Once again you show your conspiracy theorist tendencies. Do you really believe the hundreds and hundreds of of scientists working for NASA, NOAA, and AAAS are lying about their results?


(also funny because several pages ago you claimed that they all backed you view:crazy:

Your mantra of silencing the critics, shutting down debate and marginalizing them all as being conspiracists bought by the fossil fuel industry and Koch Bros, is the height of ignorance. Are you proud that you are on the same side of this issue as groggy/frank?

Tell me what you think of these 2 statements by German meteorologist Klaus Eckert-Puls who was a former IPCC scientific contributor

"Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data " first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it."

"Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think that we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob"

 

[Moviefan-2]

Here is one of my favourite examples of the so-called "conspiracy theory."

Scientists who were looking to determine if there is evidence of man-made warming wrote the following for the IPCC's 1995 report:

"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

That got changed in the final rewrite to say the following:

"The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate."

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/WSJ_June12.pdf

So the IPCC's position was to reject the scientists' conclusions and go from 'no evidence' to a "discernible human influence."

 

[basketcase]

Instead of just posting snide and ill-informed remarks, I do wish you would take some time to learn about the subject.
..

Man, that's exactly what I was thinking about you. Any time we talk about warming you start claiming the scientists are lying.

And do you really think it resolves things that 2014 was tied with 2010 AS THE HOTTEST YEAR on record?

Andre De Grasse was third in the world. Guess his result isn't significant either. He should just go get an office job. :clap2:

 

[basketcase]

...
"The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
...

Maybe you should look past 2008. 5 of the past 6 years are among the 10 hottest years recorded and 2015 is looking to make it 6 of 7. Funny that your source choose 2008 which was a clear anomaly.

 

[basketcase]

Your mantra of silencing the critics, shutting down debate and marginalizing them all as being conspiracists bought by the fossil fuel industry and Koch Bros, is the height of ignorance. Are you proud that you are on the same side of this issue as groggy/frank? ...

Funny but I thought I was being scientific. Movie has been saying that the scientists at the NOAA, NASA and others are lying about their results. If that's his argument, conspiracy theory fits well.

 

[basketcase]

Here is ...

IPCC's 1995 report:

Seriously? 1995?


In 1995, they hadn't figured out about cloning mammals, google web search didn't exist, no HDTV, no antibody treatments, Blackberry didn't exist, no human genome mapping, no ebooks, ... Another publication around that time was that the MMR vaccine causes autism.

You liked what scientists said 20 years ago. Guess that means that they shouldn't have continued research :crazy:. Too bad that in the past 20 years the evidence has changed their minds (but of course you think they are all lying).

Maybe you would be happy if science just stopped at a point where you liked what it thought. You could start a whole new Mennonite type church. Unfortunately for scientific Luddites like you, science advances as new evidence is discovered.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Man, that's exactly what I was thinking about you. Any time we talk about warming you start claiming the scientists are lying.

Au contraire. What I have said is the data from throughout the world show the planet's temperature has been stagnant in the 21st century and the predictions about man-made warming were spectacularly wrong.

Just like your predictions.

All of the graphs -- including the ones you cited -- have shown that you were completely wrong and that I was right. One might have thought you would find that somewhat humbling.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Seriously? 1995?


In 1995, they hadn't figured out about cloning mammals, google web search didn't exist, no HDTV, no antibody treatments, Blackberry didn't exist, no human genome mapping, no ebooks, ... Another publication around that time was that the MMR vaccine causes autism.

Wow! :Eek:

The political honchos at the IPCC rewrite the scientists' conclusions about the fact there is no evidence of man-made warming -- and the only response you can come up with is that it was 20 years ago?

Well, I guess that makes it OK then.

Too bad that in the past 20 years the evidence has changed their minds...

What evidence? Do you mean the absence of any statistically significant warming in 21st century?

Or perhaps you mean all that solid evidence behind the IPCC's headline-grabbing claim that the Himalayan glaciers would completely disappear by 2035?

That's funny -- I would have thought nearly two decades of stagnant temperatures actually confirm what the scientists were saying in 1995.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And do you really think it resolves things that 2014 was tied with 2010 AS THE HOTTEST YEAR on record?

"Tied"???

You posted -- in three different threads -- that the updated graphs would show that 2014 was 0.18 degrees C warmer than 2010.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ng-Scientist&p=5300753&viewfull=1#post5300753

When I told you that you were wrong and that the two years are statistically tied, you said I was "an outright liar to the groggy extreme."

It certainly appears to resolve one thing. :thumb:

 

[bishop]

Seriously? 1995?


In 1995, they hadn't figured out about cloning mammals, google web search didn't exist, no HDTV, no antibody treatments, Blackberry didn't exist, no human genome mapping, no ebooks, ... Another publication around that time was that the MMR vaccine causes autism.

You liked what scientists said 20 years ago. Guess that means that they shouldn't have continued research :crazy:. Too bad that in the past 20 years the evidence has changed their minds (but of course you think they are all lying).

Maybe you would be happy if science just stopped at a point where you liked what it thought. You could start a whole new Mennonite type church. Unfortunately for scientific Luddites like you, science advances as new evidence is discovered.

If you are going to use that argument then you have to justify why now scientists are correct, if you take your rationale to the logical end; we should continue to wait for the next 20 years indefinitely.

My threshold for when I can take AGW results seriously is when we have quantum computers, the entire AWG argument is based on computer simulations and as vast as current computation resources are; it is still many orders of magnitude not enough to simulate climate in any detailed manner. Even with quantum computers it will be a uphill battle to prove AWG, quantum computing is the minimum that is required to even begin to cobble together a compelling thesis.

 

[basketcase]

Wow! :Eek:

The political honchos at the IPCC rewrite the scientists' conclusions about the fact there is no evidence of man-made warming -- and the only response you can come up with is that it was 20 years ago?

Well, I guess that makes it OK then.
....

What it means is you are completely clueless about science. Maybe you think rock and roll attained perfection in 1974 and there is no need for change but science is about EVIDENCE. New evidence means new conclusions. In the 20 years since then the evidence is clear that the earth is warming. You may want to pretend that the scientists are lying about their results but that doesn't change things.

All your complaints come down to is trying to throw your sabot into the machinery of scientific discovery.

 

[FAST]

This is the post I replied to.

You picked the dates, not me.

NOAA lists 2000 as a 0.40ºC anomaly and lists 2015 as 0.85ºC (year to date).
Thats a difference of 0.45ºC over a decade and a half, 0.30ºC per decade.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

You really do owe me an apology for accusing me of cherry picking when you picked the reference dates.
And you really should admit you are wrong.

Again.

LYING LITTLE BOY,...I stated a span of 15 years,...2000 THRU 2015,...NOT two single years,...liar.

You cherry picked 2 years out of 15,...as per your quoted post here.

Tell you what,...I'll give you a chance to be a man,...do the plot on your UNEMPLOYABLES site,...NOAA,...inputing 2000 as the start,...and 2015 as the end,...and post the result,...assuming you can do that,...and you have the guts.

There can only be ONE number from the plot,...that states the rise per decade,...not two,...as per your dishonest post.

Unless of coarse,... you are going to say that plotting from the year 2000,... TO,... 2015,... is cherry picking,...

FAST

Oh,...and stating that 2015 set high global temp. records,...is still one of the most asinine things you have ever posted.
But it seems you aren't intelligent enough to understand why,...no surprise there.

 

[bishop]

I'm not against windmills. Just asking how reliable it is. Every renewable source helps (good point you made about the grid). Windmills can be tricky if it causes noise or interferes with bird flocks. Apart from the big one along Lakeshore, I've seen windmills in the desert when I drove from Vegas to San Diego in the 80s! Very cool.

If you mean reliable like if a car is reliable, then the answer is that wind turbines are supremely reliable, a wind turbine is basically and AC motor which has been tried and true for close to a century. Wind Turbines do not spin at high speeds and even if they did; the ball bearings are the only part on a wind turbine that would wear out and should be easy to replace.

If you mean reliable as in how reliable is the wind in any given period, the answer is that it is as reliable as wind.

 

[Moviefan-2]

New evidence means new conclusions. In the 20 years since then the evidence is clear that the earth is warming.

Nonsense.

In spite of your spectacularly wrong predictions about 2014, the reality is that all of the data -- including the sources you cited -- show the Earth's temperature has been stagnant in the 21st century.

- NASA's "adjusted" graph shows the temperature increase from 1998 to 2013 was only 0.02 degrees Celsius. In the case of the inflated increase for 2014, it still only produces an increase of 0.05 degrees Celsius over 2005, which is within the margin of error.

- The HadCRUT4 data of surface temperatures showed the temperature in 2014 was the same as 1998, 2005 and 2010.

- The Berkeley Earth Science data of surface temperatures showed 2014 was not statistically any warmer than 2005 or 2010.

- The Japan Meteorological Agency data of surface temperatures show 2005, 2010 and 2014 were all similar and all three years had slightly lower temperatures than 1998.

- The RSS satellite data show there hasn't been any warming for more than 18 years.

- The University of Alabama in Huntsville's satellite data show the temperature in 2014 was less than the temperature in 2000.

New evidence certainly does mean new conclusions. The evidence-based conclusion is the computer models got it completely wrong and there is no evidence that man-made emissions have any statistically significant impact on the climate.

Global warming is so 1990s. Get with the times.