hot enough for ya?

[dead man walking]

uh oh--warming underestimated

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... d-by-half/

[dead man walking]

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=226511

meanwhile in europe

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/fier ... rope-16798

[Turdacious]

uh oh--warming underestimated

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... d-by-half/

The variance in recent predictions suggests this is still a very inexact science.

[dead man walking]

yes turd, lots remains to be learned.

nonetheless, climate scientists continue to emphasize that human-caused climate change is real and it's now.

i'm willing to wager that in 10 years the doubters will be widely recognized as contemporary flat earthers. my only concern is that i might not be around to collect.

[Turdacious]

yes turd, lots remains to be learned.

nonetheless, climate scientists continue to emphasize that human-caused climate change is real and it's now.

i'm willing to wager that in 10 years the doubters will be widely recognized as contemporary flat earthers. my only concern is that i might not be around to collect.

When they base their expertise on their ability to predict, and their predictions are so poor, its a little hard to take them seriously.

[dead man walking]

well, sudden changes may occur. then again, they may not.

meantime, spring arrives earlier and possum have moved north. you can see their sad carcasses on the back roads.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/scien ... anges.html

Continued global warming poses a risk of rapid, drastic changes in some human and natural systems, a scientific panel warned Tuesday, citing the possible collapse of polar sea ice, the potential for a mass extinction of plant and animal life and the threat of immense dead zones in the ocean.

At the same time, some worst-case fears about climate change that have entered the popular imagination can be ruled out as unlikely, at least over the next century, the panel found

[Turdacious]

In honor of the 17th year without global warming, The Daily Caller News Foundation has put together seven setbacks for global warming alarmism.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/20/the-t ... s-in-2013/

Skeptics and alarmists-- not sure either has any idea what's gonna happen next, although the skeptics seem to have a better handle on what's happened recently.

[DrDonkeyLove]

The solution to the problem is to prohibit the voices of the "deniers". First it was the LA Times editorial page and now Reddit. It seems that climate deniers are not only astoundingly ignorant but they're huge assholes as well. Now that the deniers are silenced at Reddit, the discussions are much more pleasant. To do anything less would be "immoral".

After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear that they could not or would not improve their demeanor. These problematic users were not the common "internet trolls" looking to have a little fun upsetting people. Such users are practically the norm on reddit. These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial thinking. They had no idea that the smart-sounding talking points from their preferred climate blog were, even to a casual climate science observer, plainly wrong. They were completely enamored by the emotionally charged and rhetoric-based arguments of pundits on talk radio and Fox News.

As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their "skepticism" on climate change. The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad. There is always legitimate debate around the cutting edge of research, something we see regularly. But with climate change, science that has been established, constantly tested, and reaffirmed for decades was routinely called into question.

Over and over, solid peer-reviewed science was insulted as corrupt, while blog posts from fossil-fuel-funded groups were cited as objective fact. Worst of all, they didn't even get the irony of quoting oil-funded blogs that called university scientists biased.

The end result was a disservice to science and to rational exploration, not to mention the scholarly audience we are proud to have cultivated. When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect such widespread consensus. Since that was not the case, we needed more than just an ad hoc approach to correct the situation.

The answer was found in the form of proactive moderation. About a year ago, we moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers. When a potentially controversial submission was posted, a warning would be issued stating the rules for comments (most importantly that your comment isn't a conspiracy theory) and advising that further violations of the rules could result in the commenter being banned from the forum...

...Like our commenters, professional climate change deniers have an outsized influence in the media and the public. And like our commenters, their rejection of climate science is not based on an accurate understanding of the science but on political preferences and personality. As moderators responsible for what millions of people see, we felt that to allow a handful of commenters to so purposefully mislead our audience was simply immoral.

[Batboy2/75]

The solution to the problem is to prohibit the voices of the "deniers". First it was the LA Times editorial page and now Reddit. It seems that climate deniers are not only astoundingly ignorant but they're huge assholes as well. Now that the deniers are silenced at Reddit, the discussions are much more pleasant. To do anything less would be "immoral".

After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear that they could not or would not improve their demeanor. These problematic users were not the common "internet trolls" looking to have a little fun upsetting people. Such users are practically the norm on reddit. These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial thinking. They had no idea that the smart-sounding talking points from their preferred climate blog were, even to a casual climate science observer, plainly wrong. They were completely enamored by the emotionally charged and rhetoric-based arguments of pundits on talk radio and Fox News.

As a scientist myself, it became clear to me that the contrarians were not capable of providing the science to support their "skepticism" on climate change. The evidence simply does not exist to justify continued denial that climate change is caused by humans and will be bad. There is always legitimate debate around the cutting edge of research, something we see regularly. But with climate change, science that has been established, constantly tested, and reaffirmed for decades was routinely called into question.

Over and over, solid peer-reviewed science was insulted as corrupt, while blog posts from fossil-fuel-funded groups were cited as objective fact. Worst of all, they didn't even get the irony of quoting oil-funded blogs that called university scientists biased.

The end result was a disservice to science and to rational exploration, not to mention the scholarly audience we are proud to have cultivated. When 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man is changing the climate, we would hope the comments would at least acknowledge if not reflect such widespread consensus. Since that was not the case, we needed more than just an ad hoc approach to correct the situation.

The answer was found in the form of proactive moderation. About a year ago, we moderators became increasingly stringent with deniers. When a potentially controversial submission was posted, a warning would be issued stating the rules for comments (most importantly that your comment isn't a conspiracy theory) and advising that further violations of the rules could result in the commenter being banned from the forum...

...Like our commenters, professional climate change deniers have an outsized influence in the media and the public. And like our commenters, their rejection of climate science is not based on an accurate understanding of the science but on political preferences and personality. As moderators responsible for what millions of people see, we felt that to allow a handful of commenters to so purposefully mislead our audience was simply immoral.

How Progressive! How Orwellian!

[Turdacious]

Speaking of true believers:

Leading academic journals are distorting the scientific process and represent a "tyranny" that must be broken, according to a Nobel prize winner who has declared a boycott on the publications.

Randy Schekman, a US biologist who won the Nobel prize in physiology or medicine this year and receives his prize in Stockholm on Tuesday, said his lab would no longer send research papers to the top-tier journals, Nature, Cell and Science.

Schekman said pressure to publish in "luxury" journals encouraged researchers to cut corners and pursue trendy fields of science instead of doing more important work. The problem was exacerbated, he said, by editors who were not active scientists but professionals who favoured studies that were likely to make a splash.

The prestige of appearing in the major journals has led the Chinese Academy of Sciences to pay successful authors the equivalent of $30,000 (£18,000). Some researchers made half of their income through such "bribes", Schekman said in an interview.

Writing in the Guardian, Schekman raises serious concerns over the journals' practices and calls on others in the scientific community to take action.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013 ... e-journals

In extreme cases, the lure of the luxury journal can encourage the cutting of corners, and contribute to the escalating number of papers that are retracted as flawed or fraudulent. Science alone has recently retracted high-profile papers reporting cloned human embryos, links between littering and violence, and the genetic profiles of centenarians. Perhaps worse, it has not retracted claims that a microbe is able to use arsenic in its DNA instead of phosphorus, despite overwhelming scientific criticism.

http://retractionwatch.com/2013/12/11/c ... pnas-like/

MOAR: http://landscapesandcycles.net/contrast ... imate.html

[dead man walking]

here's a friendly reminder, kids.

2012 was warmest year in u.s. on the record

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/noaa ... cord-15436

facts, not whingeing about who is listening to whom

[Batboy2/75]

here's a friendly reminder, kids.

2012 was warmest year in u.s. on the record

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/noaa ... cord-15436

facts, not whingeing about who is listening to whom

That explains all the climate scientist wondering what happened to the projected global warming.


As I've stated many times, I find it more than a coincidence that the only answer global warming alarmists have for global warming is socialism.

[Turdacious]

One year spikes do not a pattern make.

[dead man walking]

turd,

a one-year spike?

Four of the world’s leading climate research centres agree that the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998.

the data continue to accumulate. meantime, like canute, you, batboy, the good dr, and others are free to believe you can hold back the tide.

[Batboy2/75]

turd,

a one-year spike?

Four of the world’s leading climate research centres agree that the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998.

the data continue to accumulate. meantime, like canute, you, batboy, the good dr, and others are free to believe you can hold back the tide.

Holding back what dumb ass?

Global temps are down & global warming scaremongering policies are in disarray. Your shill shrieking claims are nothing more than internet entertainment.

[Turdacious]

turd,

a one-year spike?

Four of the world’s leading climate research centres agree that the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998.

the data continue to accumulate. meantime, like canute, you, batboy, the good dr, and others are free to believe you can hold back the tide.

Yet the recent trend is still not in line with their predictions. How many of those centres have come under fire for faking data or for utilizing data with suspect reliability?

I'm all for fighting the worst pollution, but make no mistake-- the real offenders are not us:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... rning?lite

[johno]

[Turdacious]

United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.

China may be the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres.

“They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.”

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/15/un-cl ... l-warming/

[Turdacious]

Virtually all the scientists directly involved in climate prediction are aware of the enormous problems and uncertainties still associated with their product. How then is it that those of them involved in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) can put their hands on their hearts and maintain there is a 95 per cent probability that human emissions of carbon dioxide have caused most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades?

Bear in mind that the representation of clouds in climate models (and of water vapour, which is intimately involved with cloud formation) is such as to amplify the forecast warming from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide—on average over most of the models—by a factor of about three. In other words, two-thirds of the forecast rise in temperature derives from this particular model characteristic. Despite what the models are telling us—and perhaps because it is models that are telling us—no scientist close to the problem and in his right mind, when asked the specific question, would say that he is 95 per cent sure that the effect of clouds is to amplify rather than to reduce the warming effect of increasing carbon dioxide. If he is not sure that clouds amplify global warming, he cannot be sure that most of the global warming is a result of increasing carbon dioxide.

we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem—or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem—in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour.

http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/01 ... te-change/

[dead man walking]

thanx for keeping the ping pong game alive:

The global temperature data for 2013 are now published. 2010 and 2005 remain the warmest years since records began in the 19th Century. 1998 ranks third in two records, and in the analysis of Cowtan & Way, which interpolates the data-poor region in the Arctic with a better method, 2013 is warmer than 1998 (even though 1998 was a record El Nino year, and 2013 was neutral).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... more-16736

[Black Coffee]

According to Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels as reported by the Cato Institute:

'The (temperature) recovery in 2013 from the lofty heights in 2012 was the largest year-over-year temperature decline in the complete 119 year record—an indication that 2012 was an outlier more so than “the new normal.” -- 'The temperatures in 2013 further extended the “pause” in the global surface temperature record-which now stands at some 17 years. A lot of people are at work trying to explain what’s behind the “pause,” but no matter the cause the longer that it continues, the further from reality climate model projections become'

http://www.cato.org/blog/closing-books- ... al-warming

[Lewis Medlock]

thanx for keeping the ping pong game alive:

The global temperature data for 2013 are now published. 2010 and 2005 remain the warmest years since records began in the 19th Century. 1998 ranks third in two records, and in the analysis of Cowtan & Way, which interpolates the data-poor region in the Arctic with a better method, 2013 is warmer than 1998 (even though 1998 was a record El Nino year, and 2013 was neutral).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... more-16736

So recorded temperature starts at the end of the little ice age and some how we should be shocked that it is warming up.

[Turdacious]

Surprised by how tough this winter has been? You’re in good company: Last fall the Climate Prediction Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted that temperatures would be above normal from November through January across much of the Lower 48 states. This graphic shows just how wrong the official forecast of the U.S. government was:

The big red blotch in the top map represents parts of the country in which the Climate Prediction Center forecast above-average temperatures. The frigid-looking blue blotch in the bottom “verification” map shows areas where temperatures turned out to be below average.

“Not one of our better forecasts,” admits Mike Halpert, the Climate Prediction Center’s acting director. The center grades itself on what it calls the Heidke skill score, which ranges from 100 (perfection) to -50 (monkeys throwing darts would have done better). October’s forecast for the three-month period of November through January came in at -22. Truth be told, the September prediction for October-December was slightly worse, at -23. The main cause in both cases was the same: Underestimating the mammoth December cold wave, which brought snow to Dallas and chilled partiers in Times Square on New Year’s Eve.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... ter-coming

[dead man walking]

meantime, down under

Last year was Australia's hottest year on record, but 2014 is already off to cracking start with temperatures in some parts of the country set to soar close to 50 degrees in the first week of the year.

[dead man walking]

and why has it been cold in the lower 48?

A few years back, researchers suggested that strange weather in the temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere might be a consequence of changes taking place in the Arctic. Now, with a few years of additional data, some researchers are arguing that we have detected clear signs that Arctic warming is driving our weird weather.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/ ... ep-freeze/