July, 2915 hottest on record

he laid out the science of agw

 

Sure thing Skippy. The Arctic, according to him, would be ice free last year. That's some science there, oh man.

 

evidently you don't understand plain english or science

 

Yeah, you are right. I must have been listening to Al Gore. No wonder I don't understand plain english[sic] or science.

 

evidently you weren't if you the think he said we would be ice free last year

 

Read it and weep dujac. He has not only said it once, he has said it more than once. The latest one he just moved it out a few more years.

Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry

 

i already know what he said and i know the difference between 'would' and 'could'

here's the quote:

"One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week warns that it could happen in as little as seven years, seven years from now."

~ Al Gore

[video=youtube;iVttichSzFk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVttichSzFk[/video]

 

Figured you didn't read what he said which I posted.

“the entire North Polarized [sic] cap will disappear in five years.” “Five years,” ~ Al Gore, five years ago.

 

If my car required service I would take it to an actual mechanic.

 

what a joke, do you really think gore said "north polarized cap"?

here's what he said: "Some of the models suggest that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,"

are you incompetent or dishonest or both?


[video=youtube;MsioIw4bvzI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI[/video]

 

That is his brand new latest statement, still on cue but now he is being less brash since he has embarrassed himself so badly.

 

no it's not

oh look, another excuse for being wrong

that makes it quite clear that the answer is both

and of course you're embarrassed, who wouldn't be?

after making such a complete blunder as you did there


the source you used, 'the new american', lists the 'john birch society' as an affiliate, fred koch was a founding member

"Fred C. Koch, founder of Koch Industries… and President of Wyman-Gordon, a major industrial enterprise, were among the founding members."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society

 

No I didn't. I asked you if you thought all of the scientists are part of a conspiracy. Let's just limit it to those who have indicated that human activity is likely to be impacting the earth's climate. They either all are part of a conspiracy or not. You can't have it both ways. Let's get away from the talking points, insults, and canned responses and just answer a simple question. Is there a worldwide conspiracy or not? If you can't answer a simple straight forward question then it would show that you are dodging a specific position for fear that you cannot defend it.

 

Wow, deny all you want but he has been giving timetables since 2003.

Oh, and I know you dismiss facts if they don't come from some alarmist blog.

 

It is called human nature. Scientists are not gods or infallible as some of you think of them. Some of you think the pittance of non government money makes people evil yet think nothing of the billions government spends as having any effect whatsoever. It defies logic.

 

Why can't you just give a straight forward answer? It is a yes or no question. The scientists are either part of a conspiracy or not. I am not asking what "some of you think". You have repeatedly insulted anybody who has disagreed with you on this thread and now you refuse to answer a simple yes or no question. Is there a world wide conpiracy or not.

 

I have answered that time and again yet the deaf cannot hear. Have you a logical bone in your body?

 

show me one fact you think i've dismissed

gore has been talking about climate scientists' predictions


Climate models are even more accurate than you thought


The difference between modeled and observed global surface temperature changes is 38% smaller than previously thought.

Global climate models aren’t given nearly enough credit for their accurate global temperature change projections. As the 2014 IPCC report showed, observed global surface temperature changes have been within the range of climate model simulations.

Now a new study shows that the models were even more accurate than previously thought. In previous evaluations like the one done by the IPCC, climate model simulations of global surface air temperature were compared to global surface temperature observational records like HadCRUT4. However, over the oceans, HadCRUT4 uses sea surface temperatures rather than air temperatures.



A depiction of how global temperatures calculated from models use air temperatures above the ocean surface (right frame), while observations are based on the water temperature in the top few metres (left frame). Created by Kevin Cowtan.

Thus looking at modeled air temperatures and HadCRUT4 observations isn’t quite an apples-to-apples comparison for the oceans. As it turns out, sea surface temperatures haven’t been warming fast as marine air temperatures, so this comparison introduces a bias that makes the observations look cooler than the model simulations. In reality, the comparisons weren’t quite correct. As lead author Kevin Cowtan told me,

We have highlighted the fact that the planet does not warm uniformly. Air temperatures warm faster than the oceans, air temperatures over land warm faster than global air temperatures. When you put a number on global warming, that number always depends on what you are measuring. And when you do a comparison, you need to ensure you are comparing the same things.

The model projections have generally reported global air temperatures. That’s quite helpful, because we generally live in the air rather than the water. The observations, by mixing air and water temperatures, are expected to slightly underestimate the warming of the atmosphere.

The new study addresses this problem by instead blending the modeled air temperatures over land with the modeled sea surface temperatures to allow for an apples-to-apples comparison. The authors also identified another challenging issue for these model-data comparisons in the Arctic. Over sea ice, surface air temperature measurements are used, but for open ocean, sea surface temperatures are used. As co-author Michael Mann notes, as Arctic sea ice continues to melt away, this is another factor that accurate model-data comparisons must account for.

One key complication that arises is that the observations typically extrapolate land temperatures over sea ice covered regions since the sea surface temperature is not accessible in that case. But the distribution of sea ice changes seasonally, and there is a long-term trend toward decreasing sea ice in many regions. So the observations actually represent a moving target.

A depiction of how as sea ice retreats, some grid cells change from taking air temperatures to taking water temperatures. If the two are not on the same scale, this introduces a bias. Created by Kevin Cowtan.



When accounting for these factors, the study finds that the difference between observed and modeled temperatures since 1975 is smaller than previously believed. The models had projected a 0.226°C per decade global surface air warming trend for 1975–2014 (and 0.212°C per decade over the geographic area covered by the HadCRUT4 record). However, when matching the HadCRUT4 methods for measuring sea surface temperatures, the modeled trend is reduced to 0.196°C per decade. The observed HadCRUT4 trend is 0.170°C per decade.

So when doing an apples-to-apples comparison, the difference between modeled global temperature simulations and observations is 38% smaller than previous estimates. Additionally, as noted in a 2014 paper led by NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt, less energy from the sun has reached the Earth’s surface than anticipated in these model simulations, both because solar activity declined more than expected, and volcanic activity was higher than expected. Ed Hawkins, another co-author of this study, wrote about this effect.

Combined, the apparent discrepancy between observations and simulations of global temperature over the past 15 years can be partly explained by the way the comparison is done (about a third), by the incorrect radiative forcings (about a third) and the rest is either due to climate variability or because the models are slightly over sensitive on average. But, the room for the latter effect is now much smaller.



Comparison of 84 climate model simulations (using RCP8.5) against HadCRUT4 observations (black), using either air temperatures (red line and shading) or blended temperatures using the HadCRUT4 method (blue line and shading). The upper panel shows anomalies derived from the unmodified climate model results, the lower shows the results adjusted to include the effect of updated forcings from Schmidt et al. (2014).

As Hawkins notes, the remaining discrepancy between modeled and observed temperatures may come down to climate variability; namely the fact that there has been a preponderance of La Niña events over the past decade, which have a short-term cooling influence on global surface temperatures. When there are more La Niñas, we expect temperatures to fall below the average model projection, and when there are more El Niños, we expect temperatures to be above the projection, as may be the case when 2015 breaks the temperature record.

We can’t predict changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions, or natural ocean cycles ahead of time. If we want to evaluate the accuracy of long-term global warming model projections, we have to account for the difference between the simulated and observed changes in these factors. When the authors of this study did so, they found that climate models have very accurately projected the observed global surface warming trend.

In other words, as I discussed in my book and Denial101x lecture, climate models have proven themselves reliable in predicting long-term global surface temperature changes. In fact, even more reliable than I realized.

[video=youtube;Y_jKXcgR_QA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_jKXcgR_QA[/video]

There’s a common myth that models are unreliable, often based on apples-to-oranges comparisons, like looking at satellite estimates of temperatures higher in the atmosphere versus modeled surface air temperatures. Or, some contrarians like John Christy will only consider the temperature high in the atmosphere, where satellite estimates are less reliable, and where people don’t live.

This new study has shown that when we do an apples-to-apples comparison, climate models have done a good job projecting the observed temperatures where humans live. And those models predict that unless we take serious and immediate action to reduce human carbon pollution, global warming will continue to accelerate into dangerous territory.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/31/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought

 

so dude, where did all of that info come from? That was the post you were replying to.

 

which was I told you what I learned and you can't argue against any of the information. It is settled. PERIOD. It's what he said. Do you even understand how stupid that statement is. Believe as me or I won't discuss. Funny stuff. in other words, no challenge is acceptable. None.

That is not logical/ unrealistic. It also makes him very tunnel visioned to only consider one side of something. Maybe why he lost the election. It is however, a liberal quality.

 

Dude, one that has experience or one with none but a degree?

 

here is a link, credit gateway pundit:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...d-the-north-pole-will-be-ice-free-in-5-years/


"FIVE YEARS AGO TODAY… Al Gore Predicted the North Pole Will Be Ice Free in 5 Years

Jim Hoft Dec 13th, 2013 5:09 pm

FIVE YEARS AGO TODAY—
Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. Gore made the prediction to a German audience in 2008. He told them that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.”"

So yeah, he said it.

 

try paying attention, this has already been addressed

all you're doing is showing that either you didn't read it or you don't understand english very well

this is the quote from the gateway pundit link, you posted:


"Former Vice President Al Gore references computer modeling to suggest that the north polar ice cap may lose virtually all of its ice within the next seven years. “Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 % chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” says Gore.

 

dude, put the quote up on a search engine. Many places will pop up that are not gateway pundit and quote the quote. So, everyone made the same exact quote up?

 

earth to deep space, i posted the video of the speech, yesterday

try watching it and then learn the difference between 'could' & 'would'; 'may' & 'will'


posted yesterday at 6:40 pm:

it's the same quote as in the gateway-pundit, i guess you didn't bother to read it

or watch the video of gore saying it; so buck up and try making sense