ok, but it's 47 degrees where I live. Above the 37 degree average, and below the old 67 degree record set in 1928.
Last edited:
Global Warming Update
- Thread starter ETcallhome
- Start date
Here's the local forecast.
And so far the models have been exactly correct. They have been underestimating sea level rise however.
And so far the models have been exactly correct. They have been underestimating sea level rise however.
Last edited:
what's the over/under sea level Dec 31 2016?
really... you enjoy lying that much...
Here's the local forecast.
And so far the models have been exactly correct. They have been underestimating sea level rise however.
kind of mixed results for global warming enthusiests where I live. Yes good for them, about 47 degrees today and above the 37 degree average. But they still couldn't take out the old 1906 record of 67.
you are claiming the graph above should be using the land ocean temps.
but..but then you would have to show the models were model the land ocean temps and not the land surface temps.
then you would have to show the chart used the wrong temps.
you seem to be the only way making that claim.
so the models have been failing and you have been lying.
here is a link to Spiegel article with Nutter scientist Hans von Storch explaining that as of 2 years ago the models were failing or on the verge of failing.
I have shown it to you many times...
http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html
SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?
Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
but..but then you would have to show the models were model the land ocean temps and not the land surface temps.
then you would have to show the chart used the wrong temps.
you seem to be the only way making that claim.
so the models have been failing and you have been lying.
here is a link to Spiegel article with Nutter scientist Hans von Storch explaining that as of 2 years ago the models were failing or on the verge of failing.
I have shown it to you many times...
http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html
SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?
Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
Not the accurate temps. Liar.
Here are the real temps. From NASA. Exactly in line with the models. Liar.
Why do you lie so much? Not getting into heaven that way.
Outgoing chief scientist Ian Chubb says tougher greenhouse gas targets inevitable
Q
Chubb also says hostility towards climate science may be easing but scientists still have a duty to offer unflinching advice
Tuesday 19 January 2016
http://www.theguardian.com/science/...ays-tougher-greenhouse-gas-targets-inevitable
He also referred to a controversy over claims of threats against climate scientists at the Australian National University, where he had been chancellor.
“I was also questioned in the early stages because there was a suggestion that some scientists at the ANU had received death threats,” Chubb said.
“I never said there had [been] death threats but their offices were open to the street and I thought it sensible to move them to offices accessed with a swipe card. The Australian newspaper spent a long time running FOIs [freedom of information requests] on that. I think they wanted to prove that I’d somehow timed the release of the information for a particular purpose, which was of course ludicrous.”
But Chubb says the antagonism towards climate science was easing.
“The debate here and overseas is much more sensible now, the sheer weight of scientific evidence is having a bearing,” he said.
UQ
Q
Chubb also says hostility towards climate science may be easing but scientists still have a duty to offer unflinching advice
Tuesday 19 January 2016
http://www.theguardian.com/science/...ays-tougher-greenhouse-gas-targets-inevitable
He also referred to a controversy over claims of threats against climate scientists at the Australian National University, where he had been chancellor.
“I was also questioned in the early stages because there was a suggestion that some scientists at the ANU had received death threats,” Chubb said.
“I never said there had [been] death threats but their offices were open to the street and I thought it sensible to move them to offices accessed with a swipe card. The Australian newspaper spent a long time running FOIs [freedom of information requests] on that. I think they wanted to prove that I’d somehow timed the release of the information for a particular purpose, which was of course ludicrous.”
But Chubb says the antagonism towards climate science was easing.
“The debate here and overseas is much more sensible now, the sheer weight of scientific evidence is having a bearing,” he said.
UQ
Last edited: