I don't know what you feel Joe but I never had an agenda or towed some political ideology when it comes to man-made global warming. I listened to both sides of the debate with an open mind. Probably against my better judgment (as maybe yours as well) to continue this back-and-forth banter name-calling waste of time with someone who thinks differently.
The question then becomes ... how long do you continue with the same antics? Its a waste of time. Lots of time.
cheers
I just laugh at the GoreBull Warming™ cult like most people do.
***warning: reading the link below is painful***
The big list of failed climate predictions
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/
Yea, that must mean Global Warming is not real, lol. You found a .com site with a made up list of predictions, most of which are probably taken out of context, lies, or just nonsense... for instance...
“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
Dr. James Hansen, 1988, in an interview with author Rob Reiss.
Reiss asked how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years.
We've already gone through this. Dr. Hansen never said this in this context. Pure lie by Rob Reiss.
I mean ya right? I just think you are in denial if you discount this kind of stuff. Same goes for people saying 18 trillion debt isn't an issue. In fact, they say its a good thing and even that they think it should be more. People are funny. I bet AK is a good guy and next time I am in Alaska, I will give him a heads up and buy him a few brewskies. The internet sometimes brings out the worst in people.
Well, as long as we're picking on GoreBull Warming™ goofballs like Hansen...
June 11, 1986 - Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal): “Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’
@)
June 11, 1986 - Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal): “Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’
@)
2008 Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) on a visit to Britain: “The recent warm winters that Britain has experienced are a sign that the climate is changing.”
[Two exceptionally cold winters followed. The 2009-10 winter may be the coldest experienced in the UK since 1683.]
[Two exceptionally cold winters followed. The 2009-10 winter may be the coldest experienced in the UK since 1683.]
James Hansen’s climate forecast of 1988: a whopping 150% wrong
Anthony Watts / June 15, 2012
From their Die kalte Sonne website, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning put up this guest Post by Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim (Oslo) on Hansen’s 1988 forecast, and show that Hansen was and is, way off the mark. h/t to Pierre Gosselin of No Tricks Zoneand WUWT reader tips.
Figure 1: Temperature forecast Hansen’s group from the year 1988. The various scenarios are 1.5% CO 2 increase (blue), constant increase in CO 2 emissions (green) and stagnant CO 2emissions (red). In reality, the increase in CO 2 emissions by as much as 2.5%, which would correspond to the scenario above the blue curve. The black curve is the ultimate real-measured temperature (rolling 5-year average). Hansen’s model overestimates the temperature by 1.9 ° C, which is a whopping 150% wrong. Figure supplemented by Hansen et al. (1988) .
One of the most important publications on the “dangerous anthropogenic climate change” is that of James Hansen and colleagues from the year 1988, in the Journal of Geophysical Research published. The title of the work is (in German translation) “Global climate change, according to the prediction of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”
In this publication, Hansen and colleagues present the GISS Model II, with which they simulate climate change as a result of concentration changes of atmospheric trace gases and particulate matter (aerosols). The scientists here are three scenarios:
A: increase in CO 2 emissions by 1.5% per year
B: constant increase in CO 2 emissions after 2000
C: No increase in CO 2 emissions after 2000
The CO 2 emissions since 2000 to about 2.5 percent per year has increased, so that we would expect according to the Hansen paper a temperature rise, which should be stronger than in model A. Figure 1 shows the three Hansen scenarios and the real measured global temperature curve are shown. The protruding beyond Scenario A arrow represents the temperature value that the Hansen team would have predicted on the basis of a CO 2 increase of 2.5%. Be increased according to the Hansen’s forecast, the temperature would have compared to the same level in the 1970s by 1.5 ° C. In truth, however, the temperature has increased by only 0.6 ° C.
It is apparent that the next to it by the Hansen group in 1988 modeled temperature prediction by about 150%. It is extremely regrettable that precisely this type of modeling of our politicians is still regarded as a reliable climate prediction.
face)(*^%
Anthony Watts / June 15, 2012
From their Die kalte Sonne website, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning put up this guest Post by Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim (Oslo) on Hansen’s 1988 forecast, and show that Hansen was and is, way off the mark. h/t to Pierre Gosselin of No Tricks Zoneand WUWT reader tips.
Figure 1: Temperature forecast Hansen’s group from the year 1988. The various scenarios are 1.5% CO 2 increase (blue), constant increase in CO 2 emissions (green) and stagnant CO 2emissions (red). In reality, the increase in CO 2 emissions by as much as 2.5%, which would correspond to the scenario above the blue curve. The black curve is the ultimate real-measured temperature (rolling 5-year average). Hansen’s model overestimates the temperature by 1.9 ° C, which is a whopping 150% wrong. Figure supplemented by Hansen et al. (1988) .
One of the most important publications on the “dangerous anthropogenic climate change” is that of James Hansen and colleagues from the year 1988, in the Journal of Geophysical Research published. The title of the work is (in German translation) “Global climate change, according to the prediction of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”
In this publication, Hansen and colleagues present the GISS Model II, with which they simulate climate change as a result of concentration changes of atmospheric trace gases and particulate matter (aerosols). The scientists here are three scenarios:
A: increase in CO 2 emissions by 1.5% per year
B: constant increase in CO 2 emissions after 2000
C: No increase in CO 2 emissions after 2000
The CO 2 emissions since 2000 to about 2.5 percent per year has increased, so that we would expect according to the Hansen paper a temperature rise, which should be stronger than in model A. Figure 1 shows the three Hansen scenarios and the real measured global temperature curve are shown. The protruding beyond Scenario A arrow represents the temperature value that the Hansen team would have predicted on the basis of a CO 2 increase of 2.5%. Be increased according to the Hansen’s forecast, the temperature would have compared to the same level in the 1970s by 1.5 ° C. In truth, however, the temperature has increased by only 0.6 ° C.
It is apparent that the next to it by the Hansen group in 1988 modeled temperature prediction by about 150%. It is extremely regrettable that precisely this type of modeling of our politicians is still regarded as a reliable climate prediction.
face)(*^%
Actually I was incorrect, there are actually 10 years that were hotter than 1934 and they all occurred since 1998, most recently being 2014.
2014 was the Earth's warmest year on record, a U.S. weather agency announced Friday, with average temperatures 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit above the previous high.
The National Climatic Data Center, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, noted the average temperatures over land and oceans were higher in 2014 than any year since 1880 when record-keeping began.
Last month also had the third-highest average global land temperature -- out of any December in the past 135 years -- at 2.45 degrees F above average, according to the agency.
I don't know if you need a cartoon to understand this. Not getting your problem. Pretty straight forward. Thanks for the $10k!!
I can't believe something so simple is so difficult for conservatives to understand, lol... But Global Warming has stopped. Couldn't write better comedy if I tried.
2014 was the Earth's warmest year on record, a U.S. weather agency announced Friday, with average temperatures 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit above the previous high.
The National Climatic Data Center, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, noted the average temperatures over land and oceans were higher in 2014 than any year since 1880 when record-keeping began.
Last month also had the third-highest average global land temperature -- out of any December in the past 135 years -- at 2.45 degrees F above average, according to the agency.
2014 was the Earth's warmest year on record, a U.S. weather agency announced Friday, with average temperatures 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit above the previous high.
The National Climatic Data Center, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, noted the average temperatures over land and oceans were higher in 2014 than any year since 1880 when record-keeping began.
Last month also had the third-highest average global land temperature -- out of any December in the past 135 years -- at 2.45 degrees F above average, according to the agency.
"Global warming" implies...you know, the whole globe is warming. Not just sections of the globe here and there. So what the hell difference does it make if the new highs were marginal?
Besides, is a .07-degree increase really cause for a red siren to go off? If a RB averages 100 yards per game on the ground and 100.07 per game the next season, is that a substantial increase?
If there were any journalists left, they'd go back 20 years to what the cult was saying back then and post their laughable predictions.
And if enough people were paying attention, climate frauds like Hansen would be forced to apologize to Congress for the damage he and his cult have already inflicted on the global economy foolishly trying to predict something as volatile as 'climate' (the weather).
But these times aren't sane, therefore the clown show will continue with Obots like aaaktard clapping like a seal during the State of Confusion when his emperor declares the cult of GoreBull Warming™ a 'fact' based on real science.
Embarrassing.
And if enough people were paying attention, climate frauds like Hansen would be forced to apologize to Congress for the damage he and his cult have already inflicted on the global economy foolishly trying to predict something as volatile as 'climate' (the weather).
But these times aren't sane, therefore the clown show will continue with Obots like aaaktard clapping like a seal during the State of Confusion when his emperor declares the cult of GoreBull Warming™ a 'fact' based on real science.
Embarrassing.
