do you exhale CO2?
- Doppleganger

man made CO2

man made CO2
- the_cause2000

Please stop as you're burning up the planet

Please stop as you're burning up the planet
- Doppleganger

i am willing to sacrafice the pig if you guys will partake in this endeavor together.

i am willing to sacrafice the pig if you guys will partake in this endeavor together.
- kicksave856

I just spend MILLIONS on carbon offsets, can't you feel the coming ice age?

I just spend MILLIONS on carbon offsets, can't you feel the coming ice age?
- Doppleganger

just keep it up.

i love cold weather.

http://www.torontosun.com...001#.Ug0MT8UCZVo.facebook


also The BBC, back in 2007 predicted the arctic would be "ice free" this summer.....

another FAIL by computer models and the hoaxers that use them to extract more taxes out of you, chasing the imaginary spectre of man made global warming.


Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.


Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

Real world

Using supercomputers to crunch through possible future outcomes has become a standard part of climate science in recent years.



read the entire article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

Alfie and the Sens' relationship is a bit icy these days

Alfie and the Sens' relationship is a bit icy these days
- the_cause2000

Is it as cold as the leafs and Dave Keon?

http://www.torontosun.com/videos/2606914972001#.Ug0MT8UCZVo.facebook


also The BBC, back in 2007 predicted the attic would be "ice free" this summer.....

another FAIL by computer models and the hoaxers that use them to extract more taxes out of you, chasing the imaginary spectre of man made global warming.


Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.


Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

Real world

Using supercomputers to crunch through possible future outcomes has become a standard part of climate science in recent years.



read the entire article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
- Doppleganger

My attic is ice free too.

Is it as cold as the leafs and Dave Keon?
- Doppleganger

About the same.

what a messy divorce. Classic alfredsson unableto handle a situation properly. He's essentially taking a slap shot at the organization

Global warming is causing apples to lose some of their crunch but is also making them sweeter, a study said Thursday.

Analysing data gathered from 1970 to 2010 at two orchards in Japan, a research team said there was clear evidence that climate change was having an effect on apple taste and texture.

"All such changes may have resulted from earlier blooming and higher temperatures" during the growth season, they wrote in the journal Nature Scientific Reports.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/hea...y-1.1415261#ixzz2cNZbpTDN

77 degrees yesterday and 90 degrees tomorrow.

(frank)ing men and their global warming.

Sea Level Could Rise 3 Feet by 2100, Climate Panel Finds


“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010,” the draft report says. “There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century.”

The draft comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of several hundred scientists that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, along with Al Gore.

http://www.nytimes.com/20...-panel-finds.html?hp&_r=0

http://ngm.nationalgeogra...9/rising-seas/folger-text

Global warming affects sea level in two ways. About a third of its current rise comes from thermal expansion—from the fact that water grows in volume as it warms. The rest comes from the melting of ice on land. So far it’s been mostly mountain glaciers, but the big concern for the future is the giant ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. Six years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report predicting a maximum of 23 inches of sea-level rise by the end of this century. But that report intentionally omitted the possibility that the ice sheets might flow more rapidly into the sea, on the grounds that the physics of that process was poorly understood.

As the IPCC prepares to issue a new report this fall, in which the sea-level forecast is expected to be slightly higher, gaps in ice-sheet science remain. But climate scientists now estimate that Greenland and Antarctica combined have lost on average about 50 cubic miles of ice each year since 1992—roughly 200 billion metric tons of ice annually. Many think sea level will be at least three feet higher than today by 2100. Even that figure might be too low.

Sea Level Could Rise 3 Feet by 2100, Climate Panel Finds


“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010,” the draft report says. “There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century.”

The draft comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of several hundred scientists that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, along with Al Gore.

http://www.nytimes.com/20...-panel-finds.html?hp&_r=0
- BingoLady

Dopps u lost!


The draft comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of several hundred scientists that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, along with Al Gore. Its summaries, published every five or six years, are considered the definitive assessment of the risks of climate change, and they influence the actions of governments around the world. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent on efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions, for instance, largely on the basis of the group’s findings.

The coming report will be the fifth major assessment from the group, created in 1988. Each report has found greater certainty that the planet is warming and greater likelihood that humans are the primary cause.

The 2007 report found “unequivocal” evidence of warming, but hedged a little on responsibility, saying the chances were at least 90 percent that human activities were the cause. The language in the new draft is stronger, saying the odds are at least 95 percent that humans are the principal cause.

http://www.thegwpf.org/ir...ictions-seriously-flawed/

Global temperature observations over the more than two decades since the First IPCC Assessment Report demonstrate that the IPCC climate theory, and models based on that theory, are wrong. Therefore, they must be greatly modified or completely discarded.

The animated graphic is based on Figure 1-4 from the recently leaked IPCC AR5 draft document. This one chart is all we need to prove, without a doubt, that IPCC analysis methodology and computer models are seriously flawed. They have way over-estimated the extent of Global Warming since the IPCC first started issuing Assessment Reports in 1990, and continuing through the fourth report issued in 2007.

When actual observations over a period of up to 22 years substantially contradict predictions based on a given climate theory, that theory must be greatly modified or completely discarded.



The animation shows arrows representing the central estimates of how much the IPCC officially predicted the Earth surface temperature “anomaly” would increase from 1990 to 2012. The estimates are from the First Assessment Report (FAR-1990), the Second (SAR-1996), the Third (TAR-2001), and the Fourth (AR4-2007). Each arrow is aimed at the center of its corresponding colored “whisker” at the right edge of the base figure.

The circle at the tail of each arrow indicates the Global temperature in the year the given assessment report was issued. The first head on each arrow represents the central IPCC prediction for 2012. They all mispredict warming from 1990 to 2012 by a factor of two to three. The dashed line and second arrow head represents the central IPCC predictions for 2015.

Actual Global Warming, from 1990 to 2012 (indicated by black bars in the base graphic) varies from year to year. However, net warming between 1990 and 2012 is in the range of 0.12 to 0.16˚C (indicated by the black arrow in the animation). The central predictions from the four reports (indicated by the colored arrows in the animation) range from 0.3˚C to 0.5˚C, which is about two to five times greater than actual measured net warming.

The colored bands in the base IPCC graphic indicate the 90% range of uncertainty above and below the central predictions calculated by the IPCC when they issued the assessment reports. 90% certainty means there is only one chance in ten the actual observations will fall outside the colored bands.

The IPCC has issued four reports, so, given 90% certainty for each report, there should be only one chance in 10,000 (ten times ten times ten times ten) that they got it wrong four times in a row. But they did! Please note that the colored bands, wide as they are, do not go low enough to contain the actual observations for Global Temperature reported by the IPCC for 2012.

Thus, the IPCC predictions for 2012 are high by multiples of what they thought they were predicting! Although the analysts and modelers claimed their predictions were 90% certain, it is now clear they were far from that mark with each and every prediction.

IPCC PREDICTIONS FOR 2015 – AND IRA’S

The colored bands extend to 2015 as do the central prediction arrows in the animation. The arrow heads at the ends of the dashed portion indicate IPCC central predictions for the Global temperature “anomaly” for 2015. My black arrow, from the actual 1990 Global temperature “anomaly” to the actual 2012 temperature “anomaly” also extends out to 2015, and let that be my prediction for 2015:

IPCC FAR Prediction for 2015: 0.88˚C (1.2 to 0.56)
IPCC SAR Prediction for 2015: 0.64˚C (0.75 to 0.52)
IPCC TAR Prediction for 2015: 0.77˚C (0.98 to 0.55)
IPCC AR5 Prediction for 2015: 0.79˚C (0.96 to 0.61)
Ira Glickstein’s Central Prediction for 2015: 0.46˚C

Please note that the temperature “anomaly” for 1990 is 0.28˚C, so that amount must be subtracted from the above estimates to calculate the amount of warming predicted for the period from 1990 to 2015.

IF THEORY DIFFERS FROM OBSERVATIONS, THE THEORY IS WRONG

As Feynman famously pointed out, when actual observations over a period of time contradict predictions based on a given theory, that theory is wrong!

Global temperature observations over the more than two decades since the First IPCC Assessment Report demonstrate that the IPCC climate theory, and models based on that theory, are wrong. Therefore, they must be greatly modified or completely discarded. Looking at the scattershot “arrows” in the graphic, the IPCC has not learned much about their misguided theories and flawed models or improved them over the past two decades, so I cannot hold out much hope for the final version of their Assessment Report #5 (AR5).

Keep in mind that the final AR5 is scheduled to be issued in 2013. It is uncertain if Figure 1-4, the most honest IPCC effort of which I am aware, will survive through the final cut. We shall see.



Keep drinking the IPCC Kool-Aid.........because their FUNDING (see your tax dollars) depend on them perpetuating the "Man made global warming" hoax.

I'll stick to actual REAL measured data that shows the IPCC reports to be works of fiction, and was so pointed out during Climategate.

http://www.thegwpf.org/ira-glickstein-ipcc-global-warming-predictions-seriously-flawed/

Global temperature observations over the more than two decades since the First IPCC Assessment Report demonstrate that the IPCC climate theory, and models based on that theory, are wrong. Therefore, they must be greatly modified or completely discarded.

The animated graphic is based on Figure 1-4 from the recently leaked IPCC AR5 draft document. This one chart is all we need to prove, without a doubt, that IPCC analysis methodology and computer models are seriously flawed. They have way over-estimated the extent of Global Warming since the IPCC first started issuing Assessment Reports in 1990, and continuing through the fourth report issued in 2007.

When actual observations over a period of up to 22 years substantially contradict predictions based on a given climate theory, that theory must be greatly modified or completely discarded.



The animation shows arrows representing the central estimates of how much the IPCC officially predicted the Earth surface temperature “anomaly” would increase from 1990 to 2012. The estimates are from the First Assessment Report (FAR-1990), the Second (SAR-1996), the Third (TAR-2001), and the Fourth (AR4-2007). Each arrow is aimed at the center of its corresponding colored “whisker” at the right edge of the base figure.

The circle at the tail of each arrow indicates the Global temperature in the year the given assessment report was issued. The first head on each arrow represents the central IPCC prediction for 2012. They all mispredict warming from 1990 to 2012 by a factor of two to three. The dashed line and second arrow head represents the central IPCC predictions for 2015.

Actual Global Warming, from 1990 to 2012 (indicated by black bars in the base graphic) varies from year to year. However, net warming between 1990 and 2012 is in the range of 0.12 to 0.16˚C (indicated by the black arrow in the animation). The central predictions from the four reports (indicated by the colored arrows in the animation) range from 0.3˚C to 0.5˚C, which is about two to five times greater than actual measured net warming.

The colored bands in the base IPCC graphic indicate the 90% range of uncertainty above and below the central predictions calculated by the IPCC when they issued the assessment reports. 90% certainty means there is only one chance in ten the actual observations will fall outside the colored bands.

The IPCC has issued four reports, so, given 90% certainty for each report, there should be only one chance in 10,000 (ten times ten times ten times ten) that they got it wrong four times in a row. But they did! Please note that the colored bands, wide as they are, do not go low enough to contain the actual observations for Global Temperature reported by the IPCC for 2012.

Thus, the IPCC predictions for 2012 are high by multiples of what they thought they were predicting! Although the analysts and modelers claimed their predictions were 90% certain, it is now clear they were far from that mark with each and every prediction.

IPCC PREDICTIONS FOR 2015 – AND IRA’S

The colored bands extend to 2015 as do the central prediction arrows in the animation. The arrow heads at the ends of the dashed portion indicate IPCC central predictions for the Global temperature “anomaly” for 2015. My black arrow, from the actual 1990 Global temperature “anomaly” to the actual 2012 temperature “anomaly” also extends out to 2015, and let that be my prediction for 2015:

IPCC FAR Prediction for 2015: 0.88˚C (1.2 to 0.56)
IPCC SAR Prediction for 2015: 0.64˚C (0.75 to 0.52)
IPCC TAR Prediction for 2015: 0.77˚C (0.98 to 0.55)
IPCC AR5 Prediction for 2015: 0.79˚C (0.96 to 0.61)
Ira Glickstein’s Central Prediction for 2015: 0.46˚C

Please note that the temperature “anomaly” for 1990 is 0.28˚C, so that amount must be subtracted from the above estimates to calculate the amount of warming predicted for the period from 1990 to 2015.

IF THEORY DIFFERS FROM OBSERVATIONS, THE THEORY IS WRONG

As Feynman famously pointed out, when actual observations over a period of time contradict predictions based on a given theory, that theory is wrong!

Global temperature observations over the more than two decades since the First IPCC Assessment Report demonstrate that the IPCC climate theory, and models based on that theory, are wrong. Therefore, they must be greatly modified or completely discarded. Looking at the scattershot “arrows” in the graphic, the IPCC has not learned much about their misguided theories and flawed models or improved them over the past two decades, so I cannot hold out much hope for the final version of their Assessment Report #5 (AR5).

Keep in mind that the final AR5 is scheduled to be issued in 2013. It is uncertain if Figure 1-4, the most honest IPCC effort of which I am aware, will survive through the final cut. We shall see.



Keep drinking the IPCC Kool-Aid.........because their FUNDING (see your tax dollars) depend on them perpetuating the "Man made global warming" hoax.

I'll stick to actual REAL measured data that shows the IPCC reports to be works of fiction, and was so pointed out during Climategate.
- Doppleganger

I wouldn't buy a beach house on the Jersey shore if I were you.

- BingoLady

photoshopped

The IPCC sea level projections are also based on their computer models, that have been proven to be incredibly inaccurate (SEE above).

So keep drinking the Kool-aid, or do a little research on your own.

http://curryja.files.word....com/2011/07/document.pdf


http://curry.eas.gatech.e.../Sea_Level_Variations.pdf

http://www.climategate.com/

http://wattsupwiththat.co...the-trick-was-pulled-off/

The IPCC sea level projections are also based on their computer models, that have been proven to be incredibly inaccurate (SEE above).

So keep drinking the Kool-aid, or do a little research on your own.

http://curryja.files.word....com/2011/07/document.pdf
- Doppleganger

bad link

bad link
- the_cause2000

BS..........closed mind.

The IPCC sea level projections are also based on their computer models, that have been proven to be incredibly inaccurate (SEE above).

So keep drinking the Kool-aid, or do a little research on your own.

http://curryja.files.word....com/2011/07/document.pdf


http://curry.eas.gatech.e.../Sea_Level_Variations.pdf

http://www.climategate.com/

http://wattsupwiththat.co...the-trick-was-pulled-off/
- Doppleganger

Nobel Prize winners are a little more reliable and National Geographic.

The graph shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated. Yet those forecasts have had a ruinous impact on the bills we pay, from heating to car fuel to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon emissions.

The eco-debate was, in effect, hijacked by false data. The forecasts have also forced jobs abroad as manufacturers relocate to places with no emissions targets.

A version of the graph appears in a leaked draft of the IPCC’s landmark Fifth Assessment Report due out later this year. It comes as leading climate scientists begin to admit that their worst fears about global warming will not be realised.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.u...-along.html#ixzz2ciIp9CUv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


With the ICC now accepting that there has been no global warning for the last 17 years and that the climate models have not properly allowed for natural variation plus the total failure of green energy policies around the world with one country even changing its government on the issue, just when will the world as a whole understand that the whole climate change movement is, well ......... wrong? Even Prof. mann has accepted the climate stand still.

The policies used to back this mad movement are wrong - Germany, the biggest user of solar panels in Europe, has had to buy in coal fired energy from neighbours and has only just realised that the sun does not shine there that much. Wind power has been shown to frequently increase CO2 emissions because of the inefficient use of the back up fossil fuel plants that have to be kept spinning ready for start up ands when actually used operate below efficiency levels ......... the politicians have really got it wrong.

An 'climate' industry has been created that employees large numbers of people that has a huge vested interest in keeping itself going but as the facts roll in every day now their base is truly beginning to crumble.

Yet amongst all this information pouring in to refute the climate change movement the UK government introduces an energy bill that will basically de-industrialise the country ..... truly, truly mad.