• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New projection of final 2030 and 2021 temp

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
67,314
Reaction score
34,004
Location
The city Fox News viewers are afraid to travel to
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA GISS, just released his projections of this years final temp and next years estimated one.

This year is likely to be a record year, or close to it, while 2021 is likely to be a top 5 year at least, despite it being a La Niña year.

999F968B-E427-4846-9ADB-5B2EBAF0D248.webp
 
Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA GISS, just released his projections of this years final temp and next years estimated one.

This year is likely to be a record year, or close to it, while 2021 is likely to be a top 5 year at least, despite it being a La Niña year.

View attachment 67310364

but look at all the wigglies on that graph! It can't be real science if it isn't a perfect fit! It must all be a lie! A LIE!
 
Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA GISS, just released his projections of this years final temp and next years estimated one.

This year is likely to be a record year, or close to it, while 2021 is likely to be a top 5 year at least, despite it being a La Niña year.

View attachment 67310364
So much for that "global cooling" nonsense presented in this site over the past couple of years.
 
Worth watching as long as WUWT and Steve McIntyre are available to monitor for errors.

GISS's Gavin Schmidt credits WUWT community with spotting the error
surprised to find this on RC. See this comment from Gavin Schmidt on Real Climate: ... Gavin, if you'd like to do a guest post here on this error, the floor is yours.

I believe that is what is called "honesty" in the sciences. (It puts the lie to AGW scientists as liars which is kind of how they are represented on the Denialist Blogosphere)

Also this appears to be 12 years ago. Once every decade WUWT gets something right? I guess that's something to crow about?
 
Worth watching as long as WUWT and Steve McIntyre are available to monitor for errors.

GISS's Gavin Schmidt credits WUWT community with spotting the error
surprised to find this on RC. See this comment from Gavin Schmidt on Real Climate: ... Gavin, if you'd like to do a guest post here on this error, the floor is yours.
WUWT is a crackpot site. Hence, all the nonsense posted constantly being debunked. BTW, like all the cooling you promised. Looks like you lost that argument too.
 
WUWT is a crackpot site. Hence, all the nonsense posted constantly being debunked. BTW, like all the cooling you promised. Looks like you lost that argument too.
I believe you're counting unhatched chickens.
 
WUWT is a crackpot site. Hence, all the nonsense posted constantly being debunked. BTW, like all the cooling you promised. Looks like you lost that argument too.

Sometimes the denialists/climate skeptics have actually found issues that were missed. This is not unheard of. The key is that the real scientists always admit to that. I believe McIntyre and McKittrick may have even gotten a shout-out a decade or so ago about something they found as well.

It's something that our denialist/"skeptic" friends don't think exists in science: honesty. That is a far harsher indictment of their position than any errors that are uncovered by their favorite blogs.
 
Sometimes the denialists/climate skeptics have actually found issues that were missed. This is not unheard of. The key is that the real scientists always admit to that. I believe McIntyre and McKittrick may have even gotten a shout-out a decade or so ago about something they found as well.

It's something that our denialist/"skeptic" friends don't think exists in science: honesty. That is a far harsher indictment of their position than any errors that are uncovered by their favorite blogs.
WUWT was Q before the crazy completely took over a certain segment of our population. I am quite sure these two things are related. A climate denier is highly likely to be a flat earther, vax denier and die-hard conspiracy nut of epic proportions, from pizza gate to election fraud.

If we read WUWT critically, it is pretty obvious that they cater to that crowd, even if they occasionally point at a truth or two.
 
Sometimes the denialists/climate skeptics have actually found issues that were missed. This is not unheard of. The key is that the real scientists always admit to that. I believe McIntyre and McKittrick may have even gotten a shout-out a decade or so ago about something they found as well.

It's something that our denialist/"skeptic" friends don't think exists in science: honesty. That is a far harsher indictment of their position than any errors that are uncovered by their favorite blogs.
Actually, Gavin et al have spent the last decade trashing M&M and trying to hide data.
 
Actually, Gavin et al have spent the last decade trashing M&M and trying to hide data.

If the world's climate experts disagree with M&M it may be that M&M are sometimes incorrect (as they were with regards to the PCA analysis of the hockey stick when they violated basic PCA interpretation rules).

NO ONE IS HIDING DATA, JACK. (Most of it is more freely available than most scientific data, and if it is available what would YOU know about dealing with it? You don't even seem to understand basic graphs or statistics!)

It is a testament to the honesty of the AGW scientists that they admit when the denialist/skeptics find something.

Why do you seem to reward honesty with insults?
 
WUWT was Q before the crazy completely took over a certain segment of our population. I am quite sure these two things are related. A climate denier is highly likely to be a flat earther, vax denier and die-hard conspiracy nut of epic proportions, from pizza gate to election fraud.

If we read WUWT critically, it is pretty obvious that they cater to that crowd, even if they occasionally point at a truth or two.

I have no doubt that WUWT is a confirmation bias generating machine. But, again, blind pigs and truffles, dontcha know. Sometimes the denialists actually find errors because errors happen. It is a testament to the honesty in the sciences that the scientists actually freely admit that the errors are found!
 
I have no doubt that WUWT is a confirmation bias generating machine. But, again, blind pigs and truffles, dontcha know. Sometimes the denialists actually find errors because errors happen. It is a testament to the honesty in the sciences that the scientists actually freely admit that the errors are found!
Sure, science corrects errors of perception. For the most part, that's it's purpose. Technological development is the realm of engineering. Debunking false premise is science.

Perception: "The sun revolves around the earth."
Science: "Uh, no."
 
If the world's climate experts disagree with M&M it may be that M&M are sometimes incorrect (as they were with regards to the PCA analysis of the hockey stick when they violated basic PCA interpretation rules).

NO ONE IS HIDING DATA, JACK. (Most of it is more freely available than most scientific data, and if it is available what would YOU know about dealing with it? You don't even seem to understand basic graphs or statistics!)

It is a testament to the honesty of the AGW scientists that they admit when the denialist/skeptics find something.

Why do you seem to reward honesty with insults?
Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.
"Mannian" PCA Revisited #1
Mar 10, 2008 – 12:27 PM
One of Hansen’s pit bulls, Tamino, has re-visited Mannian principal components. Tamino is a bright person, whose remarks are all too often marred by the pit bull persona that he has unfortunately chosen to adopt. His choice of topic is a curious one, as he ends up re-opening a few old scabs, none of which […]

". . . Tamino’s main effort in this post is an attempt to claim that Mannian non-centered principal components methodology is a legitimate methodological choice. This would seem to be an uphill fight given the positions taken by the NAS Panel and the Wegman Panel – see also this account of a 2006 American Statistical Association session. However, Tamino makes a try, claiming that Mannian methodology is within an accepted literature, that it has desirable properties for climate reconstructions and that there were good reasons for its selection by MBH. I do not believe that he established any of these claims; I’ll do a post on this topic. . . ."
 
Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.
"Mannian" PCA Revisited #1
Mar 10, 2008 – 12:27 PM
One of Hansen’s pit bulls, Tamino, has re-visited Mannian principal components. Tamino is a bright person, whose remarks are all too often marred by the pit bull persona that he has unfortunately chosen to adopt. His choice of topic is a curious one, as he ends up re-opening a few old scabs, none of which […]

". . . Tamino’s main effort in this post is an attempt to claim that Mannian non-centered principal components methodology is a legitimate methodological choice. This would seem to be an uphill fight given the positions taken by the NAS Panel and the Wegman Panel – see also this account of a 2006 American Statistical Association session. However, Tamino makes a try, claiming that Mannian methodology is within an accepted literature, that it has desirable properties for climate reconstructions and that there were good reasons for its selection by MBH. I do not believe that he established any of these claims; I’ll do a post on this topic. . . ."

I'd ask you to tell me in your own words WHICH PCA ANALYSIS system you prefer, but we both know where that would lead.

Are you even marginally acquainted with PCA? Or does it fall under the heading of "Looking through the wrong end of the telescope" for you?

NOrmally you could not care less about technical details on any of these things until it is convenient and then I doubt very highly that you know why you prefer this or that convention in the data....other than it is espoused by your favorite confirmation bias machine.

So do tell me your prefered PCA centering algorithm! Explain why.
 
Last edited:
I'd ask you to tell me in your own words WHICH PCA ANALYSIS system you prefer, but we both know where that would lead.

Are you even marginally acquainted with PCA? Or does it fall under the heading of "Looking through the wrong end of the telescope" for you?

NOrmally you could not care less about technical details on any of these things until it is convenient and then I doubt very highly that you know why you prefer this or that convention in the data....other than it is espoused by your favorite confirmation bias machine.

So do tell me your prefered PCA centering algorithm! Explain why.
Sorry, but you're the one who made a claim. I provided documentary evidence that you were wrong. My statistical expertise or lack thereof is neither here nor there.
 
Sorry, but you're the one who made a claim. I provided documentary evidence that you were wrong. My statistical expertise or lack thereof is neither here nor there.

How do you know you did so?
 
How do you know you did so?
". . . positions taken by the NAS Panel and the Wegman Panel . . . "
Not to mention subsequent publication.

McShane , Wyner : A statistical analysis of multiple ...
projecteuclid.org › euclid.aoas


... of multiple temperature proxies: Are reconstructions of surface temperatures over the last 1000 years reliable? Blakeley B. McShane and Abraham J. Wyner ...

Abstract
Predicting historic temperatures based on tree rings, ice cores, and other natural proxies is a difficult endeavor. The relationship between proxies and temperature is weak and the number of proxies is far larger than the number of target data points. Furthermore, the data contain complex spatial and temporal dependence structures which are not easily captured with simple models.
In this paper, we assess the reliability of such reconstructions and their statistical significance against various null models. We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago.
We propose our own reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere average annual land temperature over the last millennium, assess its reliability, and compare it to those from the climate science literature. Our model provides a similar reconstruction but has much wider standard errors, reflecting the weak signal and large uncertainty encountered in this setting.
 
". . . positions taken by the NAS Panel and the Wegman Panel . . . "
Not to mention subsequent publication.
McShane , Wyner : A statistical analysis of multiple ...
projecteuclid.org › euclid.aoas


... of multiple temperature proxies: Are reconstructions of surface temperatures over the last 1000 years reliable? Blakeley B. McShane and Abraham J. Wyner ...

Abstract
Predicting historic temperatures based on tree rings, ice cores, and other natural proxies is a difficult endeavor. The relationship between proxies and temperature is weak and the number of proxies is far larger than the number of target data points. Furthermore, the data contain complex spatial and temporal dependence structures which are not easily captured with simple models.
In this paper, we assess the reliability of such reconstructions and their statistical significance against various null models. We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago.
We propose our own reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere average annual land temperature over the last millennium, assess its reliability, and compare it to those from the climate science literature. Our model provides a similar reconstruction but has much wider standard errors, reflecting the weak signal and large uncertainty encountered in this setting.

In other words you don’t know. You are wholly reliant on someone else to tell you.
 
Carry on.

oh so let me know when YOU are able to discuss this topic! I so look forward to seeing your famous ability to come up to speed on topics that allow you to speak against the experts!

So far all I’ve seen is your claimof such prowess.
 
oh so let me know when YOU are able to discuss this topic! I so look forward to seeing your famous ability to come up to speed on topics that allow you to speak against the experts!

So far all I’ve seen is your claimof such prowess.
Good luck in your future endeavors.
 
Back
Top Bottom