Has the Global Temperature Trend Turned to Cooling?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Jack Hays, May 5, 2022.

  1. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    NASA and NOAA fund the UAH model, and their data parallel it.
     
    drluggit and Sunsettommy like this.
  2. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Old data? 2022?
    [​IMG]

    Data source: JMA
     
    drluggit and Sunsettommy like this.
  3. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Such claims are multiply false, disingenuous and absurd. NOAA and NASA as well as others use UAH, which is a temperature record, not a model, and there is nothing fudgy about it.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  4. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I keep bringing this up, and you all keep running from it.

    If you want to know temperature at the surface, shouldn't you be using ... the temperature measured at the surface?

    You don't use that. You deliberately discard the best data. That's an instant giveaway that you're doing pseudoscience. Real scientists don't discard the best data just because it's inconvenient to their politics. You do.

    And real scientists don't use the "Any data I don't like is faked!" dodge. You do.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2023
  5. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I specifically said I was talking about Antarctic sea ice data, where your data stops at 2016. In response, you pretended I was talking about temperature data. Typical.

    It isn't debatable that Antarctic sea ice levels have crashed. They're at record lows.

    https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2023/02/antarctic-sea-ice-extent-sets-a-new-record-low/

    Since you so vigorously repeated the claim that the rising Antarctic Sea Ice levels reflect a falling temperature, that means by your own logic, the crashing sea ice levels mean that Antarctica must be warming. Thanks for playing.

    Oh, if you knew the science, you'd know it's rising _ocean_ temperatures that have destroyed the Antarctic sea ice.
     
  6. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You did also talk about temperature. Regardless, here's sea ice extent up to last week. No crash.
    Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent With Anomaly

    [​IMG]
    National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – Click the pic to view at source
     
    Sunsettommy and drluggit like this.
  7. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,278
    Likes Received:
    18,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If we don't make a bunch of laws and involve our government in a lot of things they shouldn't be involved in right now in 18 months we're going to pass the point of no return and eventually be in a complete ice age. Imagine August in Florida seeing sea ice off the coast of Miami... Lol
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  8. Bullseye

    Bullseye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2021
    Messages:
    11,869
    Likes Received:
    10,275
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The horror. :lol:
     
    Jack Hays and Polydectes like this.
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, that is just another bald falsehood from you. Every time you bring it up, you are demolished.
    Only if it is measured all over the surface equally, and under conditions that do not systematically bias the data.
    No, that's just another bald falsehood from you. The best data are the ones you discard (or alter retroactively to conform to your theory, or adulterate by mixing with bad data): temperature readings from pristine wilderness sites. That's an instant giveaway that you're doing pseudoscience. Real scientists don't alter or adulterate the best data just because it's inconvenient to their politics. You do.
    No, that's just another bald falsehood from you. Just as one proof that you are makin' $#!+ up again, we have never claimed that data from sites where land use has changed significantly -- which is the majority -- are faked. They just mainly show the effect on temperatures of human activities other than CO2 emissions, and don't represent the actual surface temperature in natural environments, so there is no reason to fake them -- only to misrepresent them as having been "corrected" to account for the changing environment.
     
    Sunsettommy and Jack Hays like this.
  10. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The most recent Antarctic sea ice and temperature data also refute your hysterical claims.
    Ah, no. What's really not debatable is that there has been no such "crash." The "record low" is merely slightly below the previous minimum for that date -- and FYI, sea ice extent can be strongly influenced by idiosyncratic wind conditions that can sweep ice away from or against the shore, changing the extent of the ice, but not the amount.
    No such crash has occurred. The actual trend in the amount of sea ice is only measurable over a period of years, which evens out the effects of wind for specific years and dates. But thanks for playing.
    You mean the Antarctic sea ice that has not been destroyed because the ocean temperature has stayed within a normal range consistent with natural recovery from the LIA and 1940s-70s cooling?
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  11. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just a question, but if you only measure surface temps, why not discount what we know the impact of urban heat islands do? If, on any given day, the metro area I live close to is at least 2-3 F warmer, why not simply throw out those temps instead of trying to "modulate" that temp record in the way current models do? It seems dishonest to collect temps from stations that violate the very standards of temp collection that measure these temps to "prove" the warming. It is one of the worst secrets of the temp recorders/models. Everyone knows the problem, and yet folks, like you, still demand that this is relevant data which we have to base policy off of.

    I doubt you know what a real scientist is given your continued reliance on the warmest camps....
     
    bringiton, Sunsettommy and Jack Hays like this.
  12. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The record low Antarctic sea Ice extent refutes my claim of record low Antarctic Sea ice extent? Really?

    Ah, no. What's really not debatable is that there has been no such "crash." The "record low" is merely slightly below the previous minimum for that date --[/QUOTE]

    Um, no.

    [​IMG][​IMG]

    Since you never used that "well, it's uncertain" argument when Antarctic sea ice was high, you don't get to use it now. That is, unless you want to stop with even the pretense that you're consistent. Are you indeed that desperate?

    I understand. It hurts. Another one of your side's crazy predictions bit the dust. In contrast, as is always the case, the predictions of the rational people came to pass. Back around 1980, Dr. Manabe pointed out that Antarctic sea Ice extent would initially increase, due to the freshening of the surface layer, but eventually rising ocean temperatures would override that effect, and Antarctic sea ice extent would crash. That's exactly what happened, and it didn't surprise the rational people at all.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2023
  13. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because it's adjusted for. Anyone saying it isn't is too deluded and misinformed to be taken seriously on any topic.

    The rural stations have shown the same amount of warming as the urban stations. That destroys your conspiracy theory.

    And I'll tell you why.

    First, if an area urbanized a hundred years ago, then the UHI jump happened a hundred years ago. The UHI effect doesn't get bigger as time goes on.

    And second, if a UHI jump is more recent, it's accounted for in the corrections.

    There's a modern set of stations that does exactly that. It shows the same thing as the older set. That also destroys your conspiracy theory.

    Clearly, you didn't know this. And how could you? Your masters control what you see, and they didn't want you to know.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2023
  14. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Um, no.

    [​IMG][​IMG]



    Since you never used that "well, it's uncertain" argument when Antarctic sea ice was high, you don't get to use it now. That is, unless you want to stop with even the pretense that you're consistent. Are you indeed that desperate?



    I understand. It hurts. Another one of your side's crazy predictions bit the dust. In contrast, as is always the case, the predictions of the rational people came to pass. Back around 1980, Dr. Manabe pointed out that Antarctic sea Ice extent would initially increase, due to the freshening of the surface layer, but eventually rising ocean temperatures would override that effect, and Antarctic sea ice extent would crash. That's exactly what happened, and it didn't surprise the rational people at all.[/QUOTE]
    And yet the trend line of your own graph shows no crash.
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  15. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope. The "adjustment" is calibrated to undercorrect. Anyone saying it isn't is too deluded and misinformed to be taken seriously on any topic.
    No they haven't; and most of the "rural" stations chosen for such comparisons have also undergone land use and other changes that increase temperature. Even something as minor as paving the road that runs past the instrument site can increase temperature, and many other changes affecting rural instrument sites have been documented, such as increased use of lighting and air conditioning at nearby farm buildings.

    That destroys your conspiracy theory.
    It most certainly does. The claim -- and assumption -- that it does not is merely another disingenuous rationalization for undercorrection of UHI effects.
    And calibrated to undercorrect.
    No, it does no such thing.

    That also destroys your conspiracy theory.

    Clearly, you didn't know this. And how could you? Your masters control what you see, and they didn't want you to know.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2023
  16. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it refutes your claim of a "crash."
    YOUR OWN GRAPH shows there has been no crash.
    Ah, yeah, I do, because I didn't make any claim about the certainty of increasing Antarctic sea ice.
    <yawn> Where did I claim the Antarctic sea ice increase was certain?

    Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: I didn't. You simply made it up.
    No such event occurred, because my side does not make crazy predictions.
    No. It didn't happen. The irrational people are the ones claiming sea ice has "crashed" when it is not even 20% below where it was 30 years ago -- and who ignore the fact that they have to cherry-pick the beginning of their data to match the end of a three-decade cooling period.
     
  17. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,679
    Likes Received:
    1,436
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is what Antarctic looks like after the... he he.... ha ha ha..... "Crash" occurred:

    [​IMG]

    LINK
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2023
    Jack Hays likes this.
  18. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,679
    Likes Received:
    1,436
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nature

    Multi-decadal trends in Antarctic sea-ice extent driven by ENSO–SAM over the last 2,000 years

    LINK
     
    Jack Hays and bringiton like this.
  19. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nah.. The calculation only admits to a very small deviation from collected temps. We know it, everyone knows it. It accomplishes what facts can't and adds to the temp record that warmists use to drive the frenzy with. Since you asserted the fact, show the study that also shows that non urban collections have also warmed at the same rate as the heat islands. If it "destroys" my narrative, at least be honest enough to show the study that you assert says this. You won't. i'll tell you why. Because it doesn't exist. Frankly, the level of dishonesty of your posting is typical of what happens when the wheels are falling off. Sorry, you're misinformation finds no purchase here...
     
    bringiton, Sunsettommy and Jack Hays like this.
  20. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    On track early for another year of cooling.
    UAH Global Temperature Update for February, 2023: +0.08 deg. C
    March 3rd, 2023
    The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February 2023 was +0.08 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean. This is up from the January 2023 anomaly of -0.04 deg. C.

    [​IMG]
    The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade (+0.11 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land). . . .
     
    bringiton likes this.
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So while Feb was warmer than Jan, the 13-month moving average does not seem to be returning to the highs of 2016 and 2020, another indication that the up-trend in place from 1979 to 2016 has been broken. How long will temperature have to move in the opposite direction from CO2 before CO2-centered climatology is acknowledged to have been falsified?
     
  22. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We'll have to wait to find out.
     
  23. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,679
    Likes Received:
    1,436
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    CO2-centered climatology is already falsified as the second part of the AGW conjecture doesn't exist no "hot spot" has showed up after 30 years looking for it and no Positive Feedback Loop exists.

    While the first part has become statistical noise at the 430 ppm level.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2023
    bringiton and Jack Hays like this.
  24. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Former NOAA Meteorologist: Natural Cycles Now Steering Our Planet Into An “Extremely Cold Period”
    By P Gosselin on 3. March 2023

    Share this...
    “We’re going to see a big dip in temperatures worldwide during the next 10 to 15 years”… “colder than the 1950s and 60s”…
    On the Tom Nelson podcast, guest David Dilley – a former NOAA meteorologist – said the earth has entered a cooling period and warned the next 20 years may well be colder than the 1950s and 60s.


    Dilley has more than 40 years experience in weather forecasting, and believes natural cycles dictate the earth’s climate changes and that these cycles easily trump any effects trace gas CO2 may have. Not only is climate driven by natural cyclical factors, but Dilley points out that even CO2 changes is naturally driven.

    On what to expect in the future, Dilley says we are already cooling now and that the Pacific has already begun to enter a cool cycle after having been in a warm cycle for the past 40 years.

    “It’s going to be very cold”

    “We’re going to see a big dip in temperatures worldwide during the next 10 to 15 years,” says Dilley.

    The veteran meteorologist expects the cold cycle, which has just begun, will take about “20 years to bottom out” by the late 2030s or 2040 or so.

    “So we’re going to be in an extremely cold period that time, colder than the 1950s and 60s here in the United States,” Dilley adds. “So it’s going to be very cold.”
     
    bringiton likes this.
  25. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree CO2-centered climatology has been falsified. The question is how long it will take for it to be acknowledged that it has been falsified.
     

Share This Page