Has the Global Temperature Trend Turned to Cooling?

UAH won't publish their code, so direct analysis is not possible

(By your standards, that proves that they must be frauds, right? WHAT ARE THEY HIDING? Oh wait, silly me. You have no standards that aren't double standards.)

Now, RSS does publish their model. It has all kinds of fudge factors, which they freely admit to. Satellite models are reactive. There's no way to directly transform microwaves into temperature. They try to twiddle their models to get the output to match surface temps. UAH is on V5.2 now. That's been a whole lot of twiddling.They call it a "retrieval algorithm", which is another way of saying "model".

Your own eyes measure microwave emissions from a large slab of the mid-troposphere, and then transform that into temperature? What remarkable vision you have.

I tell people that, if they want to know surface temperature, they should use temperature measurements taken at the surface, using data from wondrous devices called "thermometers".

You tell them to use a highly-twiddled model based on microwave emissions from a large slab of the mid-troposphere. You do realize that the mid-troposphere is way up in the sky, right? And that the sky is not the surface?

Using bad fuzzy data while discarding good data is a sure sign of pseudosceince, and it's what you do.

 

I await your reply concerning the NCEP graph from which you have been trying to deflect.

 

The UAH global temperature reports measure the lower troposphere, which begins at the Earth's surface.

 

It was a graph showing steady temps over the past 6 months, during a strong La Nina event.

Why did you think it needed to be addressed? No one is arguing that La Nina events depress temperature.

 

Because it supports the OP thesis.
"The NCEP/GFS analysis shows May to be the coldest month globally so far this year and the coldest May since 2015 . . . ."

 

You, from the OP:

"Our planet’s temperature peaked in 2016 and has been in a disciplined decline since. It is in a channel 0.5°C wide with a slope of -0.03°C per annum. The atmosphere had been warming at 0.013°C per annum according to Dr Roy Spencer’s work. If the established cooling trend continues it will only take another decade to get back to the temperatures of the early 1980s. With the cooling trend firmly established,"

You were claiming a long-term cooling trend existed. The evidence does not support that claim.

 

No, because unlike climate realists, flat-earthers don't seem to be getting censored or deplatformed, because there's no discernible political implication in their views.

There is nothing rational about claiming that use of fossil fuels will lead to the extinction of humanity, or even to significant areas of the earth becoming uninhabitable. It's nothing but absurd hysteria with no basis in fact. The rational side never shrieks that people have to either radically change their behavior and sacrifice their standard of living or perish in oven-like heat.

No, that's just another bald falsehood from you. Your side's political agenda is clearly to use the imaginary climate "crisis" as an excuse to seize political control of energy and thus the economy. That is why you ignore, dismiss, and falsify empirical data that contradict your false and absurd beliefs.

No, the data already conclusively contradicts your theory, which is why you change the data if you can; and if you can't, you suppress or censor it.

No, you simply made that up, and I doubt very much that you can accurately characterize my politics.

No, the actual data continue to prove me right and you wrong.

No, you simply made that up, like most of what you say. It is only necessary to fake a small amount of data, and then insist that only the faked data can count.

<yawn> How will you apologize when it is indisputably proved that political initiatives based on your false and absurd beliefs have killed millions of innocent people? It is going to happen. Count on it.

 

So you agree that you were just makin' $#!+ up when you claimed UAH is a model of surface temperature. Check.

I agree that all scientists should publish full descriptions of what they have done to get their results (which AGW screamers infamously refuse to do), but that's partly a function of absurd IP laws.

It's a "model" of how lower troposphere temperature and various other factors affect their satellite measure of atmospheric microwave emissions, and not, contrary to your claim, a model of surface temperature.

My own eyes tell me that claims of some kind of climate overheating "crisis" or "emergency" are bald lies. Where I live, this spring was the coolest and latest on record.

Problem is, there are a lot of problems with using those devices to measure the earth's average surface temperature over a long period of time, including the paucity, unreliability, or outright non-existence of early data, instrument siting, land use changes and other influences by human activity, geographic distribution of measurements, inconsistent and changing methodologies, etc.

I do. The idea is that UAH's "lower troposphere" is as low as you can go and still use that methodology. But IMO it would be better to exclude the upper range of UAH's lower troposphere because it includes altitudes above the point where water vapor all condenses out, and CO2 can consequently have a significant effect on IR absorption and temperature, which it can't at the surface because there is so much water vapor.

No, it's what AGW screamers do. Mann's hockey stick graph is a classic case.

 

Not looking good.

In some regions of the west can have massive fires because it was a wet winter and spring that turns naturally dry in the hot summer creating a fast tinderbox as Eastern Washington is facing this year.

 

The 'scientists' attribute all this to "La Niña" climate-phenomenon... but, has this thing been going on since the year 2000...?! That's more-or-less when our horrible drought in Colorado began, and it has not ended yet....

 

Climate alarmists' practice of exploiting weather for propaganda purposes has backed them into a corner.

CONTRADICTIONS
An Awful Chilly Global Warming in the Southern Hemisphere

 

Part of the region has been getting a lot of flooding lately:

New Mexico Megadrought Update
Posted on June 27, 2022 by tonyheller

“Severe flooding in southeast New Mexico has caused multiple homes in Roswell to be lost.”


LINK

 

More evidence of cooling.
‘A Significant And Robust Cooling Trend’ In The Southern Ocean From 1982–2020 Defies Climate Models
By Kenneth Richard on 27. June 2022

Share this...
A new study reports there has been a -0.3°C cooling in the Southern Ocean since 1982 per multiple observational data sets. The authors detail the “failure of CMIP5 models in simulating the observed SST cooling in the Southern Ocean.”

The Southern Ocean is today about 1-2°C colder than it has been for nearly all of the last 10,000 years (Shuttleworth et al., 2021, Civel-Mazens et al., 2021, Ghadi et al., 2020).

Image Source: Shuttleworth et al., 2021
. . . .

 

No matter what the voices told you, this isn't a debate. UAH Is a model. All satellite temperature models are. From wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro...ements#Comparison_of_data_with_climate_models

"TMT and TLT represent the altitude range computed lower troposphere temperature calculated using an atmospheric model as discussed below."

So it's a model, but it's not a model. Do you even listen to yourself?

So you can't distinguish weather from climate, and you expect to be taken seriously. Good luck with that.

All solved problems, which you'd know if you read any science. You're just displaying your ignorance.

So you agree it's not a representation surface temperature.

The next logical step would be to say that something which isn't surface temperature shouldn't be used as a representation of surface temperature. Being that the surface is where hte people live, surface temp is the most important thing to look at.

 

The lower troposphere begins at the surface.

 

Except it doesn't. Your graphs certainly showed nothing of the sort. So why did you post them?

 

The forum limits the length of quotes. You have to read further in the post to get that graph. Here it is.
A new study (Xu et al., 2022) suggests the Southern Ocean (50°S–70°S) has continued to cool for the last 40 years, with amplitudes ranging from -0.1°C to -0.3°C per decade in some regions.

Climate models are unable to simulate this cooling, as they are famously incapable of accurately depicting the role of cloud forcing in modulating sea surface temperature trends.

“SST in the Southern Ocean is considered as an important indicator of climate change. This study shows that the Southern Ocean (50°S–70°S) sea surface temperature has a significant and robust cooling trend during 1982–2020”



Image Source: Xu et al., 2022

 

So have your years of delusional hysterical screaming made any progress at all with the normal people who aren't part of your death-cult?

No? Not a bit?

And yet you keep it up. I'm guessing that retreating to the familiar is a source of emotional comfort that you can't do without.

By the way, we're very proud of saving the many millions that your death-cult would have butchered by way of your crank pseudoscience. And I understand how angry you are that we didn't allow you to build up your body count to an even bigger number.

 

Forget length, you just flipped to a completely different paper.

And that paper just talks about a part of the Southern Ocean. Looking at the whole thing ...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20781-1
---
Three regions stand out as having strong trends that dominate over interannual variability: warming of the subantarctic waters (0.29 ± 0.09 °C per decade); cooling of the near-surface subpolar waters (−0.07 ± 0.04 °C per decade); and warming of the subsurface subpolar deep waters (0.04 ± 0.01 °C per decade).
---
---
The Southern Ocean alone has stored 35–43% of the global upper 2000 m ocean heat gain from 1970 to 2017, and an even greater proportion in recent years, with an estimate of 45–62% from 2005 to 2017
---

 

It is one of the several papers discussed in the linked post, which you would have known had you bothered to read before posting. It was there from the start; your confusion resulted from your incomplete reading.

 

You are aware of the fact that it is your death cult that has engaged in years -- decades -- of delusional hysterical screaming, with your false, absurd, and disgraceful scaremongering about millions of climate refugees, inundated islands, vanishing cities, the end of civilization, the earth becoming uninhabitable, blah, blah, blah, none of which show any sign of actually occurring. You are also aware of the fact that climate realists such as Jack, Tommy and I have consistently offered measured, rational, and scientifically well-founded analysis that shows people in advanced countries have no cause to be afraid of continuing their abundant way of life using fossil fuels.

How will you apologize when it is proved that your delusional, hysterical screaming has caused governments to pursue idiotic and anti-human policies that have killed millions of innocent people? It is already happening: the energy shortage caused by prohibition of fossil fuel production is already pricing millions of people out of fuel they desperately need to produce food, heat their homes, and sustain their economies.

How will you apologize?

"Would have"??? That's simply some more delusional nonsense you have made up. There is no credible empirical evidence whatever that your delusional shrieking has saved or will save anyone, or that human CO2 emissions could kill anyone.

So far, use of fossil fuels has saved hundreds of millions from death by starvation, a fact that you cannot dispute. Your delusional, hysterical screaming is pushing the world towards a path whereon those hundreds of millions will perish of starvation.

HOW WILL YOU APOLOGIZE???

 

So have you made any converts with your crank pseudoscience? Have you overturned any mainstream science with your cult woo? Have you gotten any normal people to stop laughing at you?

No?

I would say "sucks to be you", but then, you're actually actually happy with the current state of affairs. Your goal is to get the emotional affirmation that you crave, and the rest of the cult gives you that whenever you spin your hilarious tales of oppression.

 

I suppose, when one has lost the argument, it may seem expedient to stoop to personal attacks.

 

I have helped some people to realize that the crank pseudoscience is the claim that CO2 governs global temperature.

Mainstream science agrees with me. Your anti-fossil-fuel hysteria is the cult woo.

I haven't noticed anyone laughing at me, including you. You are too busy denying.

Wrong again.

I'm never happy when lies prevail over truth.

smh

 

Right: debate would require a forthright exchange of views, and that's not something you appear to be capable of.

Right: it's a model in the sense that almost any scientific measure requires a "model" of how the phenomenon in question affects the instrument. But that is why it is disingenuous and misleading for you to dismiss UAH as a model in the context of a science where measurement using a "model" has an entirely different implication. A lot of temperature data these days are literally modeled -- i.e., estimated based on atmospheric models -- rather than being actual instrument readings. Totally different kind of modeling.

It is a model, but not in the relevant sense. Kate Upton is a model, too -- and even a hot one. That doesn't mean she is relevant to climate science.

No, weather is what you can see yourself by looking out your window, and climate is weather over an extended period of time. When weather is unusually cool for months at a stretch, that adds up to more than just weather. Where I live, not only was this spring the coolest and latest on record, the winters of 2017, 2018 and 2019 were all colder than any since the 19th century, and 2019 the coldest ever recorded. That adds up to more than just weather.

No, that is false. All are known to be refractory. The "solutions" claimed by AGW screamers merely consist of making whatever assumptions result in lower temperatures in the past and higher ones now.

No credible scientist claims those are solved problems.

You're just displaying your ignorance.

Correct.

And it isn't.

It is important to look at various kinds of data and try to discern how they are related. People don't live on arctic sea ice, but the fact that it has not disappeared as AGW theory predicted, and won't in the future, is still significant for understanding climate (i.e., why AGW theory has been falsified as a description of climate).