Are we undergoing global cooling?

...we're going through a NATURAL cooling period and a MAN MADE warming period.
--as proven by what, the fact that temps are falling but not by as much and they 'would have if'? Given the controversy over what is, showing hard measurements of that 'would have" part will be virtually impossible.

Notice how they stay away from the failed IPCC per decade warming rate prediction/projection?

Snicker........
 
...we're going through a NATURAL cooling period and a MAN MADE warming period.
--as proven by what, the fact that temps are falling but not by as much and they 'would have if'? Given the controversy over what is, showing hard measurements of that 'would have" part will be virtually impossible.

Notice how they stay away from the failed IPCC per decade warming rate prediction/projection?

Snicker........

What's a prediction?

Imagine I make a prediction and say there's going to be a global increase of 2 degrees over three decades.

Then natural global cooling drops the temperature by 1 degree, and we see a 1 degree rise over three decades.

Is my prediction wrong? Yes and no.

Yes because I didn't take into account something like the change in the sun.

No, because what I predicted actually happened. The Earth is still 2 degrees warmer than it should have been.
 
...we're going through a NATURAL cooling period and a MAN MADE warming period.
--as proven by what, the fact that temps are falling but not by as much and they 'would have if'? Given the controversy over what is, showing hard measurements of that 'would have" part will be virtually impossible.

Notice how they stay away from the failed IPCC per decade warming rate prediction/projection?

Snicker........

What's a prediction?

Imagine I make a prediction and say there's going to be a global increase of 2 degrees over three decades.

Then natural global cooling drops the temperature by 1 degree, and we see a 1 degree rise over three decades.

Is my prediction wrong? Yes and no.

Yes because I didn't take into account something like the change in the sun.

No, because what I predicted actually happened. The Earth is still 2 degrees warmer than it should have been.

It appears that you didn't know that the IPCC in 1990 made a PREDICTION based on emission scenarios running through the unverifiable AGW conjecture, the Predicted that it would warm on the average of .30C per decade.

Satellite data shows half that rate which is a huge failure. This means their AGW conjecture is a failure since their predictive ability failed. But it is even worse when other predictive failures showed up as well, thus another failure of the AGW conjecture.

You comment makes no sense at all since you avoided the predictive part based on the AGW conjecture. Rationalizing the failure will not impress me either.
 
...we're going through a NATURAL cooling period and a MAN MADE warming period.
--as proven by what, the fact that temps are falling but not by as much and they 'would have if'? Given the controversy over what is, showing hard measurements of that 'would have" part will be virtually impossible.

Notice how they stay away from the failed IPCC per decade warming rate prediction/projection?

Snicker........

What's a prediction?

Imagine I make a prediction and say there's going to be a global increase of 2 degrees over three decades.

Then natural global cooling drops the temperature by 1 degree, and we see a 1 degree rise over three decades.

Is my prediction wrong? Yes and no.

Yes because I didn't take into account something like the change in the sun.

No, because what I predicted actually happened. The Earth is still 2 degrees warmer than it should have been.

It appears that you didn't know that the IPCC in 1990 made a PREDICTION based on emission scenarios running through the unverifiable AGW conjecture, the Predicted that it would warm on the average of .30C per decade.

Satellite data shows half that rate which is a huge failure. This means their AGW conjecture is a failure since their predictive ability failed. But it is even worse when other predictive failures showed up as well, thus another failure of the AGW conjecture.

You comment makes no sense at all since you avoided the predictive part based on the AGW conjecture. Rationalizing the failure will not impress me either.


Makes no sense because you don't want it to make any sense.
 
...we're going through a NATURAL cooling period and a MAN MADE warming period.
--as proven by what, the fact that temps are falling but not by as much and they 'would have if'? Given the controversy over what is, showing hard measurements of that 'would have" part will be virtually impossible.

Notice how they stay away from the failed IPCC per decade warming rate prediction/projection?

Snicker........

What's a prediction?

Imagine I make a prediction and say there's going to be a global increase of 2 degrees over three decades.

Then natural global cooling drops the temperature by 1 degree, and we see a 1 degree rise over three decades.

Is my prediction wrong? Yes and no.

Yes because I didn't take into account something like the change in the sun.

No, because what I predicted actually happened. The Earth is still 2 degrees warmer than it should have been.

It appears that you didn't know that the IPCC in 1990 made a PREDICTION based on emission scenarios running through the unverifiable AGW conjecture, the Predicted that it would warm on the average of .30C per decade.

Satellite data shows half that rate which is a huge failure. This means their AGW conjecture is a failure since their predictive ability failed. But it is even worse when other predictive failures showed up as well, thus another failure of the AGW conjecture.

You comment makes no sense at all since you avoided the predictive part based on the AGW conjecture. Rationalizing the failure will not impress me either.


Makes no sense because you don't want it to make any sense.

Translation:

I will ignore the IPCC 1990 Prediction failure with their emission based scenarios.

I can see why you are trying very hard to ignore what the IPCC said in ALL their reports on the Per Decade warming rate, of which they are always at least 50% too high since it greatly hurts your alarmist views.
 
--as proven by what, the fact that temps are falling but not by as much and they 'would have if'? Given the controversy over what is, showing hard measurements of that 'would have" part will be virtually impossible.

Notice how they stay away from the failed IPCC per decade warming rate prediction/projection?

Snicker........

What's a prediction?

Imagine I make a prediction and say there's going to be a global increase of 2 degrees over three decades.

Then natural global cooling drops the temperature by 1 degree, and we see a 1 degree rise over three decades.

Is my prediction wrong? Yes and no.

Yes because I didn't take into account something like the change in the sun.

No, because what I predicted actually happened. The Earth is still 2 degrees warmer than it should have been.

It appears that you didn't know that the IPCC in 1990 made a PREDICTION based on emission scenarios running through the unverifiable AGW conjecture, the Predicted that it would warm on the average of .30C per decade.

Satellite data shows half that rate which is a huge failure. This means their AGW conjecture is a failure since their predictive ability failed. But it is even worse when other predictive failures showed up as well, thus another failure of the AGW conjecture.

You comment makes no sense at all since you avoided the predictive part based on the AGW conjecture. Rationalizing the failure will not impress me either.


Makes no sense because you don't want it to make any sense.

Translation:

I will ignore the IPCC 1990 Prediction failure with their emission based scenarios.

I can see why you are trying very hard to ignore what the IPCC said in ALL their reports on the Per Decade warming rate, of which they are always at least 50% too high since it greatly hurts your alarmist views.

You ignored everything I said.

Then complaining I'm ignoring something which has nothing to do with what I said.
 
...we're going through a NATURAL cooling period and a MAN MADE warming period.
--as proven by what, the fact that temps are falling but not by as much and they 'would have if'? Given the controversy over what is, showing hard measurements of that 'would have" part will be virtually impossible.

Notice how they stay away from the failed IPCC per decade warming rate prediction/projection?

Snicker........

What's a prediction?

Imagine I make a prediction and say there's going to be a global increase of 2 degrees over three decades.

Then natural global cooling drops the temperature by 1 degree, and we see a 1 degree rise over three decades.

Is my prediction wrong? Yes and no.

Yes because I didn't take into account something like the change in the sun.

No, because what I predicted actually happened. The Earth is still 2 degrees warmer than it should have been.

It appears that you didn't know that the IPCC in 1990 made a PREDICTION based on emission scenarios running through the unverifiable AGW conjecture, the Predicted that it would warm on the average of .30C per decade.

Satellite data shows half that rate which is a huge failure. This means their AGW conjecture is a failure since their predictive ability failed. But it is even worse when other predictive failures showed up as well, thus another failure of the AGW conjecture.

You comment makes no sense at all since you avoided the predictive part based on the AGW conjecture. Rationalizing the failure will not impress me either.
ipcc_fig1-4_models_obs.png


Amazing... how many don't have a clue...
 
By Dale Leuck March 17, 2018

Data available in both text and csv formats at the NASA, GISS website have been routinely cited as indicative of global warming despite their known weaknesses. The three years 2015 through 2017 are widely reported as the three hottest years on record.

Tony Heller, however, has demonstrated that tampering with data from the U.S. Climatology Network (USHCN) has created the illusion of much higher temperatures in reported data than in the original data, for the continental United States. This leads one to wonder how much not so widely known "adjustments" in GISS data have been responsible for similar results at a global level.

The GISS data are updated around the middle of each month, and I have compared the January and March versions in figure 1, for the years 1881 through 2017. The data are smoothed over two years, in that, for example, the 1881 data point is the average of 1880 and 1881 and 2017 the average for 2016 and 2017. This is commonly done to make data more presentable, allowing movements to be more clearly discerned and to smooth out the effects of "abnormal" years...


...any data set from only 1880, and inadequately covering the earth's surface area, does not provide a definitive answer to the question of "global warming" in terms of geological time of thousands of years, and representing the entirety of the Earth. But, as it has been the data set often referenced to substantiate global warming, one would have thought the substantially lower temperatures of the last many months would have merited highlighting in the mainstream media.​

Read more: Are we undergoing global cooling?

The data definitely show global cooling in a form I did see mentioned in the article. Instead of seeing new annual temperatures reaching new lows what we really have are past recorded temperatures plummeting year after year [from the article:

204926_5_.png


This has been also happening for temperatures farther back in history which also have been falling at an ever increasing rate:

Ministry Of Truth – Erasing The Medieval Warm Period. | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

Potentially we're going through a NATURAL cooling period and a MAN MADE warming period.

Got any actual observed, measured evidence that supports the claim of man made warming rather than natural variability? Any at all?

And now you tell us that it is warming and cooling at the same time? Typical of those who believe in the unfalsifiable hypothesis.
 
...we're going through a NATURAL cooling period and a MAN MADE warming period.
--as proven by what, the fact that temps are falling but not by as much and they 'would have if'? Given the controversy over what is, showing hard measurements of that 'would have" part will be virtually impossible.

The first word I wrote was "Potentially" and you then quote everything I wrote except "Potentially". That's being very dishonest there already.

If I write "Potentially", it means that I don't have PROOF. Evidence is there, but proof is something else.

Got any observed measured evidence upon which you can even say "potentially" with any degree of credulity?
 
...we're going through a NATURAL cooling period and a MAN MADE warming period.
--as proven by what, the fact that temps are falling but not by as much and they 'would have if'? Given the controversy over what is, showing hard measurements of that 'would have" part will be virtually impossible.

Notice how they stay away from the failed IPCC per decade warming rate prediction/projection?

Snicker........

What's a prediction?

Imagine I make a prediction and say there's going to be a global increase of 2 degrees over three decades.

Then natural global cooling drops the temperature by 1 degree, and we see a 1 degree rise over three decades.

Is my prediction wrong? Yes and no.

Yes because I didn't take into account something like the change in the sun.

No, because what I predicted actually happened. The Earth is still 2 degrees warmer than it should have been.
/——/ “warmer than it should have been?” Why don’t you Warmers ever say what the optimum global temperature is supposed to be? How can you slice and dice it to such an exact degree based on the wide fluctuations across the world from the artic to the desert?
 
Had you simply asked me for the evidence, rather than the proof, and had you not been dishonest about your quoting,

What a f'ing crybaby. How many times have I asked you for even a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. I never asked for proof...hell, I never even asked for overwhelming evidence to support your position...all I ever asked for was a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports AGW over natural variability..and you never delivered....and why didn't you? Because no such evidence exists.

You guys are the most pathetic bunch of losers in the history of science.
 
I have seen global climate change. We in the west have dryer warmer climates, droughts you in the west get 4 in a row nor'esters and huge storms. Mean while, we in the west, we get dry heat and nought in terms of precipitation, dry as a bone.It was never like this before. This isn't normal either way. You have to agree, either way, something is wrong here...

You are talking, of course, about your lifetime...or perhaps a short period of your lifetime. And the fact that you can say that it was "never" like this before" and that it "isn't normal" makes it clear that you have never bothered to look at the long term climate history of the west where much more severe droughts than anything we have ever seen went on for hundreds of years were the norm.

What is wrong is wackjobs trying to make blanket statements and gain political power based on half an eye blink of historical time that mankind is altering the global climate when in fact, there is nothing happening in the global climate today that even begins to approach the limits of natural variability. Ice cores have shown us temperature swings far greater than anything we have experienced in shorter periods of time...the geological record has shown us even wilder swings than those seen in ice cores. There is nothing wrong in the climate..it has always been a chaotic system subject to wild and wooly swings over long, and short periods of time.

The only thing wrong is that chicken littles have gained enough political power to cause economic harm to everyone with their incessant cries that the sky is falling.
 
I have seen global climate change. We in the west have dryer warmer climates, droughts you in the west get 4 in a row nor'esters and huge storms. Mean while, we in the west, we get dry heat and nought in terms of precipitation, dry as a bone.It was never like this before. This isn't normal either way. You have to agree, either way, something is wrong here...
Five feet of snow in the Sierras and cool weather as far south as San Diego. Unless you are a victim of propaganda or were born yesterday the climate of the U.S. is just as quirky as it was in the 20th, 19th and 18th century.
You hit the nail on the head, with that "Quirky" remark. It gives the deniers a lot of wiggle room. But, "quirky" flippantly doesn't address overall long term effect climate change human beings are creating, it just makes these extreme variables in weather seem to fit into normal parameters.Don't accept "quirky" as an excuse.

Can you show me anything that is happening in the global climate today that is outside of the bounds of natural variability? Anything that would indicate that what is happening now is different from the long climate history of the earth? Anything at all?

Just tick them off one at a time and we will examine them to see if they are something new, or just business as usual on good old planet earth.
 
...we're going through a NATURAL cooling period and a MAN MADE warming period.
--as proven by what, the fact that temps are falling but not by as much and they 'would have if'? Given the controversy over what is, showing hard measurements of that 'would have" part will be virtually impossible.

Notice how they stay away from the failed IPCC per decade warming rate prediction/projection?

Snicker........

What's a prediction?

Imagine I make a prediction and say there's going to be a global increase of 2 degrees over three decades.

Then natural global cooling drops the temperature by 1 degree, and we see a 1 degree rise over three decades.

Is my prediction wrong? Yes and no.

Yes because I didn't take into account something like the change in the sun.

No, because what I predicted actually happened. The Earth is still 2 degrees warmer than it should have been.
/——/ “warmer than it should have been?” Why don’t you Warmers ever say what the optimum global temperature is supposed to be? How can you slice and dice it to such an exact degree based on the wide fluctuations across the world from the artic to the desert?

They don't seem to be able to see how ridiculous they sound going on about a half a degree when on any given day the temperature range from the daily high to the daily low is more than 200 degrees.
 
...we're going through a NATURAL cooling period and a MAN MADE warming period.
--as proven by what, the fact that temps are falling but not by as much and they 'would have if'? Given the controversy over what is, showing hard measurements of that 'would have" part will be virtually impossible.

Notice how they stay away from the failed IPCC per decade warming rate prediction/projection?

Snicker........

What's a prediction?

Imagine I make a prediction and say there's going to be a global increase of 2 degrees over three decades.

Then natural global cooling drops the temperature by 1 degree, and we see a 1 degree rise over three decades.

Is my prediction wrong? Yes and no.

Yes because I didn't take into account something like the change in the sun.

No, because what I predicted actually happened. The Earth is still 2 degrees warmer than it should have been.
/——/ “warmer than it should have been?” Why don’t you Warmers ever say what the optimum global temperature is supposed to be? How can you slice and dice it to such an exact degree based on the wide fluctuations across the world from the artic to the desert?

They don't seem to be able to see how ridiculous they sound going on about a half a degree when on any given day the temperature range from the daily high to the daily low is more than 200 degrees.
/——/ The only argument more frustrating is Chem Trails. Those whack jobs post photoshopped images of the sky and claim the long white streaks is the CIA spraying mind control drugs on us.
 
...we're going through a NATURAL cooling period and a MAN MADE warming period.
--as proven by what, the fact that temps are falling but not by as much and they 'would have if'? Given the controversy over what is, showing hard measurements of that 'would have" part will be virtually impossible.

Notice how they stay away from the failed IPCC per decade warming rate prediction/projection?

Snicker........

What's a prediction?

Imagine I make a prediction and say there's going to be a global increase of 2 degrees over three decades.

Then natural global cooling drops the temperature by 1 degree, and we see a 1 degree rise over three decades.

Is my prediction wrong? Yes and no.

Yes because I didn't take into account something like the change in the sun.

No, because what I predicted actually happened. The Earth is still 2 degrees warmer than it should have been.

It appears that you didn't know that the IPCC in 1990 made a PREDICTION based on emission scenarios running through the unverifiable AGW conjecture, the Predicted that it would warm on the average of .30C per decade.

Satellite data shows half that rate which is a huge failure. This means their AGW conjecture is a failure since their predictive ability failed. But it is even worse when other predictive failures showed up as well, thus another failure of the AGW conjecture.

You comment makes no sense at all since you avoided the predictive part based on the AGW conjecture. Rationalizing the failure will not impress me either.


Makes no sense because you don't want it to make any sense.

You are still ducking what the IPCC predicted in 1990 that ended in epic fail.

Cheers.
 
--as proven by what, the fact that temps are falling but not by as much and they 'would have if'? Given the controversy over what is, showing hard measurements of that 'would have" part will be virtually impossible.

Notice how they stay away from the failed IPCC per decade warming rate prediction/projection?

Snicker........

What's a prediction?

Imagine I make a prediction and say there's going to be a global increase of 2 degrees over three decades.

Then natural global cooling drops the temperature by 1 degree, and we see a 1 degree rise over three decades.

Is my prediction wrong? Yes and no.

Yes because I didn't take into account something like the change in the sun.

No, because what I predicted actually happened. The Earth is still 2 degrees warmer than it should have been.

It appears that you didn't know that the IPCC in 1990 made a PREDICTION based on emission scenarios running through the unverifiable AGW conjecture, the Predicted that it would warm on the average of .30C per decade.

Satellite data shows half that rate which is a huge failure. This means their AGW conjecture is a failure since their predictive ability failed. But it is even worse when other predictive failures showed up as well, thus another failure of the AGW conjecture.

You comment makes no sense at all since you avoided the predictive part based on the AGW conjecture. Rationalizing the failure will not impress me either.


Makes no sense because you don't want it to make any sense.

You are still ducking what the IPCC predicted in 1990 that ended in epic fail.

Cheers.

I'm also ducking who won the Superbowl in 1792..........

Not that either have anything to do with what I said.

But nice tactic, I've seen it being used quite a few times. Keep harping on about something irrelevant and pretending that the other person is ducking.

But really, it's bores me what you're doing.
 
Notice how they stay away from the failed IPCC per decade warming rate prediction/projection?

Snicker........

What's a prediction?

Imagine I make a prediction and say there's going to be a global increase of 2 degrees over three decades.

Then natural global cooling drops the temperature by 1 degree, and we see a 1 degree rise over three decades.

Is my prediction wrong? Yes and no.

Yes because I didn't take into account something like the change in the sun.

No, because what I predicted actually happened. The Earth is still 2 degrees warmer than it should have been.

It appears that you didn't know that the IPCC in 1990 made a PREDICTION based on emission scenarios running through the unverifiable AGW conjecture, the Predicted that it would warm on the average of .30C per decade.

Satellite data shows half that rate which is a huge failure. This means their AGW conjecture is a failure since their predictive ability failed. But it is even worse when other predictive failures showed up as well, thus another failure of the AGW conjecture.

You comment makes no sense at all since you avoided the predictive part based on the AGW conjecture. Rationalizing the failure will not impress me either.

You still haven't been on topic yet, I at least bring up the IPCC and their prediction failures, you bring up empty babble with zero science, zero counterpoints to my attack on the IPCC temperature prediction troubles.

Waiting.... waiting for you to honestly make a debate on it, dropping your cowardly deflections you keep using.

Still waiting................................ Zzzz.............................
Makes no sense because you don't want it to make any sense.

You are still ducking what the IPCC predicted in 1990 that ended in epic fail.

Cheers.

I'm also ducking who won the Superbowl in 1792..........

Not that either have anything to do with what I said.

But nice tactic, I've seen it being used quite a few times. Keep harping on about something irrelevant and pretending that the other person is ducking.

But really, it's bores me what you're doing.
 
... it's bores me what you're doing.
This is very good news because it's a meeting of the minds, that we're all getting bored w/ this silly climate change discourse. Let's also forget any talk about climate change taxes--- now let's all get back to work.
 
... it's bores me what you're doing.
This is very good news because it's a meeting of the minds, that we're all getting bored w/ this silly climate change discourse. Let's also forget any talk about climate change taxes--- now let's all get back to work.

I didn't say that, he did who keeps avoiding the topic and the failures of the IPCC prediction on temperature trends into the future.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top