Satellites earth is nearly in its 21st-year without global warming

[SassyIrishLass]

Sort of hard to claim there is global warming when there is no warming. Pesky facts

 

[kaz]

Finally some good news to report, and yes GW is political.


After September of this year, the Earth will be entering its 21st year without statistically significant warming trend, according to satellite-derived temperature data.

Since September 1994, University of Alabama in Huntsville’s satellite temperature data has shown no statistically significant global warming trend. For over 20 years there’s been no warming trend apparent in the satellite records and will soon be entering into year 21 with no warming trend apparent in satellite data — which examines the lowest few miles of the Earth’s atmosphere.



Read more: The Earth Has Entered Its 21st Year Without Global Warming The Daily Caller

No global warming for 21 years? That just proves global warming. Hot, cold, rainy, dry, it all proves global warming. I had a continental breakfast in Europe this morning, proves global warming....

Thanks to you as well! It's thoughtful comments like this that have brought me around to your side on this. Fuck science....and double fuck scientists.

That would be a great argument if science was on your side...

You are not paying attention. I am with you on this. Global warming.....climate change....whatever....is a HOAX. It is all manufactured bullshit. Absolutely.

Now what?

No, you're still not with me. Science is inconclusive. We need more information. My mind is open, you just want to figure out how you can use global warming politically, we are entirely different animals

 

[amrchaos]

I did a little research on UCAR

It is a research consortium of some pretty big time research colleges and universities.

The troubling thing about this is that this consortium is claiming Climate Change/Global warming is real. You need more than a set of data to understand how they come to that conclusion.

 

[kaz]

I did a little research on UCAR

It is a research consortium of some pretty big time research colleges and universities.

The troubling thing about this is that this consortium is claiming Climate Change/Global warming is real. You need more than a set of data to understand how they come to that conclusion.

"global warming" is not a binary thing. the next question is whether it is caused by man. And after that, the long term impact and the responses by the earth are completely unknown.

What they do to compensate for that is to keep saying it's real and keep changing their answers to everything else never having to deal with that every time they make a prediction they are wrong.

In science, to start to have validity to a theory you have to start being able to predict what will happen, not just explain what happened. And science can't do that with "global warming" at all so far

 

[mamooth]

Except for deniers, nobody changes any arguments. Deniers, they have a different argument every day. First they say it's not warming, and when the warming is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, they all switch to saying the warming is natural.

In contrast, the scientists have been very consistent for decades, and very correct with their predictions for decades. That's why the science has such credibility, because it keeps making predictions that comes true. Real science has to deliver, and climate science passes that test with flying colors. Only in the fabricated fables of the denier cultists has the science been inconsistent, and lies like that are the second biggest reason why nobody gives the time of day to deniers any more.

The first biggest reason every laughs at deniers, of course, is that their science sucks so mightily. I can't really say deniers have a track record of failing in their predictions, because they don't even have the guts to make any predictions. The few predictions deniers make, like all their predictions of cooling they've been making for years, those have failed mightily.

To prove denialism is pseudoscience, just ask deniers a simple question. What data could falsify denialism? I've asked over and over, and no deniers answer. In contrast, we've posted lists of the directly measurable things that would falsify global warming theory. Real science like AGW theory is falsifiable, denialism is not.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Except for deniers, nobody changes any arguments. Deniers, they have a different argument every day. First they say it's not warming, and when the warming is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, they all switch to saying the warming is natural.

In contrast, the scientists have been very consistent for decades, and very correct with their predictions for decades. That's why the science has such credibility, because it keeps making predictions that comes true. Real science has to deliver, and climate science passes that test with flying colors. Only in the fabricated fables of the denier cultists has the science been inconsistent, and lies like that are the second biggest reason why nobody gives the time of day to deniers any more.

The first biggest reason every laughs at deniers, of course, is that their science sucks so mightily. I can't really say deniers have a track record of failing in their predictions, because they don't even have the guts to make any predictions. The few predictions deniers make, like all their predictions of cooling they've been making for years, those have failed mightily.

To prove denialism is pseudoscience, just ask deniers a simple question. What data could falsify denialism? I've asked over and over, and no deniers answer. In contrast, we've posted lists of the directly measurable things that would falsify global warming theory. Real science like AGW theory is falsifiable, denialism is not.

Nope. Again you are wrong. The climate models from a decade ago claimed the Earth would be much warmer now in 2015 than it actually is. The climate scientist were wrong....very wrong.

When pressed, climate scientist have no explanation as to why their predictions were so off.

And there is no such thing as "settled science." The best science comes up with is a theory. The variables associated with climate are virtually unlimited. Science has a poor understanding at best of all the variables that go into climate and an even poorer understanding of man's part in it.

Does the Earth appear to be warming? Yes. Although the predictions of temperature increase have been grossly exaggerated to this point at the climate models have mostly been terribly wrong.

 

[kaz]

Except for deniers, nobody changes any arguments. Deniers, they have a different argument every day. First they say it's not warming, and when the warming is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, they all switch to saying the warming is natural.

In contrast, the scientists have been very consistent for decades, and very correct with their predictions for decades. That's why the science has such credibility, because it keeps making predictions that comes true. Real science has to deliver, and climate science passes that test with flying colors. Only in the fabricated fables of the denier cultists has the science been inconsistent, and lies like that are the second biggest reason why nobody gives the time of day to deniers any more.

The first biggest reason every laughs at deniers, of course, is that their science sucks so mightily. I can't really say deniers have a track record of failing in their predictions, because they don't even have the guts to make any predictions. The few predictions deniers make, like all their predictions of cooling they've been making for years, those have failed mightily.

To prove denialism is pseudoscience, just ask deniers a simple question. What data could falsify denialism? I've asked over and over, and no deniers answer. In contrast, we've posted lists of the directly measurable things that would falsify global warming theory. Real science like AGW theory is falsifiable, denialism is not.

Nope. Again you are wrong. The climate models from a decade ago claimed the Earth would be much warmer now in 2015 than it actually is. The climate scientist were wrong....very wrong.

When pressed, climate scientist have no explanation as to why their predictions were so off.

And there is no such thing as "settled science." The best science comes up with is a theory. The variables associated with climate are virtually unlimited. Science has a poor understanding at best of all the variables that go into climate and an even poorer understanding of man's part in it.

Does the Earth appear to be warming? Yes. Although the predictions of temperature increase have been grossly exaggerated to this point at the climate models have mostly been terribly wrong.

In science without politics, scientific theories have little validity until they are able to predict future events, not just explain past events.

So far the global warming crowd is all the latter and zero of the former. Without politics, liberal scientists would laugh the global warming crowd out of the room

 

[mamooth]

Nope. Again you are wrong. The climate models from a decade ago claimed the Earth would be much warmer now in 2015 than it actually is. The climate scientist were wrong....very wrong.

I hate to break it to you, but you've been bamboozled by professional liars who faked and fudged their data.

And for god's sake, don't post Goddard's faked graph in response to that.

When pressed, climate scientist have no explanation as to why their predictions were so off.

Since they weren't off, that wouldn't need an explanation. Remember, scientists know what actually happened, and aren't foooled by the dishonest proclamations of various denier kook bloggers.

And there is no such thing as "settled science."

Sure there is. Gravity is settled science, hence we can launch rockets. It would be very foolish to claim we can't launch a rocket because the last detail about gravity isn't known. Gravity is settled _enough_. Just as climate science is settled _enough_ that we know humans are warming the climate. Not knowing every last detail doesn't mean we know nothing.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Except for deniers, nobody changes any arguments. Deniers, they have a different argument every day. First they say it's not warming, and when the warming is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, they all switch to saying the warming is natural.

In contrast, the scientists have been very consistent for decades, and very correct with their predictions for decades. That's why the science has such credibility, because it keeps making predictions that comes true. Real science has to deliver, and climate science passes that test with flying colors. Only in the fabricated fables of the denier cultists has the science been inconsistent, and lies like that are the second biggest reason why nobody gives the time of day to deniers any more.

The first biggest reason every laughs at deniers, of course, is that their science sucks so mightily. I can't really say deniers have a track record of failing in their predictions, because they don't even have the guts to make any predictions. The few predictions deniers make, like all their predictions of cooling they've been making for years, those have failed mightily.

To prove denialism is pseudoscience, just ask deniers a simple question. What data could falsify denialism? I've asked over and over, and no deniers answer. In contrast, we've posted lists of the directly measurable things that would falsify global warming theory. Real science like AGW theory is falsifiable, denialism is not.

Nope. Again you are wrong. The climate models from a decade ago claimed the Earth would be much warmer now in 2015 than it actually is. The climate scientist were wrong....very wrong.

When pressed, climate scientist have no explanation as to why their predictions were so off.

And there is no such thing as "settled science." The best science comes up with is a theory. The variables associated with climate are virtually unlimited. Science has a poor understanding at best of all the variables that go into climate and an even poorer understanding of man's part in it.

Does the Earth appear to be warming? Yes. Although the predictions of temperature increase have been grossly exaggerated to this point at the climate models have mostly been terribly wrong.

In science without politics, scientific theories have little validity until they are able to predict future events, not just explain past events.

So far the global warming crowd is all the latter and zero of the former. Without politics, liberal scientists would laugh the global warming crowd out of the room

Agree completely. The "settled science" (the term itself is a joke) on global warming has been woefully poor at predicting. The models have simply been wrong.

The first half of this decade temps in the U.S. have dropped 1/2 a degree F when the models claimed almost a full degree increase.

Real science openly acknowledges the screw up and puts forth theories why they were so wrong. The Global Warming cult generally says nothing and just looked highly biased and foolish.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Nope. Again you are wrong. The climate models from a decade ago claimed the Earth would be much warmer now in 2015 than it actually is. The climate scientist were wrong....very wrong.

I hate to break it to you, but you've been bamboozled by professional liars who faked and fudged their data.

And for god's sake, don't post Goddard's faked graph in response to that.

When pressed, climate scientist have no explanation as to why their predictions were so off.

Since they weren't off, that wouldn't need an explanation. Remember, scientists know what actually happened, and aren't foooled by the dishonest proclamations of various denier kook bloggers.

And there is no such thing as "settled science."

Sure there is. Gravity is settled science, hence we can launch rockets. It would be very foolish to claim we can't launch a rocket because the last detail about gravity isn't known. Gravity is settled _enough_. Just as climate science is settled _enough_ that we know humans are warming the climate. Not knowing every last detail doesn't mean we know nothing.

Do you read? Two different posters have provided data sets for you to look at. One was from NOAA (The Federal Government) and one set from from a University Group.

Are you saying NOAA is lying?


The U.S. has cooled .5 degrees in the first have of this decade per multiple reliable sources. Your ignorance in failing to look at the data is not an excuse. Virtually all climate scientist and their models were terribly wrong. Period.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Nope. Again you are wrong. The climate models from a decade ago claimed the Earth would be much warmer now in 2015 than it actually is. The climate scientist were wrong....very wrong.

I hate to break it to you, but you've been bamboozled by professional liars who faked and fudged their data.

And for god's sake, don't post Goddard's faked graph in response to that.

When pressed, climate scientist have no explanation as to why their predictions were so off.

Since they weren't off, that wouldn't need an explanation. Remember, scientists know what actually happened, and aren't foooled by the dishonest proclamations of various denier kook bloggers.

And there is no such thing as "settled science."

Sure there is. Gravity is settled science, hence we can launch rockets. It would be very foolish to claim we can't launch a rocket because the last detail about gravity isn't known. Gravity is settled _enough_. Just as climate science is settled _enough_ that we know humans are warming the climate. Not knowing every last detail doesn't mean we know nothing.

Everything you stated above is false and utterly ignorant. The theory of Gravity was largely usurped by General Relativity. You are a hopeless idiot.

I will ignore until some adults enter the conversation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Notice how when the RWnuts think they've found some scientific data that they like, all of the sudden scientific data gets rehabilitated as a valid argument?

 

[NYcarbineer]

 

[mamooth]

Everything you stated above is false and utterly ignorant. The theory of Gravity was largely usurped by General Relativity. You are a hopeless idiot.

I will ignore until some adults enter the conversation.

Awww. Poor baby is upset because his stupid "There's no settled science!" cult talking point got laughed at. And aside from those cult mantras, he's got nuthin'.

There is plenty of science settled enough. We don't know fully how viruses work, but we still make vaccines. Only a cult kook would think that not knowing every last detail means we know nothing and can't take any action.

Also, you need some help with basic math. The USA is less than 2% of the earth's surface. As the measurements have shown, the USA cooled a bit, the rest of the world warmed, so the global average went up. A second grader could grasp that, yet it seems beyond your capability. Given your lack of logical and mathematical ability, you really shouldn't be bothering the grownups, at least not until you learn how an average works.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Everything you stated above is false and utterly ignorant. The theory of Gravity was largely usurped by General Relativity. You are a hopeless idiot.

I will ignore until some adults enter the conversation.

Awww. Poor baby is upset because his stupid "There's no settled science!" cult talking point got laughed at. And aside from those cult mantras, he's got nuthin'.

There is plenty of science settled enough. We don't know fully how viruses work, but we still make vaccines. Only a cult kook would think that not knowing every last detail means we know nothing and can't take any action.

Also, you need some help with basic math. The USA is less than 2% of the earth's surface. As the measurements have shown, the USA cooled a bit, the rest of the world warmed, so the global average went up. A second grader could grasp that, yet it seems beyond your capability. Given your lack of logical and mathematical ability, you really shouldn't be bothering the grownups, at least not until you learn how an average works.

Yet the global warming cult predictions were wrong. Very, very wrong, and you can provide zero explanation.

Sad.

 

[cnm]

In science, to start to have validity to a theory you have to start being able to predict what will happen, not just explain what happened. And science can't do that with "global warming" at all so far

AGW was predicted, temperature increases have been observed. What more do you want?

 

[cnm]

Does the Earth appear to be warming? Yes. Although the predictions of temperature increase have been grossly exaggerated to this point at the climate models have mostly been terribly wrong.

Observed temperature increases are still within the lower range of predictions.

On comparing models and observations Climate Lab Book

 

[cnm]

The first half of this decade temps in the U.S. have dropped 1/2 a degree F when the models claimed almost a full degree increase.

Amazing. You really are taking local temperatures as mirroring global temperatures.

Well, I can see why you are able to flat earther deny.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Once the data is adjusted...viola! Warming!!

 

[kaz]

In science, to start to have validity to a theory you have to start being able to predict what will happen, not just explain what happened. And science can't do that with "global warming" at all so far

AGW was predicted, temperature increases have been observed. What more do you want?

Actually the warming estimates were so far off that they had to rename it "climate change." You're so behind the times that you're using a term for it that is already several years dated. Maybe you should get up to speed before you argue for something you're not following too closely.

Also, does observing lightning mean that

1) Lightning is man made
2) Lightning will continue to increase in frequency?