Satellite Data Shows No Global Warming For Nearly 19 Years.

[Weatherman2020]

Scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a study Thursday claiming there’s no hiatus in global warming. But new satellite-derived temperature measurements show there’s been no global warming for 18 years and six months.

Read more: Satellite Data Shows No Global Warming For Nearly 19 Years

Bad news. Most weather related deaths are due to cold, and the greatest growth in life on earth was during the warmest periods.

 

[edthecynic]

2015 Is Warmest Year On Record, NOAA and NASA Say

NOAA said the average temperature in 1997 was 62F, far and away the highest....until they "adjusted" the baseline and now claim that 58>62

You got your worthless lying scum ass kicked with that same lie in another thread, how stupid do you have to be to bring it up again???
YOU compared two different temperature sets that used two different baselines to lie that 1997 was warmer than 2015. You were shown that using the SAME baseline for BOTH years shows 2015 was the warmest year. In the thread below where I exposed your lie I used the 100 year baseline for both years, now I will show you that using the 30 year baseline for both years also shown 2015 was warmer than 1997. The Met Office still uses the 30 year baseline and it shows that 2015 was the warmest year using direct instrument measurement, much warmer than 1997.



NOAA Hottest Year on Record: 1997 62F

 

[SSDD]

2015 Is Warmest Year On Record, NOAA and NASA Say

NOAA said the average temperature in 1997 was 62F, far and away the highest....until they "adjusted" the baseline and now claim that 58>62

You got your worthless lying scum ass kicked with that same lie in another thread, how stupid do you have to be to bring it up again???
YOU compared two different temperature sets that used two different baselines to lie that 1997 was warmer than 2015. You were shown that using the SAME baseline for BOTH years shows 2015 was the warmest year. In the thread below where I exposed your lie I used the 100 year baseline for both years, now I will show you that using the 30 year baseline for both years also shown 2015 was warmer than 1997. The Met Office still uses the 30 year baseline and it shows that 2015 was the warmest year using direct instrument measurement, much warmer than 1997.



NOAA Hottest Year on Record: 1997 62F

So you try to prove your point with the very data that they got caught cooking...funny.

 

[SSDD]

Now show proof of improper adjustment.

Can you describe a "proper" reason to adjust temperature data from 40, 50, 60, even more than 100 years ago?...They have altered the data, but certainly haven't given any rational reason for altering data from that far back...if the people can't show any rational, scientifically valid reason for doing it, then by definition it is improper adjustment.

 

[SSDD]

You altered the baseline to make 2010 the hottest evah!! Remember when you tried to convince us that 58 > 63?

Now it's altered baseline PLUS new data set

Wtf are you taking about? I didn't alter anything , nor did I ever say that 58 > 63 (that would be ******* crazy)

Skipping meds again?

2015 Is Warmest Year On Record, NOAA and NASA Say

NOAA said the average temperature in 1997 was 62F, far and away the highest....until they "adjusted" the baseline and now claim that 58>62

Thank you for the correction of your previous statement about me.

Now show proof of improper adjustment.

Dude, I didn't correct anything about you because nothing was directed at you, you decided to take the comment personally; your problem, not mine

In any event, we're thermometers inaccurate in 1997?

Here is from 1999 article:

The global mean temperature in 1998 was 1.20 °F (0.66°C) above the long-term average value of 56.9°F (13.8°C)

1998 Warmest Year on Record, NOAA Announces

Here is one from 2017

The average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2016 was 0.94°C (1.69°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), surpassing the previous record warmth of 2015 by 0.04°C (0.07°F).

Global Analysis - Annual 2016 | State of the Climate | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)


STFU?

You neglect to mention that the baseline was changed during the interim...1998 was warmer and even 1998 wasn't as warm as it was in the latter 1930's.

 

[AntonToo]

Now show proof of improper adjustment.

Can you describe a "proper" reason to adjust temperature data from 40, 50, 60, even more than 100 years ago?...They have altered the data, but certainly haven't given any rational reason for altering data from that far back...if the people can't show any rational, scientifically valid reason for doing it, then by definition it is improper adjustment.

I honestly don't know what ******* alterations you guys are talking about.

In 1999 article avg. tempreture for 1998 year was reported as 58.10 F
in 2017 article avg. tempreture for 2016 year was reported as 58.69 F

58.69 F > 58.10 F

Can you point to any "adjustment"???

 

[AntonToo]

Wtf are you taking about? I didn't alter anything , nor did I ever say that 58 > 63 (that would be ******* crazy)

Skipping meds again?

2015 Is Warmest Year On Record, NOAA and NASA Say

NOAA said the average temperature in 1997 was 62F, far and away the highest....until they "adjusted" the baseline and now claim that 58>62

Thank you for the correction of your previous statement about me.

Now show proof of improper adjustment.

Dude, I didn't correct anything about you because nothing was directed at you, you decided to take the comment personally; your problem, not mine

In any event, we're thermometers inaccurate in 1997?

Here is from 1999 article:

The global mean temperature in 1998 was 1.20 °F (0.66°C) above the long-term average value of 56.9°F (13.8°C)

1998 Warmest Year on Record, NOAA Announces

Here is one from 2017

The average global temperature across land and ocean surface areas for 2016 was 0.94°C (1.69°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), surpassing the previous record warmth of 2015 by 0.04°C (0.07°F).

Global Analysis - Annual 2016 | State of the Climate | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)


STFU?

You neglect to mention that the baseline was changed during the interim...1998 was warmer and even 1998 wasn't as warm as it was in the latter 1930's.

YOU NEGLECT PROOF.

Do you not understand that you simply saying that the sky is down does not make it so?

 

[SSDD]

Now show proof of improper adjustment.

Can you describe a "proper" reason to adjust temperature data from 40, 50, 60, even more than 100 years ago?...They have altered the data, but certainly haven't given any rational reason for altering data from that far back...if the people can't show any rational, scientifically valid reason for doing it, then by definition it is improper adjustment.

I honestly don't know what ******* alterations you guys are talking about.

In 1999 article avg. tempreture for 1998 year was reported as 58.10 F
in 2017 article avg. tempreture for 2016 year was reported as 58.69 F

58.69 F > 58.10 F

Can you point to any "adjustment"???

Of course not, and yet, you seem to be ready to duel to the death in defense of the current figures...you simply accept and it apparently never occurred to you to verify...and it isn't as if this were some secret data... First, by cooling the past, they can make the present appear warmer and claim more warming..then by manipulating the data of the present, to appear warmer, they increase the appearance of warming...when in fact, there is very little, if any actual global warming...there is perhaps some regional warming here and there, but global warming...afraid not.

Then there is the dat that actually goes into creating the global data...

Here are the NOAA global numbers for Sep. 2016 although you can look at any time period and get the same sort of results...

Here are is the actual data coverage for the same period...Note that the "hottest ever" locations generally speaking are nothing more than fill in temperatures...that is, they are made up...and the coldest places on earth are inevetably left out because they would drop that high global average temperature that they fudge so much data to create. Frankly, anyone who actually believes the numbers coming out of climate science is a dupe.

 

[Spare_change]

Scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a study Thursday claiming there’s no hiatus in global warming. But new satellite-derived temperature measurements show there’s been no global warming for 18 years and six months.

Read more: Satellite Data Shows No Global Warming For Nearly 19 Years

But ... but .... but ...

 

[AntonToo]

Now show proof of improper adjustment.

Can you describe a "proper" reason to adjust temperature data from 40, 50, 60, even more than 100 years ago?...They have altered the data, but certainly haven't given any rational reason for altering data from that far back...if the people can't show any rational, scientifically valid reason for doing it, then by definition it is improper adjustment.

I honestly don't know what ******* alterations you guys are talking about.

In 1999 article avg. tempreture for 1998 year was reported as 58.10 F
in 2017 article avg. tempreture for 2016 year was reported as 58.69 F

58.69 F > 58.10 F

Can you point to any "adjustment"???

Of course not

So you therefore agree that 2016 was hotter than 1997 and 1998 - correct?

 

[edthecynic]

2015 Is Warmest Year On Record, NOAA and NASA Say

NOAA said the average temperature in 1997 was 62F, far and away the highest....until they "adjusted" the baseline and now claim that 58>62

You got your worthless lying scum ass kicked with that same lie in another thread, how stupid do you have to be to bring it up again???
YOU compared two different temperature sets that used two different baselines to lie that 1997 was warmer than 2015. You were shown that using the SAME baseline for BOTH years shows 2015 was the warmest year. In the thread below where I exposed your lie I used the 100 year baseline for both years, now I will show you that using the 30 year baseline for both years also shown 2015 was warmer than 1997. The Met Office still uses the 30 year baseline and it shows that 2015 was the warmest year using direct instrument measurement, much warmer than 1997.



NOAA Hottest Year on Record: 1997 62F

So you try to prove your point with the very data that they got caught cooking...funny.

Actually you deniers just recently claimed the Met Office data was VERIFIED in your attempt to discredit NOAA by using the same dishonest technique of comparing two data sets that use two different baselines, 1961 to 1990 for the Met Office and 1901 to 2000 for NOAA.
World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online

 

[RollingThunder]

Yeah, a completely meaningless and irrelevant "statistical fact" that you are much too stupid to understand is meaningless and irrelevant.

Your drivel got debunked again, you poor deluded retard! But once again, as always, your affliction by the Dunning-Kruger Effect means that you are just too stupid to have the mental capacity to recognize that fact.

And yet your entire position is based on statistics...and heavily massaged statistics at that...but you believe with all your heart..and why?....because you are told to by people you perceive as "authority".

Nope! Just more of your deranged denier cult myths there, SSoooDDumb.

The reality of human caused global warming is based on both the laws of physics and mountains of hard physical evidence that you are too stupid to comprehend, and too brainwashed and bewildered to accept.

 

[Old Rocks]

My goodness, miketx, you are a totally ignorant little ****. 4.53 billion years of history of this planet. And we know of five times that life was decimated or worse. And in every one of those times, there was a very rapid change of temperature. In fact, usually a change in both directions.

I know you cant do math so here's a hint for ya.. 150 years in a planet that is 4.5 billion years old means you have 0.000000000000222% (2.222222222222222e-12). Your level of historical data is so small that it is statistically insignificant and is useless as a basis rendering of what the earths 'normal' state is. What you have, is not capable of defining what normal is.

But I digress.. The level of idiocy is 100% coming from alarmists.

I know you are a pathetic retard, boober, but that is remarkably idiotic, even for you.

No one cares about your demented delusions about the Earth's supposed 4.5 billion year long "normal state".

What sane people are concerned about are the accelerating rapid and drastic changes to the previously relatively stable climate patterns that prevailed over the last ten thousand years, that allowed humanity to expand over the globe and grow to a population of over 7.5 billion people. The agricultural systems that feed all of us are severely threatened by the rising temperatures, changing seasonal timing, changing rainfall patterns, and rising sea levels. And the world's seafood supplies are also very threatened by the currently increasing ocean acidification, resulting from the excess carbon dioxide in the air, up over 46% from pre-industrial levels.

But, you are too stupid and ignorant and brainwashed to understand that.....so you moronically believe the braindead and fraudulent pseudo-science cooked up by the lying stooges for the fossil fuel industry.

I gave you statistical fact. All you have given is fantasy and opinion with adhomenim mixed in. Its not even worth debating you further as you cut and past walls of crap and do it over and over again even when you are shown your fantasy is crap.

BBC Nature - Big Five mass extinction events

LOL

 

[SSDD]

My goodness, miketx, you are a totally ignorant little ****. 4.53 billion years of history of this planet. And we know of five times that life was decimated or worse. And in every one of those times, there was a very rapid change of temperature. In fact, usually a change in both directions.

I know you cant do math so here's a hint for ya.. 150 years in a planet that is 4.5 billion years old means you have 0.000000000000222% (2.222222222222222e-12). Your level of historical data is so small that it is statistically insignificant and is useless as a basis rendering of what the earths 'normal' state is. What you have, is not capable of defining what normal is.

But I digress.. The level of idiocy is 100% coming from alarmists.

I know you are a pathetic retard, boober, but that is remarkably idiotic, even for you.

No one cares about your demented delusions about the Earth's supposed 4.5 billion year long "normal state".

What sane people are concerned about are the accelerating rapid and drastic changes to the previously relatively stable climate patterns that prevailed over the last ten thousand years, that allowed humanity to expand over the globe and grow to a population of over 7.5 billion people. The agricultural systems that feed all of us are severely threatened by the rising temperatures, changing seasonal timing, changing rainfall patterns, and rising sea levels. And the world's seafood supplies are also very threatened by the currently increasing ocean acidification, resulting from the excess carbon dioxide in the air, up over 46% from pre-industrial levels.

But, you are too stupid and ignorant and brainwashed to understand that.....so you moronically believe the braindead and fraudulent pseudo-science cooked up by the lying stooges for the fossil fuel industry.

I gave you statistical fact. All you have given is fantasy and opinion with adhomenim mixed in. Its not even worth debating you further as you cut and past walls of crap and do it over and over again even when you are shown your fantasy is crap.

BBC Nature - Big Five mass extinction events

LOL

And let me guess...you believe a fraction of a degree in a hundred years constitutes rapid change....you are so gullible as to be ridiculous rocks...simply ridiculous....and getting more ridiculous all the time in your despair over losing. Maybe some more glassy eyed chanting is in order.

 

[RollingThunder]

I know you cant do math so here's a hint for ya.. 150 years in a planet that is 4.5 billion years old means you have 0.000000000000222% (2.222222222222222e-12). Your level of historical data is so small that it is statistically insignificant and is useless as a basis rendering of what the earths 'normal' state is. What you have, is not capable of defining what normal is.

I know you are a pathetic retard, boober, but that is remarkably idiotic, even for you. No one cares about your demented delusions about the Earth's supposed 4.5 billion year long "normal state".
What sane people are concerned about are the accelerating rapid and drastic changes to the previously relatively stable climate patterns that prevailed over the last ten thousand years, that allowed humanity to expand over the globe and grow to a population of over 7.5 billion people. The agricultural systems that feed all of us are severely threatened by the rising temperatures, changing seasonal timing, changing rainfall patterns, and rising sea levels. And the world's seafood supplies are also very threatened by the currently increasing ocean acidification, resulting from the excess carbon dioxide in the air, up over 46% from pre-industrial levels.

But, you are too stupid and ignorant and brainwashed to understand that.....so you moronically believe the braindead and fraudulent pseudo-science cooked up by the lying stooges for the fossil fuel industry.

And let me guess....

Sure....that's ALL you ever do, SSoooDDumb.

Your BS got debunked.....AGAIN!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

My goodness, miketx, you are a totally ignorant little ****. 4.53 billion years of history of this planet. And we know of five times that life was decimated or worse. And in every one of those times, there was a very rapid change of temperature. In fact, usually a change in both directions.

I know you cant do math so here's a hint for ya.. 150 years in a planet that is 4.5 billion years old means you have 0.000000000000222% (2.222222222222222e-12). Your level of historical data is so small that it is statistically insignificant and is useless as a basis rendering of what the earths 'normal' state is. What you have, is not capable of defining what normal is.

But I digress.. The level of idiocy is 100% coming from alarmists.

I know you are a pathetic retard, boober, but that is remarkably idiotic, even for you.

No one cares about your demented delusions about the Earth's supposed 4.5 billion year long "normal state".

What sane people are concerned about are the accelerating rapid and drastic changes to the previously relatively stable climate patterns that prevailed over the last ten thousand years, that allowed humanity to expand over the globe and grow to a population of over 7.5 billion people. The agricultural systems that feed all of us are severely threatened by the rising temperatures, changing seasonal timing, changing rainfall patterns, and rising sea levels. And the world's seafood supplies are also very threatened by the currently increasing ocean acidification, resulting from the excess carbon dioxide in the air, up over 46% from pre-industrial levels.

But, you are too stupid and ignorant and brainwashed to understand that.....so you moronically believe the braindead and fraudulent pseudo-science cooked up by the lying stooges for the fossil fuel industry.

I gave you statistical fact. All you have given is fantasy and opinion with adhomenim mixed in. Its not even worth debating you further as you cut and past walls of crap and do it over and over again even when you are shown your fantasy is crap.

BBC Nature - Big Five mass extinction events

LOL

And let me guess...you believe a fraction of a degree in a hundred years constitutes rapid change....you are so gullible as to be ridiculous rocks...simply ridiculous....and getting more ridiculous all the time in your despair over losing. Maybe some more glassy eyed chanting is in order.

Sure it's a fraction of a degree, but it's CO2, the most powerful GHG EVAH!!!!! Look at what it did to Venus! You can melt lead on the surface of Venus...because CO2!!!!

Want to know why there are absolutely no repeatable lab experiments linking a fraction of a degree change in CO2 with temperature ... well, it's because VENUS!!!! We're afraid that if we experiment too much with CO2, the most powerful GHG EVAH!!!!! that we'll soon be able to melt lead on Earth...

...or something

 

[RollingThunder]

Sure it's a fraction of a degree, but it's CO2, the most powerful GHG EVAH!!!!! Look at what it did to Venus! You can melt lead on the surface of Venus...because CO2!!!!

Want to know why there are absolutely no repeatable lab experiments linking a fraction of a degree change in CO2 with temperature ... well, it's because VENUS!!!! We're afraid that if we experiment too much with CO2, the most powerful GHG EVAH!!!!! that we'll soon be able to melt lead on Earth...

...or something

And the CrazyFruitcake adds a meaningless dash of denier cult insanity and nonsense.....as usual.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sure it's a fraction of a degree, but it's CO2, the most powerful GHG EVAH!!!!! Look at what it did to Venus! You can melt lead on the surface of Venus...because CO2!!!!

Want to know why there are absolutely no repeatable lab experiments linking a fraction of a degree change in CO2 with temperature ... well, it's because VENUS!!!! We're afraid that if we experiment too much with CO2, the most powerful GHG EVAH!!!!! that we'll soon be able to melt lead on Earth...

...or something

And the CrazyFruitcake adds a meaningless dash of denier cult insanity and nonsense.....as usual.

I won't stop trying to educate you and get you to see the error of your cult behavior

 

[RollingThunder]

Sure it's a fraction of a degree, but it's CO2, the most powerful GHG EVAH!!!!! Look at what it did to Venus! You can melt lead on the surface of Venus...because CO2!!!!

Want to know why there are absolutely no repeatable lab experiments linking a fraction of a degree change in CO2 with temperature ... well, it's because VENUS!!!! We're afraid that if we experiment too much with CO2, the most powerful GHG EVAH!!!!! that we'll soon be able to melt lead on Earth......or something

And the CrazyFruitcake adds a meaningless dash of denier cult insanity and nonsense.....as usual.

I won't stop trying to educate you and get you to see the error of your cult behavior

I won't stop pointing out what an ignorant and very delusional denier cult nutjob you are, CrazyFruitcake, with nothing to support your denial of the scientific facts confirming the reality and dangers of human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes but your raging insanity and some moldy old bogus myths and demented lies that you were handed by your puppetmasters in the fossil fuel industry.

 

[Chuz Life]

Sure it's a fraction of a degree, but it's CO2, the most powerful GHG EVAH!!!!! Look at what it did to Venus! You can melt lead on the surface of Venus...because CO2!!!!

Want to know why there are absolutely no repeatable lab experiments linking a fraction of a degree change in CO2 with temperature ... well, it's because VENUS!!!! We're afraid that if we experiment too much with CO2, the most powerful GHG EVAH!!!!! that we'll soon be able to melt lead on Earth......or something

And the CrazyFruitcake adds a meaningless dash of denier cult insanity and nonsense.....as usual.

I won't stop trying to educate you and get you to see the error of your cult behavior

I won't stop pointing out what an ignorant and very delusional denier cult nutjob you are, CrazyFruitcake, with nothing to support your denial of the scientific facts confirming the reality and dangers of human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes but your raging insanity and some moldy old bogus myths and demented lies that you were handed by your puppetmasters in the fossil fuel industry.

What are the "dangers" of man made global warming? Care to list them?