There has been no "global warming" for eight years

[Crick]

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!
The classic goal post move reply since I never said it was significant or that the long running warming trend stopped.

We'll see about that.

Now he whines that it is a cherrypick but the hypocritical asshole screams about hottest day, month, year on record before

No, I have not.

as if it is a concern which is never made clear why we should worry while this same LYING asshole continues to ignore this article that utterly destroys the warmist/alarmist climate crisis lies they promote despite no evidence for it exist.

So, you believe there is no climate crisis. The crisis is warming. Was their warming that has now stopped or was there never warming?

Where is the Climate Emergency?

LINK

Where we hear from the inimitable Willis Eschenbach that the IPCC has never used the term "climate crisis" or "climate emergency"

The fact remains that it has been COOLING for over 8 years there is nothing YOU can do about that indisputable fact.

Nor anything you can do about the dramatic warming from 2011 to 2016.

And yet 2022 was warmer than 2018, 2014 and every year prior for all recorded history.

The RATE of warming is in decline which you have ignored twice already here it is for the third time:

But it is still a positive number. That clearly means warming has NOT stopped.

Which is false as the warming trend RATE since the early 1990's has been in a slow decline and despite the ongoing CO2 increase in the atmosphere for decades:

Figure 2. Evolution of the warming rate for 15-year periods between 1979 and 2022 in °C/decade and its linear trend, from monthly UAH 6.0 satellite temperature data.

I don't accept UAH data as valid global data and neither do they. This graphic was created by Andy May, an unqualified writer with an interest in climate change who wrote a book about a debate between Happer and Karoly. I can see why you failed to provide a link.

Each point on the curve in Figure 2 is the warming rate for the 15 years before that month. The Pause shows up prominently as the only period with a negative rate. For the current cooling period to appear on that graph with a negative rate would require the global temperature to remain below the 2016 level at the end of 2030.

One wonders, then, why you chose to use it.

But the good news that no one is telling us is that global warming is slowing down. The 15-year rate was very high from the mid-1980s to the late 1990s, reaching 0.35 °C/decade. The average over the entire period of satellite records is 1.3 °C per century or 0.13 °C/decade, but the long-term trend has fallen from 1.6 °C/century to 1 °C/century today. The current cooling period is contributing to this decline in the long-term warming rate.

But warming has not stopped and since you've chosen to reject the findings of mainstream science, you have no idea why any of this is happening.

You ignored the UAH chart.

And I will continue to ignore it if you suggest it's global temperature data.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Crick writes,

So, you believe there is no climate crisis. The crisis is warming. Was their warming that has now stopped or was there never warming?

There is no climate crisis, and you know it since you don't make a case for it not only that there is a DECLINE in Major Tornadoes, Decline in Landfalling Hurricanes and no trend in Tropical storms and Hurricane frequency.

Storminess has not gone up, and there’s been no increase in hurricane strength or frequency … no “emergency” there. First, the strength.

And here is the global hurricane frequency, both for all hurricanes and for the strongest hurricanes.

The 12 months from April 2021 to May 2022 have seen close to the fewest major hurricanes in more than 40 years.

And there is much longer evidence to back that up. Here are the records of all hurricanes (left) and major hurricanes (right) that came ashore in the US in the last 150 years … NO increase. SOURCE: Nature magazine.

And here are the numbers of Pacific typhoons (hurricanes) from the Japanese Meteorological Agency.

And here are a century and a half of records of the number of landfalling hurricanes in Florida.

Finally, here are the declining numbers of both strong and average cyclones in Australian waters, from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM).

There has been no global increase in the number of wildfires … here’s the NASA satellite data.

=====

But it is still a positive number. That clearly means warming has NOT stopped.

No shit sherlock but despite the significant rise in CO2 emissions since 1994 the RATE of warming is in decline anyway how long that will last is anybody's guess.

DOH!

I don't accept UAH data as valid global data and neither do they. This graphic was created by Andy May, an unqualified writer with an interest in climate change who wrote a book about a debate between Happer and Karoly. I can see why you failed to provide a link.

I posted the link the FIRST two times, but you never noticed it because you never looked in the link here it is, LINK at POST 23.

Andy May didn't make that chart.

One wonders, then, why you chose to use it.

The NOAA are the ones who supplies the Satellite temperature data you ignoramus!

But warming has not stopped and since you've chosen to reject the findings of mainstream science, you have no idea why any of this is happening.

Never said global warming stopped have told you this many times stated recently that it has been warming since 1850, since 1979 and even since the late 1690's but your hysteria is making you stupid.

All I did was factually state with evidence from the NOAA you suddenly ignore and UAH you suddenly dislike that shows a small cooling trend since 2015 this reality is driving you nuts because it is terribly inconvenient.

The NOAA shows a -.11C/decade

MINUS .11C/decade

And I will continue to ignore it if you suggest it's global temperature data.

That is because you are an idiot!

The NOAA is running the satellite Program and paying for the data but YOU the armchair asshole thinks they are no good.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You are a confused delusional child who is clearly TERRIFIED of a small cooling trend as you are trying hard to fight this reality.

 

[ReinyDays]

Crick writes,



There is no climate crisis, and you know it since you don't make a case for it not only that there is a DECLINE in Major Tornadoes, Decline in Landfalling Hurricanes and no trend in Tropical storms and Hurricane frequency.

Storminess has not gone up, and there’s been no increase in hurricane strength or frequency … no “emergency” there. First, the strength.

And here is the global hurricane frequency, both for all hurricanes and for the strongest hurricanes.

The 12 months from April 2021 to May 2022 have seen close to the fewest major hurricanes in more than 40 years.

And there is much longer evidence to back that up. Here are the records of all hurricanes (left) and major hurricanes (right) that came ashore in the US in the last 150 years … NO increase. SOURCE: Nature magazine.

And here are the numbers of Pacific typhoons (hurricanes) from the Japanese Meteorological Agency.

And here are a century and a half of records of the number of landfalling hurricanes in Florida.

Finally, here are the declining numbers of both strong and average cyclones in Australian waters, from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM).

There has been no global increase in the number of wildfires … here’s the NASA satellite data.

=====



No shit sherlock but despite the significant rise in CO2 emissions since 1994 the RATE of warming is in decline anyway how long that will last is anybody's guess.

DOH!





I posted the link the FIRST two times, but you never noticed it because you never looked in the link here it is, LINK at POST 23.

Andy May didn't make that chart.



The NOAA are the ones who supplies the Satellite temperature data you ignoramus!



Never said global warming stopped have told you this many times stated recently that it has been warming since 1850, since 1979 and even since the late 1690's but your hysteria is making you stupid.

All I did was factually state with evidence from the NOAA you suddenly ignore and UAH you suddenly dislike that shows a small cooling trend since 2015 this reality is driving you nuts because it is terribly inconvenient.

The NOAA shows a -.11C/decade

MINUS .11C/decade


That is because you are an idiot!

The NOAA is running the satellite Program and paying for the data but YOU the armchair asshole thinks they are no good.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You are a confused delusional child who is clearly TERRIFIED of a small cooling trend as you are trying hard to fight this reality.

Damn that's well said ... thank you ...

 

[Crick]

Crick writes: So, you believe there is no climate crisis. The crisis is warming. Was their warming that has now stopped or was there never warming?

There is no climate crisis, and you know it since you don't make a case for it

If you think I haven't made a case for it, with whom are you arguing with all these lovely plots?

My position all along has been that of the IPCC's: that global warming is taking place, that human activities are its primary cause and that it presents a real threat to humanity. I doubt I have used the word "crisis" but it might be found somewhere among my 20,000 or so posts.

However, YOU have failed to demonstrate there is no warming, failed to demonstrate any other possible cause for that warming, failed to demonstrate that human GHG emissions aren't the primary cause and failed to demonstrate that such warming doesn't present a real threat, despite your lovely collection of storm data graphs.

No shit sherlock but despite the significant rise in CO2 emissions since 1994 the RATE of warming is in decline anyway how long that will last is anybody's guess.

Here are some scenario based projections from the IPCC. Please point out the ones that show increasing rates of warming

YOu might note the repeated use of the term "near linear"

I posted the link the FIRST two times, but you never noticed it because you never looked in the link here it is, LINK at POST 23.

Andy May didn't make that chart.

You got that chart from Andy May's book. And if Andy didn't make it, you should have no problem providing a link to its actual source.

The NOAA are the ones who supplies the Satellite temperature data you ignoramus!

UAH operates that satellite and is responsible for processing its telemetry. And UAH will correctly identify it as the temperature of the lower atmosphere between 60N and 60S.

Never said global warming stopped have told you this many times stated recently that it has been warming since 1850, since 1979 and even since the late 1690's but your hysteria is making you stupid.

I'm beginning to wonder about your attachment to reality if you think I'm hysterical. And if you don't think warming has stopped, what is it you're attempting to accomplish in this thread?

All I did was factually state with evidence from the NOAA you suddenly ignore and UAH you suddenly dislike that shows a small cooling trend since 2015 this reality is driving you nuts because it is terribly inconvenient.

I am not ignoring NOAA data, I'm just not cherry picking it as you are. And I have always disliked UAH data because it is processed to the specifications of Dr Roy R Spencer.

The NOAA shows a -.11C/decade

MINUS .11C/decade

NOAA's convenient app shows that number. Interestingly, what does it show if you go back one more year? Two? Three? It shows: +0.04C/dec, +0.15C/dec and +0.22C/dec. And if you missed it, all three of those numbers are POSITIVE. If you'd like to have some cherry-picking fun, examine the rate between 2011 and 2016: +0.87C/dec. If we kept up that rate, the Earth's temperature by 2100 would have increased by 68 degrees

That is because you are an idiot!

I'm afraid that has yet to be demonstrated.

The NOAA...

Do you say "The NASA" as well? We do all say "The NAACP". I wonder what rule is supposed to apply?

...is running the satellite Program and paying for the data but YOU the armchair asshole thinks they are no good.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

If you're looking to make me look like an idiot compared to you, I would think an outburst like that may not be tactically wise.

You are a confused delusional child who is clearly TERRIFIED of a small cooling trend as you are trying hard to fight this reality.

What reality? You agree it has been warming. You agree it will continue to warm. You've identified no change in any forcing function. You make claims about rates when no one was expecting an accelerating rate? What do you believe to be the significance of the last eight year's temperatures?

 

[ding]

failed to demonstrate any other possible cause for that warming, failed to demonstrate that human GHG emissions aren't the primary cause

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[Crick]

If you think I haven't made a case for it, with whom are you arguing with all these lovely plots?

My position all along has been that of the IPCC's: that global warming is taking place, that human activities are its primary cause and that it presents a real threat to humanity. I doubt I have used the word "crisis" but it might be found somewhere among my 20,000 or so posts.

However, YOU have failed to demonstrate there is no warming, failed to demonstrate any other possible cause for that warming, failed to demonstrate that human GHG emissions aren't the primary cause and failed to demonstrate that such warming doesn't present a real threat, despite your lovely collection of storm data graphs.


Here are some scenario based projections from the IPCC. Please point out the ones that show increasing rates of warming

View attachment 755309

YOu might note the repeated use of the term "near linear"

You got that chart from Andy May's book. And if Andy didn't make it, you should have no problem providing a link to its actual source.

UAH operates that satellite and is responsible for processing its telemetry. And UAH will correctly identify it as the temperature of the lower atmosphere between 60N and 60S.

I'm beginning to wonder about your attachment to reality if you think I'm hysterical. And if you don't think warming has stopped, what is it you're attempting to accomplish in this thread?

I am not ignoring NOAA data, I'm just not cherry picking it as you are. And I have always disliked UAH data because it is processed to the specifications of Dr Roy R Spencer.


NOAA's convenient app shows that number. Interestingly, what does it show if you go back one more year? Two? Three? It shows: +0.04C/dec, +0.15C/dec and +0.22C/dec. And if you missed it, all three of those numbers are POSITIVE. If you'd like to have some cherry-picking fun, examine the rate between 2011 and 2016: +0.87C/dec. If we kept up that rate, the Earth's temperature by 2100 would have increased by 68 degrees

I'm afraid that has yet to be demonstrated.

Do you say "The NASA" as well? We do all say "The NAACP". I wonder what rule is supposed to apply?

If you're looking to make me look like an idiot compared to you, I would think an outburst like that may not be tactically wise.

What reality? You agree it has been warming. You agree it will continue to warm. You've identified no change in any forcing function. You make claims about rates when no one was expecting an accelerating rate? What do you believe to be the significance of the last eight year's temperatures?

Again, SunsetTommy, what do you believe to be the significance of the last eight year's temperature?

 

[ding]

Again, SunsetTommy, what do you believe to be the significance of the last eight year's temperature?

That this is yet another example of natural climate variation not caused by orbital forcing or CO2 forcing that the geologic record is littered with.

 

[Crick]

Again, SunsetTommy, what do you believe to be the significance of the last eight year's temperature?

Tommy?

 

[ding]

Tommy?

That it was cooler than the majority of the past 10,000 years.

 

[ReinyDays]

Tommy?

That it was cooler than the majority of the past 10,000 years.

Temperatures go down when CO2 goes up ... obviously CO2 isn't the only factor to global warming ... we have a better correlation to Russia invading Ukraine, the more success our buddy Putin has, the cooler the Earth's temperature ...

 

[sparky]

It means that it's misinformation.

it means 'opining against the narrative' Crick

~S~

 

[ding]

Temperatures go down when CO2 goes up ... obviously CO2 isn't the only factor to global warming ... we have a better correlation to Russia invading Ukraine, the more success our buddy Putin has, the cooler the Earth's temperature ...

Even saying global warming like you just did is misleading.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Meanwhile back in reality...

View attachment 753990

you actually believe that these thermometers gave us reading accurate to a tenth of a degree in 1900?

 

[ReinyDays]

Even saying global warming like you just did is misleading.

Average global temperatures are up 1ºC (±0.5) from 1880 ... that's global warming by definition ...

To say we know why is misleading ... or "reducing our sample pool to drive up percentages" ... pfffft ... I even added the margin of error ... something else mislead you ...

 

[ding]

Average global temperatures are up 1ºC (±0.5) from 1880 ... that's global warming by definition ...

To say we know why is misleading ... or "reducing our sample pool to drive up percentages" ... pfffft ... I even added the margin of error ... something else mislead you ...

Just your characterization of accelerating rise of sea level.

 

[ReinyDays]

Just your characterization of accelerating rise of sea level.

View attachment 756514

+84 micrometers per year per year ... as measured over the past 25 years ... do you have different data? ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm going to say that if you're looking for significance, you need to stop cherry picking

View attachment 755209

Look at that spike between 2014-2016! That's all of the "Warming" Makes you wonder if they made any fundamental changes to the baseline

 

[ding]

+84 micrometers per year per year ... as measured over the past 25 years ... do you have different data? ...

Seems like you are proving my point for me.

 

[ReinyDays]

Look at that spike between 2014-2016! That's all of the "Warming" Makes you wonder if they made any fundamental changes to the baseline

The Frontier at Oakridge is supposed to be up and running ... and NOAA got some of the earliest runtime ... would running climate models on better, faster computers count as "fundamental change" ... I do ... and I expect these results to change as our computers get faster and better ... we're at the beginning of the Computational Fluid Dynamics Age ... and already we've answered the question of the Moon's origin ... whether weather co-operates is another matter mater ...

It was the first respirating cyanobacterium that discovered that "statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics" ... a lesson we should never forget ...

 

[Crick]

you actually believe that these thermometers gave us reading accurate to a tenth of a degree in 1900?

Standard practice for reading analog devices is to estimate one order of magnitude (a tenth) within the finest markings. If you can see a finite distance between the finest markings, you can estimate between them.