Global warming stopped 16 years ago

[xr7g428]

This is a graph showing the actual measured data. Note that the data comes from two institutions that are usually considered to be MMGW proponents.

 

HadCRUT is the dataset of monthly instrumental temperature records formed by combining the sea surface temperature records compiled by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the land surface air temperature records compiled by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.^[1]

 

 

 

And here is what the models predict. Can you spot the difference?:

 

 

[goinbroke2]

How are they in hindsight?

 

Take the models and apply them to known weather and environment data. Do the predictions reach 95% accuracy then? Can they even be called predictions?

The Farmer's Almanac has a greater accuracy and they've been around almost 200 years.

 

Farmers' Almanac More Reliable Than Warming Climate Models

 

LOL! Too funny, kinda like the cover of time in 1974, ICE AGE IS COMING!!! LOL! Yeah that was because of man's CO2 as well. LOL!

 

EDIT: it's Time magazine 24 June 1974 not 1975 like I thought. Google the image, tell me that wouldn't cause the fear effect in the general population! (kinda like warming did for a bit and climate change still is...)

Edited February 27, 2014 by goinbroke2

[goinbroke2]

1974 Time magazine....sounds familiar? But opposite?

"
In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.


Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth's tilt and distance from the sun could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemisphere—thereby altering the earth's climate. Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the cycle might be involved.

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).

Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.

The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."

 

Oh, do you remember the ice age of 2000? It was terrible, ford stopped building cars and trucks and only build snowmobiles and tracked over-snow vehicles. Yup it was bad, I remember it well...hahahaha!

[goinbroke2]

1988: At Al Gore’s Senate hearings James Hansen (Director of NASA’s GISS climate department) says that he is 99% sure man is catastrophically affecting the world’s climate.

Here is the graph evidence he used to support his speech

The top black line is how his model said the world temperatures would rise if man did not cut back on producing CO2. The bottom black line is what he predicted temperatures would do if we drastically cut back CO2 emissions. The red line are the actual measured temperatures when we have done practically nothing about CO2. Is there a disconnect with reality here? James Hansen is still director of NASA’s GISS … Hmmmmm.

[Imawhosure]

1988: At Al Gore’s Senate hearings James Hansen (Director of NASA’s GISS climate department) says that he is 99% sure man is catastrophically affecting the world’s climate.

Here is the graph evidence he used to support his speech

The top black line is how his model said the world temperatures would rise if man did not cut back on producing CO2. The bottom black line is what he predicted temperatures would do if we drastically cut back CO2 emissions. The red line are the actual measured temperatures when we have done practically nothing about CO2. Is there a disconnect with reality here? James Hansen is still director of NASA’s GISS … Hmmmmm.

Goin, that graph put forth by the head eco; Al Gore, says it all. It is virtually impossible to debate with these people or change minds, which tells all of us it is time to quit arguing. For most of them, (not all of them) when we say we want new models, new research, new data......we get that the debate is settled. So much for giving an eco fanatic an even break. Give them an inch, they want a mile. We have to pick the hills we want to fight/die on, and with people who won't even admit they have been at least partially, if not strongly mislead by their enviro gurus, seems like a waste of time to me.

 

Besides, it is not about winning arguments with far left wingers who are indoctrinated; it is more about winning elections to stop the stupidity of those indoctrinated. They have won recently, lets see if we can change that in 2014.

[Langston Hughes]

Goin, that graph put forth by the head eco; Al Gore, says it all. It is virtually impossible to debate with these people or change minds, which tells all of us it is time to quit arguing. For most of them, (not all of them) when we say we want new models, new research, new data......we get that the debate is settled. So much for giving an eco fanatic an even break. Give them an inch, they want a mile. We have to pick the hills we want to fight/die on, and with people who won't even admit they have been at least partially, if not strongly mislead by their enviro gurus, seems like a waste of time to me.

 

Besides, it is not about winning arguments with far left wingers who are indoctrinated; it is more about winning elections to stop the stupidity of those indoctrinated. They have won recently, lets see if we can change that in 2014.

 

I think it's about winning elections for you guys, the minions of Big Oil who follow their propaganda without fail. You can't overcome the preponderance of evidence so you act the crazy vocal minority. It will be a sad day when we do reach the tipping point and we'll be able to tell you so because it will be too late. Hopefully you'll be around to apologize for your denial.

[akirby]

This has nothing to do with Big Oil - it has to do with scientific analysis. The Warmers are the ones running around being vocal telling us the world is going to end if we don't do something drastic right now. Liberal environmentalists have so much hatred for "Big Oil" that they can't reach logical conclusions about anything.

 

The preponderance of evidence suggests you are wrong. What you call "evidence" is merely opinion.

The Earth has been 8 degrees warmer than it is right now - several times. With much higher CO2 levels. Each time it returned. There is no "tipping point".

 

Where are all the catastrophes that were predicted by Al Gore and the alarmists?

[goinbroke2]

Big oil??? Really? That's your answer to everything bad, it's either big oil or big corporations or big (rich) people.

 

Did you read the 74 article? Does it not sound THE EXACT SAME as the warming articles? "sad day when we do reach the tipping point and we'll be able to tell you so because it will be too late." Really? And when we reached the "tipping point" of the cold you said I told you so didn't you...oh wait..THAT NEVER HAPPENED and a mere 20 years after the cooling hysteria, the same ones wanted us to believe their new money making agenda, warming hysteria.

 

How about we pretend this is '74 and in reference to the "global cooling" of '74 we say TOLD YA SO!

At least us "deniers" have proof you guys are full of shit, what do you on your side have besides "big oil bought you out".

 

Still waiting for my first cheque from them btw......

[goinbroke2]

^{Ima, yeah I know, but I enjoy seeing them drop their rhetoric one by one as reality sets in. Can it really be the sun? and the ocean's evaporation regulating the earths temp...hmm...oh crap, you mean these scientist were doing this so their grants would progressively increase? THOSE BASTARDS!!! LOL!}

 

^{Yeah, it's all the fault of BIG SCIENCE! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!}

Edited February 28, 2014 by goinbroke2

[Imawhosure]

^{Ima, yeah I know, but I enjoy seeing them drop their rhetoric one by one as reality sets in. Can it really be the sun? and the ocean's evaporation regulating the earths temp...hmm...oh crap, you mean these scientist were doing this so their grants would progressively increase? THOSE BASTARDS!!! LOL!}

 

^{Yeah, it's all the fault of BIG SCIENCE! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!}

My friend Goin, and all you other deniers, hehehehehehehehe. I wasn't going to post in this thread again, but after what I heard today, I just couldn't help it.

 

Unbeknownst to all of us deniers, it has been reported that if we hold up fixing this crisis, we will be responsible for more murders, more larceny.......and we must be anti woman, because it is going to cause more rapes.

 

(I know you are laughing at what I just wrote, but good ole Mother Jones says it is true)

 

In any case, we are always being accused of linking right wing sites that mean nothing to our progressive friends. I decided to change all of that, and looked for a video put forth on this issue, by a left wing site so as you can see exactly what/how these people are getting their information.

 

Now then........if you are conservative; before you follow this link, PAHLEEZE insure before the video starts playing on your computer, that you do NOT have food or drink in your mouth as you may choke to death from laughter. I also suggest strongly that you do not use logic, reason, or any sense whatsoever, but rather dig deeply into your FEELINGS. If you follow this method, you may be able to stop laughing within an hour of watching this video that takes about 2 minutes covering this GREAT ENVIRO REPORT.

 

The last thing I will ask of you is that we no longer insult our enviro, fanatic, friends...........by defining them as such on these boards. That is NOT politically correct, and we must.........as realis##; errrr, I mean deniers, be more forthcoming and fair. Therefore, just between us deniers, from here forward please use the term I have heard put forth on other media to describe these people, and that would be "watermelons."

 

Why "watermelons?" Because they are green on the outside, but red on the inside. That sums it up perfectly.

 

Enjoy the video, and second warning for conservatives----------->no food or drink while watching.

 

 

[Langston Hughes]

Big oil??? Really? That's your answer to everything bad, it's either big oil or big corporations or big (rich) people.

 

Did you read the 74 article? Does it not sound THE EXACT SAME as the warming articles? "sad day when we do reach the tipping point and we'll be able to tell you so because it will be too late." Really? And when we reached the "tipping point" of the cold you said I told you so didn't you...oh wait..THAT NEVER HAPPENED and a mere 20 years after the cooling hysteria, the same ones wanted us to believe their new money making agenda, warming hysteria.

 

How about we pretend this is '74 and in reference to the "global cooling" of '74 we say TOLD YA SO!

At least us "deniers" have proof you guys are full of shit, what do you on your side have besides "big oil bought you out".

 

Still waiting for my first cheque from them btw......

 

So you believe their propaganda for free then? At least the funders of denial have that going for them, which is nice because they spend enough money producing the propaganda you believe.

 

As for 74, I don't recall a hysteria. I think your over playing that card.

[Langston Hughes]

This has nothing to do with Big Oil - it has to do with scientific analysis. The Warmers are the ones running around being vocal telling us the world is going to end if we don't do something drastic right now. Liberal environmentalists have so much hatred for "Big Oil" that they can't reach logical conclusions about anything.

 

The preponderance of evidence suggests you are wrong. What you call "evidence" is merely opinion.

The Earth has been 8 degrees warmer than it is right now - several times. With much higher CO2 levels. Each time it returned. There is no "tipping point".

 

Where are all the catastrophes that were predicted by Al Gore and the alarmists?

 

It has a lot to do with the money being put into efforts to deny climate change for business and political reasons. We are all aware of how heavily the fossil fuel industry has funded denial science and it is waste of time to deny that also.

[xr7g428]

Langston, most of the problems with global warming are being caused by the climates lack of cooperation, not big oil. The arrogance of liberal idiots is just staggering. The next thing we will hear is that big oil "fixed" the climate so they could keep polluting.

[akirby]

 

It has a lot to do with the money being put into efforts to deny climate change for business and political reasons. We are all aware of how heavily the fossil fuel industry has funded denial science and it is waste of time to deny that also.

 

If a bunch of idiots were attacking you with false scientific conclusions that don't agree with data and trying to put you out of business, what would you do?

[cal50]

My friend Goin, and all you other deniers, hehehehehehehehe. I wasn't going to post in this thread again, but after what I heard today, I just couldn't help it.

 

Unbeknownst to all of us deniers, it has been reported that if we hold up fixing this crisis, we will be responsible for more murders, more larceny.......and we must be anti woman, because it is going to cause more rapes.

 

(I know you are laughing at what I just wrote, but good ole Mother Jones says it is true)

 

In any case, we are always being accused of linking right wing sites that mean nothing to our progressive friends. I decided to change all of that, and looked for a video put forth on this issue, by a left wing site so as you can see exactly what/how these people are getting their information.

 

Now then........if you are conservative; before you follow this link, PAHLEEZE insure before the video starts playing on your computer, that you do NOT have food or drink in your mouth as you may choke to death from laughter. I also suggest strongly that you do not use logic, reason, or any sense whatsoever, but rather dig deeply into your FEELINGS. If you follow this method, you may be able to stop laughing within an hour of watching this video that takes about 2 minutes covering this GREAT ENVIRO REPORT.

 

The last thing I will ask of you is that we no longer insult our enviro, fanatic, friends...........by defining them as such on these boards. That is NOT politically correct, and we must.........as realis##; errrr, I mean deniers, be more forthcoming and fair. Therefore, just between us deniers, from here forward please use the term I have heard put forth on other media to describe these people, and that would be "watermelons."

 

Why "watermelons?" Because they are green on the outside, but red on the inside. That sums it up perfectly.

 

Enjoy the video, and second warning for conservatives----------->no food or drink while watching.

 

 

 

 

 

Well that guy is slightly more full of shit than some of the liberal dolts that use this forum as a soapbox ( likely because they are ignored in life ).

 

 

If increased temperature is responsible for an increase in rape the the inverse should hold true as well.

 

Explain Alaska :

 

Reported rape is more common in Alaska than any other state, according to 2012 FBI crime estimates. The per capita rate is about three times the national average.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/03/opinion/sutter-alaska-rape-list/index.html

 

 

 

 

Liberals are natures comedians , like a dog licking its nuts.

So predictable.

[Langston Hughes]

 

If a bunch of idiots were attacking you with false scientific conclusions that don't agree with data and trying to put you out of business, what would you do?

 

That's not happening though.

[Langston Hughes]

Langston, most of the problems with global warming are being caused by the climates lack of cooperation, not big oil. The arrogance of liberal idiots is just staggering. The next thing we will hear is that big oil "fixed" the climate so they could keep polluting.

 

X,

I disagree with you on that and find that the arrogance of conservatives here is staggering. We have already had some tell us that the earth is too complex to have an effect despite the FACT that many of our current practices are having effects, like fertilizer runoff and prescription medication in our drinking water. Then they suggest that scientists working on government grants are biased while offering up the few deniers, who all happen to receive money from fossil fuel companies, conservative political groups and business consortiums.

 

It's mind boggling how arrogant and disingenuous the deniers here are.

 

 

ps. if you do hear that, it will come from big oil and their propaganda.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

ps. if you do hear that, it will come from big oil and their propaganda.

Great way to insure you'll never accept contrary evidence.

 

Open mind? Not so much.

[WaterDR]

Temps on mars have been increasing at the same rate....hummmm I guess there are too many SUVs on Mars.

[Langston Hughes]

Great way to insure you'll never accept contrary evidence.

 

Open mind? Not so much.

 

My mind is more open than some around here, but I'd doubt you'll notice.

 

 

 

You should have stopped right there. No you can't convince me of anything. I don't believe anything that you say because you are a liberal with an agenda. You will twist and contort to facts of what ever political issue you are rambling on about to suit your left wing agenda. There will not be a word of truth in it. You can't convince me of anything because I don't believe anything that liberals say. They lie. They have to lie to get what they want because if liberals ever came right out and said what they really want the country would never support them.

 

 

PS I sent off a check to NRA-ILA this morning. Your welcome.

[FiredMotorCompany]

It's obvious why there is the popular opinion that MMGW is happening.

 

 

The broadcast news doesn't report dissent.

 

COLD SHOULDER: ABC, CBS Exclude Scientists Critical of Global Warming for More Than 1,300 Days

Like a simple parlor trick, the networks are able to make skeptical scientists vanish, at least from the eyes of their viewers.

In some cases, the broadcast networks have failed to include such scientists for years, while including alarmist scientists within the past six months. ABC, CBS and NBC's lengthy omission of scientists critical of global warming alarmism propped up the myth of a scientific consensus, despite the fact that many scientists and thousands of peer-reviewed studies disagree.

[Langston Hughes]

CNS News? There's a completely biased source of talking points.

 

Yeah, they should include the geologists and weathermen from the completely discredited list of Morano's.

[FiredMotorCompany]

CNS News? There's a completely biased source of talking points.

 

Yeah, they should include the geologists and weathermen from the completely discredited list of Morano's.

That was a sweeping avoidance of discussing the points.

 

Care to cite the bias? Can you disprove the imbalance of opinions presented as asserted by the author? I found it plausible, but, show me their falsifying or unfairly presenting the evidence they cited.

[Langston Hughes]

That was a sweeping avoidance of discussing the points.

 

Care to cite the bias? Can you disprove the imbalance of opinions presented as asserted by the author? I found it plausible, but, show me their falsifying or unfairly presenting the evidence they cited.

Since they reference the discredited list of so-called experts it's obvious that they are biased.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Since they reference the discredited list of so-called experts it's obvious that they are biased.

Discredited by whom? You because they dispute the "truth" you want to believe?