Toggle sidebar

Stunning fall in global temperatures this year

W

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...atures-suggesting-rise-not-man-emissions.html

Looks like El Nino has ended and the temperatures have dropped dramatically as they did 17 years ago.

Also, Arctic ice is back to where it was 13 years ago.


  • Date: 07/05/17
  • Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph
In recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño
Inevitably, when even satellite temperatures were showing 2016 as “the hottest year on record”, we were going to be told last winter that the Arctic ice was at its lowest extent ever. Sure enough, before Christmas, a report from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was greeted with such headlines as “Hottest Arctic on record triggers massive ice melt”. In March we had the BBC trumpeting another study that blamed vanishing Arctic ice as the cause of weather which led to the worst-ever smog in Beijing, warning that it “could even threaten the Beijing Winter Olympics in 2022”.

But last week we were brought back to earth by the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), as charted by our friend Paul Homewood on his blog Notalotofpeopleknowthat, with the news that ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C. In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago. Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick. The Greenland ice cap last winter increased in volume faster than at any time for years.

As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”.

This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years. But the BBC won’t be telling us any of this. And we are still stuck with that insanely damaging Climate Change Act, which in this election will scarcely get a mention.

Full post
 
P

PriddyBoy

Junior
May 29, 2001
17,174
282
0
Boomboom521 said:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...ts-house-panel-global-temperatures-misleading
Click to expand...
From the article you posted: “They’re not serious articles,” said Adam Sobel, a Columbia University climate scientist. “They paint it as though it’s an argument between Breitbart and Buzzfeed when it’s an argument between a snarky Breitbart blogger and the entire world’s scientific community, and the overwhelming body of scientific evidence.”

Do tell. Is snarky a new scientific term?
 
O

op2

Senior
Mar 16, 2014
11,174
547
103
WVPATX said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...atures-suggesting-rise-not-man-emissions.html

Looks like El Nino has ended and the temperatures have dropped dramatically as they did 17 years ago.

Also, Arctic ice is back to where it was 13 years ago.


  • Date: 07/05/17
  • Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph
In recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño
Inevitably, when even satellite temperatures were showing 2016 as “the hottest year on record”, we were going to be told last winter that the Arctic ice was at its lowest extent ever. Sure enough, before Christmas, a report from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was greeted with such headlines as “Hottest Arctic on record triggers massive ice melt”. In March we had the BBC trumpeting another study that blamed vanishing Arctic ice as the cause of weather which led to the worst-ever smog in Beijing, warning that it “could even threaten the Beijing Winter Olympics in 2022”.

But last week we were brought back to earth by the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), as charted by our friend Paul Homewood on his blog Notalotofpeopleknowthat, with the news that ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C. In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago. Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick. The Greenland ice cap last winter increased in volume faster than at any time for years.

As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”.

This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years. But the BBC won’t be telling us any of this. And we are still stuck with that insanely damaging Climate Change Act, which in this election will scarcely get a mention.

Full post
Click to expand...

Here is the Daily Mail website.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
 
W

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Op2 said:
Here is the Daily Mail website.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
Click to expand...

Nice try. This was very predictable since after the last big El Nino 17 years ago, the exact same thing happened.




Over the last eight months, global temperatures over land have cooled a record 1.2 C. November is seeing record cold in Russia and South Australia, so we should see the record cooling trend continue.

 
W

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Even more raw data:

Browse: Home / 2017 / May / 06 / Data Analyses Show Rapid Global Surface Cooling, Growing Arctic Ice Thickness
Data Analyses Show Rapid Global Surface Cooling, Growing Arctic Ice Thickness
By P Gosselin on 6. May 2017

Analyses show that global temperatures continue their rapid cooling trend, as Schneefan here writes. What follows are excerpts of his recent comprehensive analysis.

The cooling comes naturally in the wake of the moderate La Nina conditions that have ruled over the past months.

In April surface temperatures 2 meters above the ground plummeted as the following NCEP chart shows:



Source: weatherbell.com/temperature.php

Global satellite temperature anomaly from the mean measured by the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) rebounded a bit after a large March drop.



Source: UAH Global Temperature +0.27 deg. C.

Foremost the atmosphere above the oceans cooled the most during March, 2017. This is clearly depicted by the UAH: an anomaly of +0.29°K to +0.09°K compared to the WMO 1981-2010 mean.



Plot UAH satellite temperatures von UAH in the atmosphere 1500 m altitude (TLT) over the oceans. Note the rose colored curve shows the ARGO ocean buoys’ mean of the sea temperature to a depth of 2.5 m, with 37-month smoothing. Source: www.climate4you.com/, sea surface temperature estimates: UAH.

Global RSS satellite data show a rapid cooling since early 2016:



Moreover despite the powerful warming El Niño event of 2015/16, the unfalsified satellite data in 2016 show that no new significant global heat record was seen when compared to the El Niño year of 1998. We are talking about hundredths of a degree, completely within the boundaries of uncertainty.

No significant warming in 20 years

The powerful linear global cooling continued in April 2017 and will continue for the time being, Schneefan writes.

What does that mean for the global warming? Schneefan adds:

The IPCC global warming claimed by the climate models has been missing for almost 20 years. And that despite the constantly rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations!”

And just days ago, Kenneth Richards here showed that there hasn’t been any warming over the entire southern hemisphere at all. The warming of the past decades is not even global.

What is now becoming glaringly obvious is that the IPCC has wildly overestimated its projected global warming for the future. When the IPCC models from the various IPCC reports are compared to the observations, the result gets vividly illustrated by the following chart showing the satellite observed temperatures from January 2001 to June 2016:



The Global Warming Speedometer for January 2001 to June 2016 shows observed warming on the HadCRUT4 and NCEI surface temperature datasets as below IPCC’s least prediction in 1990 and somewhat on the low side of its 1995 and 2001 predictions, while the satellite datasets show less warming than all IPCC predictions from 1990 to 2001. Later IPCC predictions are too recent to be reliably testable. Source : Is the Reuters “news” agency committing fraud?

Massive Arctic ice thickness growth

The growth in so-called multiyear Arctic sea ice has been considerable over the past nine years. The Chukchi Sea and the East Siberian Sea had little thick multiyear ice back in February 2008. But by February 2017 there was a lot. Massive Growth In Thick Arctic Sea Ice:



Source: DMI Modelled ice thickness, Real Climate Science.

Also Greenland has seen impressive gains in surface snow and ice mass. Kirye at Twitter posted the following chart which shows recent record surface mass gain for 2017:



Source: DMI.

If the Arctic is the climate canary in the coal mine, as many alarmists used to like claiming, then we probably ought to start worrying about cooling.

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/06/...ng-arctic-ice-thickness/#sthash.3DcbOi35.dpuf
 
W

WVU82_rivals

Senior
May 29, 2001
199,095
686
0
lol...

EPA removes climate change page from website

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...climate-change-page-from-website-amid-updates

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) removed several pages – including those related to climate change – from its website on Friday as part of an update to “reflect the agency’s new direction under President Donald Trump and Administrator Scott Pruitt.”

EPA officials removed the page relating to the Obama administration’s main emissions regulation for power plants, which now directs to an article about an executive order Trump signed in March undoing Obama’s climate agenda.

The agency’s pages relating to climate change, climate science, the impacts of climate change and what readers can do about climate change are all gone from the live site, each replaced with a banner headline saying “this page is being updated.”

The EPA's website on climate information for children remains live.

A snapshot of the agency’s website during the Obama administration is still available online, and the EPA said pages like those relating to climate change are still “under review.”

“As EPA renews its commitment to human health and clean air, land and water, our website needs to reflect the views of the leadership of the agency,” said J.P. Freire, the agency’s associate administrator for public affairs, in a statement.

“We want to eliminate confusion by removing outdated language first and making room to discuss how we’re protecting the environment and human health by partnering with states and working within the law.”

The White House made headlines by removing the climate change page from its official website in the moments after Trump was inaugurated in January, but that was part of a broader overhaul of the site.

The EPA’s website has, until now, maintained much of the content it presented during the Obama administration, despite efforts from Trump's EPA team to reform the agency.

EPA officials announced the website updates in a press release sent after 7 p.m. on a Friday.

Trump and Pruitt have used their first few months in office to begin the process of undoing many EPA climate rules finalized during the Obama administration, including the Clean Power Plan.

Trump has said he does not believe the science behind climate change. Pruitt has questioned whether carbon dioxide emissions are a “primary contributor” to climate change, while most climate scientists agree it is.
 
W

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Boomboom521 said:
http://www.popsci.com/how-we-know-that-climate-change-is-happening
Click to expand...

The climate has always changed. Always will. We have had no warming in nearly 20 years (when accounting for El Nino). The climate models predicting ever higher temps caused by CO2 are wrong. The temps have not climbed nearly as fast or as high as they predicted. The climate is simply too complex to model, too many feedback loops that we simply do not understand.

The significant drop in temps at the end of El Nino reinforces that recent warming was due to El Nino not CO2. The pause is still happening. No model predicted any pause.

We may one day figure out how to model the climate and understand all the factors involved. We are not there yet.

Just look at the historical graph depicted below:

From Andy May, a chart that contains an enormous amount of information relevant to the climate debate. It shows global temperature as inferred from proxies (tree rings and the like), carbon dioxide and methane concentrations, and temperatures as predicted by the alarmists’ models for the Holocene epoch, the time since the end of the last Ice Age.

May comments:

In the figure below (source Javier, here) proxy global average temperatures for the whole Holocene (last 11,500 years) are shown in black. Computer model temperatures calculated by Liu, et al. (2014) are shown in green, carbon dioxide and methane concentrations from ice cores are also shown. For the Neoglacial Period, temperatures go down, but the computer model temperatures go up, so does the carbon dioxide level. Quite obviously, for the Holocene, neither CO2 nor the computer models are predictive of temperature.



As the chart reflects, we are currently living in a relatively cool period. Global temperatures change over time, and while there are various theories, no one really knows why. If the alarmists were real scientists they would go back to the drawing board.
 
Last edited:
dave

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,572
755
113
A lot if people have been duped by global warming ******** and it is going to take a while for them to accept it. 4 years after everyone accepts it cuntrytard will accept it too.
 
bornaneer

bornaneer

Senior
Jan 23, 2014
30,170
821
113
Op2 said:
The US Gelogical Service is a bunch of commies. We need info from someone respectable, like The National Enquirer or maybe The World Weekly News.
Click to expand...
You don't think the National Enquirer is respectable? Shame on you.
 
E

eerdoc

Redshirt
May 29, 2001
24,013
24
38
WVPATX said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...atures-suggesting-rise-not-man-emissions.html

Looks like El Nino has ended and the temperatures have dropped dramatically as they did 17 years ago.

Also, Arctic ice is back to where it was 13 years ago.


  • Date: 07/05/17
  • Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph
In recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño
Inevitably, when even satellite temperatures were showing 2016 as “the hottest year on record”, we were going to be told last winter that the Arctic ice was at its lowest extent ever. Sure enough, before Christmas, a report from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was greeted with such headlines as “Hottest Arctic on record triggers massive ice melt”. In March we had the BBC trumpeting another study that blamed vanishing Arctic ice as the cause of weather which led to the worst-ever smog in Beijing, warning that it “could even threaten the Beijing Winter Olympics in 2022”.

But last week we were brought back to earth by the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), as charted by our friend Paul Homewood on his blog Notalotofpeopleknowthat, with the news that ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C. In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago. Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick. The Greenland ice cap last winter increased in volume faster than at any time for years.

As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”.

This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years. But the BBC won’t be telling us any of this. And we are still stuck with that insanely damaging Climate Change Act, which in this election will scarcely get a mention.

Full post
Click to expand...
Further evidence that true scientists, without the burden of begging for Government grants and trying to seem 'politically correct', avoid the trap fallen into quite frequently by half-a$$ed 'scientists' who persist in jumping to conclusions (and, most often, projecting well into the future) using quite variable SHORT TERM data and ignoring historical trends and other, very valid, but data which conflicts with their agenda. In too many cases data which , agh the moment coincides with the politics and agenda of the 'scientist and allows the entry of skewed data into the 'all knowing computer' so as to have reported that the desired outcome would be derived via the program devised so as to achieve the pre-conceived agenda of the ha;f-a$$ed pseudo scientist who devised the program. (Remember the axiom of computer science--garbage in; garbage out). I can easily elucidate numerous major flaws in the measurements and interpretations of many observations and collected data on, for example, CO2 measurements, sea level measurements, flawed application of statistical evaluations, etc. SO glad to see such a 'global cooling' article come out to refute some of what we have been fed by those married to the 'religion of man made global climate change (i.e. warming).
 
W

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
eerdoc said:
Further evidence that true scientists, without the burden of begging for Government grants and trying to seem 'politically correct', avoid the trap fallen into quite frequently by half-a$$ed 'scientists' who persist in jumping to conclusions (and, most often, projecting well into the future) using quite variable SHORT TERM data and ignoring historical trends and other, very valid, but data which conflicts with their agenda. In too many cases data which , agh the moment coincides with the politics and agenda of the 'scientist and allows the entry of skewed data into the 'all knowing computer' so as to have reported that the desired outcome would be derived via the program devised so as to achieve the pre-conceived agenda of the ha;f-a$$ed pseudo scientist who devised the program. (Remember the axiom of computer science--garbage in; garbage out). I can easily elucidate numerous major flaws in the measurements and interpretations of many observations and collected data on, for example, CO2 measurements, sea level measurements, flawed application of statistical evaluations, etc. SO glad to see such a 'global cooling' article come out to refute some of what we have been fed by those married to the 'religion of man made global climate change (i.e. warming).
Click to expand...

I found the single graph that showed historical temperatures through the ages, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the model predictions of temperatures for those same periods very powerful. It not only shows no correlation between CO2 and temperatures but also the fallacy of the models that have been developed.
 
E

eerdoc

Redshirt
May 29, 2001
24,013
24
38
WVPATX said:
I found the single graph that showed historical temperatures through the ages, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the model predictions of temperatures for those same periods very powerful. It not only shows no correlation between CO2 and temperatures but also the fallacy of the models that have been developed.
Click to expand...
Let's be even more basic---those who have training, knowledge, and experience in analytical/measurement techniques over the ages scoff at trying to make meaningful comparisons of the collected measurements when the techniques vary so dramatically in their accuracy as well as precision. Those half=a$$ed scientists I reference quote their numbers as if ALL are absolute and equally comparable. ABSOLUTELY not true. Couple this with the lack correlation , etc. that you reference and it is quite easy to detect a 'modern day religion' and not a scientific venture.
 
E

eerdoc

Redshirt
May 29, 2001
24,013
24
38
bornaneer said:
Keep in mind that many of our friends get their serious news from the likes of Colbert,Rachel Maddcow and old reliable Dan Rather.
Click to expand...
What you are saying, I believe, is that "...many of our friends get NO serious news..."
 
C

countryroads89_rivals

Sophomore
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
WVPATX said:


As the chart reflects, we are currently living in a relatively cool period.
Click to expand...


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That is not what the chart reflects at all. If you are not a scientist (obviously you are not), you should not try to speak like an expert on science.

You are a moron....you are very entertaining though.
 
M

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,543
151
63
WVPATX said:
I found the single graph that showed historical temperatures through the ages, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the model predictions of temperatures for those same periods very powerful. It not only shows no correlation between CO2 and temperatures but also the fallacy of the models that have been developed.
Click to expand...
It frosted in Fayetteville this morning, what's that mean?
 
W

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
countryroads89 said:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That is not what the chart reflects at all. If you are not a scientist (obviously you are not), you should not try to speak like an expert on science.

You are a moron....you are very entertaining though.
Click to expand...

LOL. You can' read a chart. As CO2 levels rise in this graph (red line), the proxy temps drop (no correlation). And the modeled temps (green line) don't correlate to the proxy temps (black line). And since the time when we actually measured world temps, the. models have all been wrong, predicting higher temps than we have experienced.
 
J

JMichael

Redshirt
Jul 7, 2001
619
3
18
Daily Mail is considered a tabloid magazine, published daily. It is the biggest such publication in the U.K., with Ireland and Scotland editions. It is considered conservative and right-of-center, but folks from other countries such take note that those terms will likely mean different things in the U.K. than in, say, the U.S.

A “tabloid” magazine is very different from a magazine that uses “tabloid journalism” to obtain high readership. The one doesn’t necessarily include — or preclude — the other. That said, DM is not above sensationalist headlines that require further reading before resharing, lest the article you share actually invalidates the point you’re trying to make.

The Daily Mail has satirical articles — sectioned off from the rest of the paper — and editorial pieces, so be mindful that you’re not resharing an opinion piece as a factual piece, unless the article itself contains enough citations of authority to back said opinion.
 
W

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
JMichael said:
Daily Mail is considered a tabloid magazine, published daily. It is the biggest such publication in the U.K., with Ireland and Scotland editions. It is considered conservative and right-of-center, but folks from other countries such take note that those terms will likely mean different things in the U.K. than in, say, the U.S.

A “tabloid” magazine is very different from a magazine that uses “tabloid journalism” to obtain high readership. The one doesn’t necessarily include — or preclude — the other. That said, DM is not above sensationalist headlines that require further reading before resharing, lest the article you share actually invalidates the point you’re trying to make.

The Daily Mail has satirical articles — sectioned off from the rest of the paper — and editorial pieces, so be mindful that you’re not resharing an opinion piece as a factual piece, unless the article itself contains enough citations of authority to back said opinion.
Click to expand...

The article in the Daily Mail links to the original article in the Telegraph. Nice try.
 
dave

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,572
755
113
countryroads89 said:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That is not what the chart reflects at all. If you are not a scientist (obviously you are not), you should not try to speak like an expert on science.

You are a moron....you are very entertaining though.
Click to expand...
Says the resident expert in the O&G field who doesn't know dick about engineering
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom