Americas Most Advanced Climate Station Data Shows US In A 10-Year Cooling Trend

Global Warming is based on computer models, not on actual observations.

 

That's my understanding as well, and also it seems that those computer models continuously fail to accurately predict -- well -- anything. But still it's leftist science,and so it's automatically all good, yes? Or so our leftists keep insisting.

 

Oh, good grief. Both of you - watch this show when it's again available and then, if either of you want to tell me there are "no actual observations", I will only believe that you simply refuse to believe (for whatever reason(s)) what is squarely in front of their noses.

 

The hysteria is based on models, that is not in dispute. You prove that everything isn't known, thus field work, but when it comes to actually proving the CO2 hypothesis, there is a long way to go. Do you think discovering how an iceberg breaks down will advance climate science significantly? After all, they all break down eventually. Always have.

 

Since the endlessly churned out computer models do not work perhaps it's time to reconsider whether or not all those observations actually mean what the "We are all gonna die!" leftist scientists BELIEVE that they mean. I mean I admire people who have faith but . . . still, science is supposed to eschew mere faith.

 

And do you believe that sincerely?

(By the way, we ARE all gonna die.)

 

Since the current belief system is actually damaging science, he is spot on. Of course we all die.

 

What computer models did Svante Arrhenius and Guy Stewart Callendar use when they came up with the theory of anthropogenic global warming?

 

Arrhenius would be called a denier today. He eventually made the suggestion that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels could be beneficial, making the Earth’s climates “more equable,” stimulating plant growth, and providing more food for a larger population.

Guy Stewart Callendar said: "On the earth the supply of water vapour is unlimited over the greater part of the surface, and the actual mean temperature results from a balance reached between the solar “constant” and the properties of water and air. Thus a change of water vapour, sky radiation and temperature is corrected by a change of cloudiness and atmospheric circulation, the former increasing the reflection loss and thus reducing the effective sun heat." basically stating that Earth is self correcting which many skeptics have said.

Also, a denier. "In conclusion it may be said that the combustion of fossil fuel, whether it be peat from the surface or oil from 10,000 feet below, is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power. For instance the above mentioned small increases of mean temperature would be important at the northern margin of cultivation, and the growth of favourably situated plants is directly proportional to the carbon dioxide pressure (Brown and Escombe, 1905): In any case the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed indefinitely."

 

Perhaps then you can explain these actual observations:



Not a computer model to be seen in this graph.

 

There is a reason you never qualify your graphs with a link. For one, your graph cuts off early, also for a reason

http://waterra.org/?m=20150423

 

If you can't find Mauna Loa CO2 data, or GISS temperature data, on your own, you're simply hopeless. But then, you're a denier, so I repeat myself.

But just FYI, here are the links that it took Google all of 0.01 seconds to find:

Mauna Loa CO2
GISS global temperature

The graph posted above used the entire GISS annual temperature dataset with no cutoffs. You're lying. For a reason.

UTTERLY EFFING HILARIOUS!!

After complaining that my graph is cut off, even though it contains the entire GISS global temperature record from 1880 to 2014, our hypocritical, lying Denierstan "expert" posts a graph that REALLY IS cut off, containing only 16 out of the 135 years in the global temperature record.

Allow me to quote someone you might recognize: your graph is cut off. For a reason. Care to guess what that reason is, Hoos? Care to guess who's been fooled here?

 

I love how you guys always start off your graphs with the outlier in temperature in the 1998-1999 year. It's hilarious because the graph you posted should show exactly what it's showing as surface temperature has not changed much between those years so no matter what the PPM was, the graph should show exactly what it is showing. It's just a visual con job showing the exact same con that you guys continue to use over and over again. Show that graph with a 100 year period... then we can talk, lol.

 

So your not contesting that the so called freezing period was isolated to England and the whole idea of it representing the entire northern hemisphere is pure stinking propaganda.

.
Are you kidding? That's the only place in the northern hemisphere that freezes over.

 

Nice try at deflection. Still unwilling to source your graph? So what period does your graph represent? Not shown. Does it start in 1880 or 1979? When does it end? What record does it use for CO2 if it starts before 1979? What are the uncertainties? Where does the graph come from? What is the article that goes with it? Typical dishonesty. You are starting to act like Michael Mann.

- - - Updated - - -

So you agree with the author, the graph is showing exactly what it is showing. What a hoot.

 

The Siple Dome, an ice dome roughly 100 km long and 100 km wide, about 100 km east of the Siple Coast of Antartica, also reflects effects of the Little Ice Age synchronously with the GISP2 record, as do sediment cores from the Bransfield Basin of the Antarctic Peninsula. Oxygen/isotope analysis from the Pacific Islands indicates a 1.5 degree Celsius temperature decline between 1270 and 1475 A.D.

http://nsidc.org/data/waiscores/findings/mayewski_findings.html

http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/sep/20sep2011a5.html

 

With the addition of tons more data and faster computers, the models are getting increasingly better, but what they have shown for many years is that we are most definitely causing a spike in warming with it coming much faster than we could normally expect. With that come consequences. The spike coincides with the global rise of CO2 and other human generated greenhouse gasses, but CO2 is the most prominent.

Well, first, I found the show absolutely fascinating. Second, what the program does also indicate, tho it was not stressed, is that some very large Greenland glaciers are melting faster now, so one of the questions was how exactly is that happening. It is also obvious that the warming we have been experiencing is a direct cause. I brought that up because of several comments about there being "no direct observations" which is a total piece of b.s. There are many if you will but look.

 

Bullcrap. I have shown you time and again real alternatives to your theories which you willfully ignore on a consistent basis. You have convicted yourself of being nothing but a bald faced propagandist by your absolute unwillingness to even discuss those. Your obviated willful blindered view is the stuff of cultists like Islamists, or the view of the Catholic Church shown to Gallileo.

Keep making yourself look like the purblind bull to all who read these discussions. Thanks. It's easy to obliterate your puny arguments.

The graph below more closely matches the "warming trend" you purport to be occurring:



Note the slowdown of pole shift from 1940 to 1970. Also note the rapid pole shift during the medieval warm period.
Pole shift is a much larger influence than a tiny .00050% increase in co2 relative to total atmospheric content.

When you then examine the long term historical warming and cooling trends of the planet in the graphic below:



You will note that we are still 3-4 degrees below the historical norm of the planetary temp.
Having risen from the depths of the last super ice age in the pre-pleistocene.

Your continued failure to reasonably adress these points, year after year, marks you as nothing but a faith based follower of orthodoxy.

 

I'm the source. I had thought that was obvious, but the denizens of Denierstan need their hands held at every intersection.

Already told you that too: 1880 to 2014. Next time, read for content.

The same Law Dome record you have already used in your own posted graph. If you don't trust that, you shouldn't have posted it yourself.

It comes from me. And how typical -- after failing to refute even a single data point on the graph, the denizens of Denierstan resort to the ad-hominem argument. I guess when you don't have any evidence on your side, insults are the only thing you've got left. How sad for you.

 

http://www.climate4you.com/

 

You need to look up the definition of "denier". While they may not have considered it a problem, neither one denied that increasing atmospheric CO2 would lead to increased global mean surface temperature. They didn't need any computer models to tell them that, either.

 

Nope, I have said everything above and still get called a denier, so they are too. If it is not alarming, it is not of the orthodoxy.

 

LMAO!!! So you are making up your own global warming theories now attributing it to the shift in the north pole. The comedy you guys provide is second to none. I should actually be paying you guys.

Lmao!!! So it has warmed and cooled before, that means man can't have an effect on the weather? Solid argument. What I expect out of deniers and truthers. Great work man, I needed that laugh this afternoon.

 

Stop laughing. You are only increasing your carbon footprint. Or you can pay me to reduce MY laughing, and the world will be saved. Your choice.

 

Can't help myself. These guys actually think they are proving the entire world of climate scientists wrong with graphs of north pole shifting and old climate changes. You can't make up better comedy than that.