Yes, yes, we get it. Observations of record high global temps prove your belief of a strong cooling trend. Somehow. I guess you just have to have faith.
The debate is not about temperature. It is about attribution. And even the observed rising temperatures fall short of the models.
That's not what you were saying when you were cherrypicking bad data to pretend there's a cooling trend. No, it's not about your feelings. It's about the temperature. The models said +0.20C/decade, and the observation says +0.19C/decade. So technically, you're right. It fell short by 5%. Meanwhile, your side can't even get the direction of the change right, making your error over 100%.
And they can not even agree if things are going up or down, which is why many now simply call it "ACC" or "Anthromorphic Climate Change" instead of AGW, as they have to justify exceptionally cold events as being caused by humans, not just warmer events. To me, the biggest failure is that every single one of them starts with the automatic assumption it is caused by humans. Oh, and starting with a baseline temperature set during the Little Ice Age, that does not help also. Combine the two of them, and you have a giant fail. Especially when taken against the fact they are trying to use a period of around 100 years out of a cycle that typically lasts over 100,000 years. And even then, we do not know the exact conditions, we can only extrapolate them based on plant and animal remains discovered (and everybody should be aware of how sparse the fossil record is). And typically, the most common method of determining things that far back is through plant fossils. That is why for example I commonly use the "palm tree line" as an informal benchmark. But it also takes time for such species to spread when the conditions evolve warm enough for newer species to exist there. Which I have talked about also in regards to the northern half of the Great Plains in the US. During the ice age, that was almost all tundra and permafrost, like most of Siberia and northern Canada-Alaska today. Wet, spongy, lots of moss but not much else. It took thousands of years for that terrain to dry out, the permafrost to thaw, and for grasses to move in and replace it. Just because the ice receded, that did not mean that in 100 years it was replaced by grass. That took thousands of years, and states like Nebraska and Iowa when the first humans arrived there much more resembled the landscape around Nome than it does today. So if you look at say a breakdown of conditions of the great plains 10 kya, the actual temperatures would reflect that the plants and animals there now could likely survive. However, the actual fossil record lags that, because the actual ground had to transition to support those plants. That is not instantaneous, it takes thousands of years to melt the permafrost, drain off all that trapped water, and for the moss and other tundra plants to die off, break down, and become soil that could support higher level plants. That is why while much of Alaska and Canada could in theory today support an ecosystem of say Northern Europe, it can not. Same general climate, however, the ice age was much more severe there so it is taking significantly longer for the land to evolve to support the higher level plants (especially as most of the year is still cold enough to retain the permafrost). Now if we were to go in, rip out all of that tundra and permafrost, drop down a couple of feet of topsoil then it would look like N. Europe rather quickly. But waiting for nature to do that takes a hell of a lot of time. Like I keep pointing out, almost each and every one of them seems to want to believe in a "Static Earth", where absolutely nothing should ever change. And for some reason equating hot with dry, as that also is completely backwards. Ice Ages are the driest eras ever in the history of the planet, and the interglacials are the wettest periods in the last 2.5 my. But that seems backwards to them, so they get it wrong every single time.
When you say stuff this insane and contrary to reality, why do you expect not to be laughed at? It's impressive, your ability to state the exact opposite of the truth in every single case, justifying it with a hearty "BECAUSE I SAY SO!". Notice how nobody in the world of science falls for your nonsense? That would tell a normal person something. However, if someone's narcissism is totally off-scale, they'd simply declare that they're clearly smarter than all those pointy-headed geeks, and therefore their conspiracy theory must be the RealTruth. And off you go, rambling about unrelated things. On the bright side, when the real world gets too rough, you've always got your SafeSpace here.
Yes, the vast majority of science related to climate does indicate that we're warming and that humans are a significant cause. And no, nobody believes in a "Static Earth". However, humans require time to adapt to change. And, slowing the exceptional warming taking place will help with that. Maybe in the future we'll have to take action on cooling, if it happens too fast. But, we clearly know how to do that!!
That's not an excuse for you to be sucked in by that stupid chart that you used to suggest Earth's temperature is DECREASING. You stopped at 2021 without doing any analysis on what is actually going on. It was the answer you wanted.
The data are my allies. Global Warming: Observations vs. Climate Models The Heritage Foundation https://www.heritage.org › environment › report › glob... by R Spencer — Roy Spencer is a Visiting Fellow in The Heritage Foundation's Center ... Paul Voosen, “Use of 'Too Hot' Climate Models Exaggerates Impacts of ...
The El Niño - La Niña patterns have been going on for thousands of years, and it generally a 7 year cycle (on average, most times give or take 2-3 years). And the funny thing is, I lived through many of those cycles in California. And it always struck me as funny that people would act surprised each and every time they happened. We would get torrential downpours that flood a lot of area and storms that tear up the beaches, and they scream that had never happened before. Then several years of hot and dry with much lower rainfalls, and once again they scream it is the worst it had ever been. Then the cycle repeats, and they scream the exact same things they did at the last cycle. And we know this is not new, as the Spanish missionaries in the 16th century were recording the rainfall, and their records reflect this same pattern. As does the tree ring record. And that is the perfect conditions for most forms of wine grapes, which is exactly why wineries popped up in the region as soon as the missions arrived 500 years ago.
Only if you throw out the actual data, as you did. The topic is surface temperature, so you ... automatically throw out all of the surface temperature data. And in its place, you substituted really bad data. And then you expect to be taken seriously. Why?
You all said that after the last El Nino. Your record of total failure in your predictions remains perfect and unblemished.
Please do. The data are the data. Note the cooling between the 2016 El Nino and the 2023 El Nino. UAH Global Temperature Update for February, 2024: +0.93 deg. C March 2nd, 2024 The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2024 was +0.93 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up from the January, 2024 anomaly of +0.86 deg. C, and equaling the record high monthly anomaly of +0.93 deg. C set in October, 2023. The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.15 C/decade (+0.13 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.20 C/decade over global-averaged land).
The warming trend since 1979 is 0.15 per decade, not 0.5 per decade. But between 2016 and 2023 the trend was cooling with a slope of -0.03°C per annum. Has the Global Temperature Trend Turned to Cooling?
Even reputable journals are corrupted by advocacy. When Science Journals Become Activists Patrick Brown, The Liberal Patriot Public trust in many mainstream publications continues to consistently decline. Part of the reason for this seems to be that media outlets cater more and more to the ideological tastes of specific groups, sacrificing their credibility to a wider audience in the process. I have criticized the New York Times, for example, for exaggerating the impacts of climate change, but this type of criticism may be in vain if they are covering climate exactly how their audience wants them to. It is in a media environment like this, however, that we desperately need reputable sources of scientific information. Sources that will avoid the same temptation to cater to their audiences and prioritize dispassionate reporting of facts instead. Nature magazine has a reputation as one of the most reliable sources of information on earth. Their publication has a section of peer-reviewed articles as well as softer sections dedicated to science news and the like. I have criticized the landscape surrounding high-impact peer-reviewed scientific studies published in places like Nature, but I won't elaborate on that here. Here, I want to bring attention to Nature’s science news section. Sadly, this section now appears to be engaged in similar levels of spin on climate information as outlets like The New York Times. Two recent articles serve to illustrate the point. The first is titled: Surge in extreme forest fires fuels global emissions. Climate change and human activities have led to more frequent and intense forest blazes over the past two decades. The second is titled: Climate change is also a health crisis—these graphics explain why…Rising temperatures increase the spread of infectious diseases, claim lives, and drive food insecurity. Between these two news articles, we have four claims: one on wildfires, one on infectious disease, one on deaths, and one on food security. Let’s scrutinize each claim one by one. . . . .
The alarmists are on especially weak ground when they make claims about wildfires. March 03, 2024 Another Deceptive Front-Page Climate Story in the Seattle Times The Seattle's Times ClimateLab writers have done it again. Another highly deceptive and error-filled climate story in the ST. One predicting more than a doubling of wildfires over western Washington and Oregon by mid-century. The trouble is that this story is based on a highly problematic paper published in February in JGR Biogeosciences (see below). A paper that is missing the key element of Westside wildfires and makes predictions that are unsupported and highly exaggerated. Before anyone suggests I should not comment on this work, let me note that I am doing research on EXACTLY this topic. I have read all the relevant papers. The authors of this paper cite several of my previous papers on the topic. The Key Control of Westside Fires Was Ignored Both this article and the Seattle Times article ignore the central fact about major wildfires occurring west of the Cascade Crest. Let me explain. Westside fires are infrequent for a reason: the region west of the Cascade crest is generally too moist to burn. Precipitation is abundant west of the crest (see below) and for most of the year cool, moist marine air from off the Pacific (whose temperature is about 50F) floods over western Washington and Oregon. Moisture vegetation and ground surfaces, as well as cool/moist air. Wildfires don't have a chance and are thus rare. But there is an atmospheric "trick" that can make Westside wildfires possible: strong easterly (from the east) winds. Winds that are generally dry and warm, and capable of pushing the moist/cool marine air out to sea. . . .
Yet more evidence that advocacy has corrupted climate science. Six Warning Signs Climate Scientists Are Lying About Wildfires By Jim Steele Although a 20-year period of a drier climate associated with La Nina-like conditions will dry out the biggest dead logs, so they more easily burn, changes in wildfire frequency and…
Not sure why you find it funny. Of course I wasn't sure why you misquoted the temperature trend, either.
And?? If climate change has an effect, it will come by causing patterns of change in weather. More periods where there are "1-4 days of drying", etc. "Fire season" more properly refers to periods where there is greater fire risk. It doesn't indicate how fires start. Vegetation type and seasonality are affected by climate. Claiming there were more periods of dry cheat grass isn't a denial of climate change. Seriously? The "scientific" argument is that the vast majority of those who study climate are "mindless"? Plus, the graphic claimed to support this point isn't even identified as to providence.
