Has the Global Temperature Trend Turned to Cooling?

Right, because as usual, you simply made it up and deliberately chose to falsely attribute it to me. It's always the same. You are fully aware that I didn't invoke, mention, or imply magic. I simply identified the fact that we don't yet fully understand what causes climate to change. Being -- unlike you -- willing to admit ignorance on a question is the quintessence of science, and is in no sense an invocation of magic.

However, we know you will continue to falsely claim the realist side is invoking magic because you have no actual facts or logic to offer.

It makes perfect sense because atmospheric CO2 concentration correlates much better with previous than with subsequent temperatures. That shows its effect on temperature is much smaller than its response to temperature -- and we know exactly how small its response to temperature is because we know exactly how temperature affects its solubility in seawater. Similarly, snow cover is both a forcing and a feedback, but temperature affects snow cover much more than snow cover affects temperature.

No, that's just baldly false. No CO2 forcing is needed at all. Indeed, requiring climate models to include strong CO2 forcing is what makes them unable to make accurate predictions.

Denying the true and obvious is what the CO2 climate narrative does best.

No, you are. I have said no such thing. You simply made it up and falsely and disingenuously attributed it to me. As usual.

The IPCC's position that the sun has almost no discernible effect on global surface temperature is not mainstream science.

That is just a bald falsehood.

Nope. It has been unusually and unexpectedly active for the last two years, exactly when temperatures were increasing.

Nope. The earth was cooling for six years until the sun became exceptionally active and El Nino returned in the last two years.

It's crazy because you simply made it up, as usual. The sun is not historically weak and the warming was only fast in the transition from La Nina to El Nino.

 

So.. why don't CO2 scammers ever admit that H2O is more likely to cause measurable differentiation in global climate? one just has to remember that until that teesie weensie little explosion that occurred in Tonga. And giga tons of water vapor is ejected into the stratosphere, and golly, temps rose, somewhat. Cause, reaction, measurement. All scientifically supportable observable data. And yet, the CO2 scammers will not admit it. Lest they be cast as the charlatans they actually are.

 

Shaviv and others have already demonstrated that "mainstream science" significantly overlooks the Sun's climate role.

 

Lots of other things that seem to never get included, orbit, tilt oscillation, so many other factors. But then, the math would make the models unworkable...

 

By being wrong with every prediction? I don't think that's how it works.

 

Big eruptions put out sulfate aerosols. The dimming effect of those aerosols is bigger than the warming effect of the water vapor. Big volcanic eruptions cause cooling.

And here you are, apparenty wiser than everyone else on the planet, telling us the opposite, that big volcanic eruptions cause warming. Can you name anyone else who supports your brand new "Big volcanic eruptions cause warming!" theory?

 

It's my interpretation, and it's correct. You can't name what's causing the warming, but you have faith that some mystery factor must be the cause. No matter that we have a fine theory that perfectly explains all of the observed data. Reality offends you on a political level, so you're rejecting it in favor of a mystery cause.

I say faerie magic has caused the continuous fast warming over the past decades. Why isn't science investigating that? Because they're not investigating it, it proves scientists are hacks. That's your argument. It's one reason why nobody takes you seriously.

No, that's not how the logic works.

Orbital factors kick off a small temp rise in the oceans, which cause the oceans to release CO2, which starts an upward feedback cycle, which runs until the logarithmic nature of the feedback shuts it down. That's observed reality.

That it no way translates to "The feedback is much stronger than the forcing". It's an apples vs oranges situation. It makes no sense to compare CO2 level changes to temperature changes and declare one is more powerful.

If that's the case, you can tell everyone how the earth melted out of its snowball earth phases, without bringing CO2 into it.

Mainstream science has no trouble explaining it. Your theory should be ... interesting.

For the past two years, solar activity has been on the run-up to what looks like will be an average-level peak. That's never caused extreme warming before, but you say it's causing it now. Why is this time different?

That claim rest on taking an ultrafudgy satellite model to be true, so the claim is rejected. The actual surface temperature data says the opposite.

You reject the best data in favor of pure fudgy goodness, a sure identifier of the pseudoscience devotee. Good scientists don't toss aside the best data, which is the mainstay tactic of deniers.

 

Big eruptions? I think you are thinking of small eruptions.

I guess NASA “supports” big eruptions cause warming.

The Tonga event is widely believed by scientists to have a warming effect similar to NASA modeling above (based on the effects of water vapor).

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41... vapour perturbation,C over the coming decade

Volcanic activity we have been able to observe has predominantly resulted in short term cooling. But we haven’t observed a big event. We’ve observed small events.

Evidence points to large eruptions resulting in enough warming to cause mass extinction events.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012825223002374

 

You're unfamiliar with the data.

 

Wow! This hasn’t lasted well!

 

On the contrary, it remains sound. Only El Nino has paused the decline, which will almost certainly resume.

 

No, it is a bald fabrication on your part, has no basis in anything I wrote, is grotesquely incorrect, and you know it.

No, your claims continue to be reliably false. I have stated many times, including in responses to posts of yours, that the principal factors governing global surface temperature on the relevant time scales (i.e., annual to millennial) appear to be solar activity (which includes several cyclical components that have various periods that are not always in phase), ocean circulation cycles including El Nino/La Nina, internal variability of the climate system, especially wrt clouds, volcanic activity, and non-CO2 human emissions such as dark, sooty particulates.

No it doesn't. It doesn't explain any climate changes before the 19th century (which is why liars like Michael "Piltdown" Mann have to erase them from the climate record), the cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s (which is why NOAA/NASA have been busy erasing that through retroactive alteration of decades-old temperature records), or the much slower warming observed at pristine rural sites where land use changes and other non-CO2 factors are not present.

OTC, I am concerned that the CO2 climate narrative -- a non-problem that consequently has no solution -- is a Machiavellian distraction designed to prevent my fellow progressives from focusing on real social and economic problems that have real solutions.

No, it bears no resemblance whatever to my argument, and you know it.

Yes it is.

No it isn't. The logarithmic nature of the feedback proves the increase in CO2 caused by warming seawater is far too small to have any such effect. The actual mechanism is the positive ice-albedo feedback, and it shuts down because insolation is proportional to the cosine of latitude: the higher the latitude, the less sunlight there is to melt the ice.

Wrong. The paleoclimate record proves temperature affects CO2 more than CO2 affects temperature. You just have to deny that scientific fact because your anti-fossil-fuel ideology requires you to deny the indisputable facts of climate science.

It makes perfect sense, as I already proved to you.

There are various possibilities: continental drift opening and closing oceanic circulation routes; large-scale vulcanism depositing dark ash on the ice; emergence of microscopic life forms able to colonize icy surfaces, darkening them; and of course, the sun getting hotter as part of its normal development.

OTC, mainstream science hasn't yet determined what happened, and CO2-climate narrative nonscience cannot explain the frequent wide divergences between CO2 and global surface temperature.

No, there was unexpectedly a sudden, extreme increase in solar activity two years ago. That increase has now tapered off, and temperatures have accordingly stopped rising.

The change from La Nina to El Nino also contributed.

No, that's false. There is nothing fudgy about it, as its consistency with radiosonde and other high-validity temperature measures proves.

Only when under-corrected for land-use changes, urban heating, etc.

No. The best data are not the ones most contaminated by, and not corrected for, non-CO2 effects like land-use changes, which are what climate-science-denying purveyors of the CO2-climate narrative use exclusively.

Good scientists don't toss aside the best data, which is the mainstay tactic of deniers.

 

Yeah, yeah, like I said, the magic fairy dust stuff. Just because you throw a bunch of technobabble buzzwords around, that doesn't make it an actual theory.

An actual theory has predictive power. Exactly what does your theory predict for the next decade? AGW theory made predictions, and was spot on correct. Deniers for the most part are too scared to even make predictions.

The court ruled Mann was honest, and that his critics were frauds and liars. No wonder his critics are flailing. That humiliation couldn't have happened to a more deserving pack of Stalinists.

Your theories do not explain the directly observed stratospheric cooling, polar amplification, more warming at night, more warming during winter, the decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands, or the increase in downwelling backradiation. As the data contradicts your theories, your theories are wrong, regardless of how angry you get about it.

Plus, once you've declared the whole world is conspiring against you, you fall into the "not a serious person" category. And that's why you're stuck here preaching to the choir.

 

Yes, yes, record high temperatures prove cooling is happening. In opposite-land, that is.

Meanwhile, here's the actual surface temperature record. This is why, when someone declares the earth is cooling, people will smile, twirl a finger around their ear, and then slowly back away.



That one is from the Japanese Meteorlogical Agency. It's very similar to every other surface temperature record. The surface records all disagree with the UAH satellite model. UAH measures microwave emissions from oxygen atoms across the whole troposphere, and then runs that data through a model containing a host of fudge factors. Emphasis on the word "model". You see, models are ALWAYS BAD ... unless it's the UAH model.

In contrast, the surface records use devices called "thermometers", and are actually located on the surface. Go fig.

When you've been reduced to picking from only the most select cherries, it means you're embracing pseudoscience.

 

The jury awarded Mann $1 in damages and $1M in punitive damages. Under SCOTUS guidelines the latter will probably be reduced to $9. That's not a striking verdict. Moreover, the trial judge has yet to confirm the verdict.

 

UAH temperature is a NOAA/NASA program. Moreover, your chart agrees with UAH and confirms my claim: cooling since 2016 except for the current El Nino.

 

So the Tambora eruption warmed the world? Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

Those are thousand-year long eruption cycles that ... get this ... caused warming by increasing the CO2 levels.

 

We've been over this before. No, it's not. The fact that NASA gives some funding to Huntsville in general does not make UAH "A NASA/NOAA program". And even if it was, it would have no bearing on the fact that it's still a fudgy model.

Yeah, yeah, we need to believe you over our lying eyes. Good luck with that.

Oh, time for this again, as it illustrates the fundamental flaw in your argument so succinctly.

 

Actually, it's your eyes that make my point; it's easily seen.
As for UAH and NASA, you're wrong on the facts.
Why so many global temperature records?

NASA (.gov)
https://climate.nasa.gov › news › why-so-many-global...


Feb 22, 2015 — A group from the University of Alabama-Huntsville maintains a record of temperatures based on microwave sounders on satellites. The satellite- ...

 

Haw Haw Haw Haw Haw,

your chart actually hurts you because it shows stretches of no warming years at a time while the step up warming are connected to El-Nino Phases, I showed you before what is the main cause of warming and it isn't CO2 doing it.

The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 9 – Kevin Trenberth is Looking Forward to Another “Big Jump”

In a recent interview, Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Senior Scientist, from NCAR said the upcoming 2014/15 El Niño might shift global surface temperatures upwards by 0.2 to 0.3 deg C to further the series of upward steps. Curiously, Trenberth is continuing to suggest that the warming we’ve experienced since the mid-1970s resulted from naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled El Niño events and that we might get to experience yet another of those El Niño-caused warming steps as a result of the 2014/15 El Niño. So let’s take a look at what he’s suggesting and what the future MAY POSSIBLY hold in store…if Trenberth’s dreams come true.




LINK

I can see why Unskeptical mess starts at about 1968 because they don't want to show the LOOOONG non warming trend a couple decades before that which adds up to around no warming for about 35 years as there was a definite global cooling going on while CO2 levels in the air went up and up and up the entire time.

 

Bob Tisdale

SkepticalScience Needs to Update their Escalator

The SkepticalScience animation The Escalator has been around for a couple of years, and it has appeared in dozens of their posts and in blog posts by other carbon dioxide-obsessed alarmists. Their intent with The Escalator animation was to show that the instrument temperature record includes many short-term absences of global warming, while, in their minds, manmade greenhouse gases caused the long-term trend of global warming. With Kevin Trenberth now saying strong El Niño events caused global warming to occur in steps, SkepticalScience needs to revise their escalator animation. The steps are not only how skeptics view global warming…one of the leading ENSO and global warming researchers is now presenting global warming in El Niño-caused big jumps, and he also has written in at least two peer-reviewed papers that El Niños are fueled by sunlight.

So here’s my suggested replacement for SkepticalScience’s The Escalator. For lack of a better title, we’ll call it…

THE TRENBERTH GLOBAL WARMING STAIRCASE




LINK

================

CO2 is clearly NOT driving the slow warming trend.

 

So you can’t read. You are in the wrong century. SMH.

The Tonga event mentioned by the other poster is not the Tambora eruption. Yes, short term cooling is definitely a factor. But it’s transitory and in large events outweighed by other warming factors. My links are pretty clear about short term cooling.

What it boils down to (pun intended) is you are operating on old assumptions. New discoveries are showing only short term cooling but net long term warming from large volcanic events we used to ASSUME resulted in net cooling.

And you don’t know the difference between “big” events and “small” events. Again, if you want to discuss observed events (we call contemporary), they are all small.

It’s OK. You can learn. I’m not here to claim the planet isn’t warming. It is and I’m thankful. Events like the Tambora event are a hard lesson we should all learn that the danger to our existence is cooling climates, not warming climates.

 

Because most people are much more familiar with water than they are with chemical compounds like CO2. They'd understand immediately that the ultimate goal of the climate nutters is to reduce the surplus population if they were proposing eliminating water.

That's why.

 

Your claims remain reliably false.

I have used the correct terms to identify the facts (with which you are evidently unacquainted), not "technobabble buzzwords"; and just because you repeat a bald falsehood, that doesn't make it any less false.

Arctic sea ice will still be there, island nations will not disappear, millions of climate refugees will not appear (unless the sun really does become inactive, and temperatures accordingly plummet), solar activity will continue to be the most important factor influencing global surface temperatures, anti-fossil-fuel liars will continue to lie, and CO2 will continue to be almost irrelevant to global surface temperature.

That is of course just baldly false. AGW theory predicted that arctic sea ice would disappear, island nations would sink beneath the waves, million of climate refugees would inundate temperate countries, blah, blah, blah. None of those have happened, nor will they be happening. Take it to the bank.

I have made some suitably cautious predictions, and have been proved correct.

Yes, well, we know that juries in civil trials are not exactly reliable judges of the facts -- and in this case they had been, like everyone else, subjected to decades of CO2 climate narrative nonscience. And what about all Mann's previous trials, which found his claims to be without merit? If you try it on often enough, eventually you will succeed.

Climate realists are not the ones seeking totalitarian control of the economy in the name of the Greater Good. Anti-fossil-fuel liars are.

<sigh> Yes, they most certainly do, as I have already proved to you multiple times:
- Stratospheric cooling just means IR emissions are on average from a higher, cooler altitude, which has no significant effect on surface temperature.
- Polar amplification is implied by the positive ice-albedo feedback that has caused the alternating Pleistocene ice ages and interglacials.
- More warming at night is caused by human energy use like urban heating, land use changes, the insulating effect of contrails, etc.
- More warming in winter is also caused by human energy use, contrails, etc.
- Decreased outgoing longwave in the GHG bands only shows that CO2 has an effect at high altitude above where water vapor condenses out, not at the surface.
- Increased downwelling backradiation, to the modest extent that it has been detected, is consistent with a modest contribution to the greenhouse effect by CO2 and other artificial GHGs, which climate realists have never denied. Remember, if ECS is less than ~1C, CO2 emissions are simply not a significant problem for climate, and indeed are broadly beneficial because of their biofertilization effect.

As the data contradict your theories, your theories are wrong, regardless of how angry you get about it.

I've never said the whole world, or even a substantial fraction of it, is conspiring against me. You simply made that up. Like pretty much all your other claims.

 

<yawn> Why does Skeptical Science's remarkably dishonest graph begin at the end of a three-decade cooling trend, hhhmmmm? Could it be for the same dishonest reason that the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years is always called, "pre-industrial" rather than "Holocene temperature minimum"?