Has the Global Temperature Trend Turned to Cooling?

So your error is in the generalization. The Tonga eruption's main output was water vapor. Details matter, not your willingness to simply ignore them. Why would you continue to want to ignore the science/physics of this? NASA even admitted this:
The underwater eruption in the South Pacific Ocean also blasted an enormous plume of water vapor into Earth's stratosphere – enough to fill more than 58,000 Olympic-size swimming pools. The sheer amount of water vapor could be enough to temporarily affect Earth's global average temperature

But you cannot admit it? https://www.nasa.gov/earth/tonga-er...the,affect Earth's global average temperature.

 

El Nino giveth and La Nina taketh away.
The Coming Collapse Of El Nino and The Ramifications on The Atlantic Basin Tropical Season
Guest Blogger
Paul Dorian: This forecast map by the North American Multi-Model Ensemble (NMME) of sea surface temperature anomalies for the August/September/October 3-month time period features colder-than-normal conditions (La Nina) across the…

Overview

Above-normal sea surface temperatures continue this month across most of the equatorial part of the Pacific Ocean, but there are signs that this El Nino episode which began about a year ago will flip to La Nina conditions (colder-than-normal) by the early part of the 2024 summer season. A flip from El Nino to La Nino across the equatorial Pacific Ocean can have big implications on the upcoming 2024 Atlantic Basin tropical season. In fact, this expected dramatic change in sea surface temperatures across the Pacific Ocean may be a major contributor to a very active tropical season in the Atlantic Basin as atmospheric conditions are typically more favorable (lower wind shear) during La Nina episodes for the development and intensification of tropical storms. A second favorable factor for a very active tropical season in the Atlantic Basin is the likely continuation there of widespread warmer-than-normal sea surface temperatures. Finally, as oceanic cycles play a critical role in global temperatures, a flip from El Nino to La Nina in the world’s largest ocean could mean a return to closer-to-normal levels following a spike during the past year or so. . . .

 

So, according to your theory, after each El Nino, the temperature rise is permanent.The reverse is not true. After each La Nina, the temperature drop is just temporary.

Can you explain the physics behind that? You don't have to, of course, not unless you want to be taken seriously.

And no, Trenberth didn't say what you attribute to him. That was your very weird and very incorrect interpretation of it.

And there you go, blindly attacking the source because you can't address the science.

Don't worry. We know how the WUWT cult commands that all enemies of the cult be demonized, and you must obey.

 

So if El Nino is the only cause of the warming, why is the new plateau higher after each El Nino? Why doesn't it ever drop back down to the previous level?

 

Because that's when the very fast human-caused warming started, after a slight cooldown period caused by pollution aerosols. Why on earth did you think that's some sort of "gotcha" question?

You're angry here because a graph illustrated the topic it was intended to illustrate, and it did so simply and brilliantly, annihilating the bad propaganda that forms a fundamental basis of denialism.

 

And even if that would true, it ignores the point that you're all running from. Which is that a jury vindicated Mann, and classified your side as frauds and liars.

That's what happens when just the facts are involved.

I understand your rage here. Mann is a sort of satanic figure in your religion. You're all reacting like a hardcore Christian who just received irrefutable proof that Satan has been the good guy all along. Your minds just can't grasp the depth of the deception that's been foisted on you for so many years.

 

No, that's nothing but arrant and disingenuous question begging of exactly the same sort as the "argument" the graph purports to refute.

FTR, I have no patience with the claim that El Nino somehow ratchets temperature upward but the cycle never goes back down, and have never made or endorsed such an argument. AFAIK it is very much a minority view in the climate realist camp (I believe only Tommy has endorsed it here on PF), and it is baldly dishonest of Skeptical Science to claim it is the majority view of those who question the CO2 climate narrative.

No, that's just another absurd and disingenuous load of nonscience. There is no credible empirical evidence whatever -- none -- that pollution aerosols could somehow have had no effect during the rapid warming of ~1910-40, then cooled the earth ~1940-70, and then somehow became inactive again after 1970. Such claims are absurd on their face.

Because your only "answer" to it is the above absurd and disingenuous tripe.

No, I am disgusted because a graph was dishonestly manipulated to create a false impression, which is the invariable resort of those pushing the CO2 climate narrative.

No, it refutes itself, by using -- just as you did -- the same kind of now-you-see-it, now-you-don't "logic" it purports to be "annihilating."

 

A jury also acquitted OJ....

If that's what you think jury trials involve, I have a nice bridge available at a bargain price.

Bizarre. What about all Mann's previous unsuccessful lawsuits, hhmmm? They somehow don't count? Only the verdict that goes your way is "real"?

 

Which previous lawsuit said Mann was a fraud and liar?

You're not very good at this.

 

But SS didn't say that, and it's baldly dishonest of you to claim they did.

SS is saying that deniers only look at short term trends and ignore the overall trend, which is garbage logic and garbage science. And they're right.

As is always the case, your "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" arguments are so impressive. It's a travesty that the Nobel Committee has ignored you.

Oh, if it makes you feel better, I'll modify my statement to "pollution aerosols, weaker sun, and higher volcanic activity." Unlike your side, the rational side understand that multiple factors affect climate.

Here's the interesting thing. Prior to 1970, climate correlated with solar output closely. After 1970, they diverged. Solar output dropped hard, temperature shot up. To normal people, that disproves the "It's the sun!" theory. (And no, the heat wasn't hiding in the oceans.)

 

All of them.

 

Sure they did.

That word, like SS itself, is nothing but disingenuous and despicable propaganda.

No, they are lying. They are liars. All climate realists take a longer view than anti-CO2 hysteria mongers. The real garbage logic and garbage science is to do what SS does, and pretend that one phase of a cyclical phenomenon is a trend.

I have never made any such argument. You simply made it up. As usual.

But pollution aerosols trended uniformly upward, the sun wasn't weaker, and volcanic activity was lower.

No, your claims continue to be baldly false. My side -- the rational, honest, and realistic side -- has always maintained that multiple factors affect climate. It is the anti-rational, anti-scientific, and religious scaremongering side -- your side -- that maintains CO2 is the only significant factor governing the earth's surface temperature.

No, you have merely made the same sophomoric errors you always make. Your first error: solar activity (output is not the relevant factor; that's your second error) dropped from its modern peak, but remained above the historical average right through the end of the 20th century. To those who have some understanding of physical processes (doesn't include anti-CO2 scaremongers), turning the stove down from 10 to 7 doesn't make the water in the pot cool down. It just heats it more slowly. Anti-CO2 screamers are utterly and permanently unable to understand that fact.

Your third error is in accepting temperature records that have been manipulated and retroactively altered to create a spurious warming trend. There is no credible empirical evidence -- none -- that global surface temperature is noticeably higher now than it was in the early 1940s. Yet you blindly accept the false claim that temperatures have "shot up." They haven't. Arctic sea ice extent is greater now than it was a decade ago. Given your vaunted "polar amplification," that just flat-out disproves the claim that temperatures have shot up. The temperatures at pristine rural sites that have not been affected by urban heat, land use changes, etc. are very little higher than they were 80 years ago -- and that difference has occurred mostly at night, and has probably been caused mostly by contrails.

 

Sometimes it does drop to the previous level, but for recent long term warming, the Sun is the key.

 

Sorry, but no rage here. This matter is far from concluded.

 

Come on. You're just phoning in the BigLies now. I get that your religion orders you to say this stuff, but you have to know that nobody else falls for it.

We've measured ocean temps closely for a long time. Your theory requires that the oceans either be cooling, or at least be slowing in their rate of warming.

That's not happening. The oceans are getting hotter even faster. That debunks your "HEAT STORED IN THE OCEANS IS COMING OUT!" theory.

That's been mentioned to you before. You always refuse to address it. That shows you're not intellectually honest.

Your theory is contradicted by the observed data, so your theory is wrong, no matter how much that enrages you.

Now that you're going full conspiracy theory on us, your last bit of credibility is gone, so my work here is done.

 

Thank you for agreeing that you have no facts or logic to offer, so you have no choice but to resort to ad hominem rant.

No we haven't. We have barely any data from before the 20th century, and the data we do have are spotty, acquired using inconsistent methods, and open to interpretation.

No, of course they aren't. If they were, arctic sea ice extent could not possibly have increased over the last decade.

See? Your only alternative is denying the facts and gaslighting the whole world.

No it doesn't. Heat is constantly going into and coming out of the oceans; this follows a cyclical pattern, and anti-CO2 screamers deny the science of ocean circulation cycles in favor of their assumption that one phase of a cycle is a secular trend.

No, you simply made that up. I have addressed and refuted your false claims before. You just ignore the refutations and repeat the same false claims.

Your theory is contradicted by the observed data, so your theory is wrong, no matter how much that enrages you.

Chanting "conspiracy theory" does not make dishonesty never to have happened, sorry.

 

There is ignorance, misinformation and then there is this - although parts are right a lot is not. La Ninadoes not mean the globe has suddenly cooled

oy!!

 

Ever heard of paleoclimatology? Corals and Foraminifera have pretty good records reflecting past temperatures especially when added to other proxies

https://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/proxies/paleoclimate.html
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/paleoclimatology/coral-sclerosponge
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/c... one of,of the global atmospheric circulation.

 

Neither El Nino highs nor La Nina lows reflect long term trends.

 

Speaking of corals:
Alarms about the health of coral reefs were apparently based on ignorance.
Why Climate Scientists were Duped into Believing Rising CO2 will Harm Coral and Mollusks
Guest Blogger
The world can only hope that NOAA and all those alarmist websites will soon admit that improved science has revealed the error of their ways. . . .

 

You mean "especially when cherry-picked to agree with tree-ring proxies contaminated by CO2 fertilization that creates a bogus warming trend."

I guess you missed this little gem:
"Key Limitations
• Most fossil coral records are short (<100 years) and do not extend to the 20th or 21st centuries."

You are just sad, now.

 

Which is why I included foraminifera and other proxies - scientists (plural - it is not just some guy in a basement making stuff up) scientists used multiple proxies to get the most accurate record they can. If the proxies deliver different data I.e.foraminifera results do not match coral results which do not match sediment cores then further research is done to find out why

 

Ooooh! It is that well known scientist “guest blogger”!!! If they were truly posting viable critiques they would NOT be anonymous and posting on a fringe website

 

Bingo!

 

You will embarrass yourself less if you open the link and read the name. "Guest blogger" is merely a WUWT honorific. The author is well-known veteran climate scientist Jim Steele.
Of course, then you'd have to address substance rather than attack people, which I've observed is your preferred tactic.