« prev   random   next »

7
2

Global Cooling 1/2 degree in last 2 years.

By Onvacation following x   2018 May 18, 1:27pm 4,346 views   251 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/860837?section=newsfront&keywords=earth-cool-half-degree-nasa&year=2018&month=05&date=16&id=860837&aliaspath=%2FManage%2FArticles%2FTemplate-Main

The average global temperature dropped by more than half a degree Celsius from February 2016 to February 2018, according to recent NASA data.

Read Newsmax: NASA Data: Earth Cooled by Half a Degree Celsius From '16-'18

Comments 1 - 40 of 251    Next »    Last »

1   TrumpingTits   ignore (0)   2018 May 18, 2:47pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote        

Yeah, because we are heading into another mini-ice age.
2   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 May 18, 2:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote        

Well that sort of shoots the global warming theory right in the fucking face.
3   edvard   ignore (2)   2018 May 18, 3:05pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

PS: Global warming doesn't just mean.... the globe warms all over. When the overall planet heats up this can cause convective weather patterns, leading to more severe cold in some areas, more severe heat in others. When this becomes a solidified trend that's what global warming/climate change is allllll about....
4   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 May 18, 3:25pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Onvacation says
Read Newsmax: NASA Data: Earth Cooled by Half a Degree Celsius From '16-'18


The washington post did a big article on this last month

. Onvacation says
https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/860837?section=newsfront&keywords=earth-cool-half-degree-nasa&year=2018&month=05&date=16&id=860837&aliaspath=%2FManage%2FArticles%2FTemplate-Main


Something is screwed up. If you follow the link in the article you come to the NASA site that says 2017 was the 2nd hottest year on record with nothing about cooling. WTF?

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20180118/
5   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 May 18, 4:35pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote        

bob2356 says
WTF?

The planet is not warming catastrophically in spite of our continued pollution, increased co2 levels, and continued alarmist propaganda.

Can't make it any clearer.
6   marcus   ignore (1)   2018 May 18, 7:18pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

Reality: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-17/april-was-400th-consecutive-month-world-warmer-than-20th-century


If the 5 hottest years on record have all occurred since 2010, you might be celebrating a "cooling trend" a little prematurely.
7   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 May 18, 7:36pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote        

So April was the third warmest April since 1880 , the last 400 months (33 years) have been warmer than the twentieth century, and the "global average temperature anomaly " since 1880 is measured on a scale with increments of hundredths of a degree.

Alarmist just can't admit that their CAGW theory is wrong.
8   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2018 May 18, 7:43pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote        

This requires some major Global Warming gaslighting to keep the Faith alive!
9   marcus   ignore (1)   2018 May 18, 7:44pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Onvacation says
Alarmist just can't admit that their CAGW theory is wrong.


I'd be more likely to believe that the stock market is in a secular down trend due to the action of the past few months, a very similar kind of claim. Ubviously untrue. (although possible - its just that the long term trend is not there).

ALthough, why is there nobody out there stupid enough to think that the stock market is in a bonafide long term downtrend based on a few months of lower lows and lower highs.

Perhaps becasue it's not political ?

THank goodness global temps swing back and forth, or we would have all fried or frozen long ago. The trend is still very clear to anyone with any sort of ability to take in reality.
10   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 May 18, 8:21pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

Onvacation says
The planet is not warming catastrophically in spite of our continued pollution, increased co2 levels, and continued alarmist propaganda.

Can't make it any clearer.


The article says the planet cooled .5 degrees based on a link to nasa that says 2017 was the second hottest year on record. Of course, that's perfectly clear. Ok it's not so clear to anyone capable of thinking.
11   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 May 18, 8:22pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

marcus says
Reality: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-17/april-was-400th-consecutive-month-world-warmer-than-20th-century


...."The combined ocean and land temperature was 1.49 degrees Fahrenheit (0.83 degrees Celsius) above the 20th century average of 56.7 degrees in April. That made last month the third-warmest April in records going back to 1880,"

Wow, pretty amazing stuff!! I didn't know we had digital thermometers back in the 1880s that could measure in 1/10 of degrees to get such precise measurements.

Isn't technology amazing!
12   marcus   ignore (1)   2018 May 18, 8:52pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Sniper says
Wow, pretty amazing stuff!! I didn't know we had digital thermometers back in the 1880s that could measure in 1/10 of degrees to get such precise measurements.


Not that amazing. Even in the 1880 s they knew how to average a bunch of numbers (how yearly averages of large data sets of values are calculated) and get an answer even to the nearest 10 ten thousandth if they wanted to. (also data sets from back then probably still exist so computers can confirm the averages now. )

As for the accuracy of thermometers ? http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-05-28/news/0005280042_1_thermometers-readings-accurate
13   everything   ignore (1)   2018 May 18, 10:12pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

We are appearing to come out of an ice age because we have polar caps, which are shedding some nice chunks. Don't try to over think it. Not every year will be the same, follow the trend, the big picture, what's really happening, what is visible -- i.e. most glaciers on our continents are also receding. It is what it is.

Sometimes I wonder if the sun has a much, much longer solar cycle than we know about, and/or the earthen core is still cooling itself, the earth is a pretty big ball of matter.

Just enjoy the ride folks, our time in the sun is not long, nor will be our species, they all go extinct eventually.
14   mell   ignore (2)   2018 May 19, 10:06am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote        

Well GW could hurry the fuck up. It's been freezing here on the west coast coldest spring evah, howling cold winds like in winter time in mid May. Someone please post the al gore freezing with icicles meme.
15   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 May 19, 10:16am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote        

If it were real science, it would cause the alarmists to take pause and try to build their understanding and knowledge base. Instead, the religious global warming left continues to explain away those things that challenge their predetermined model.

No one, quite yet, has a full understanding of our biosphere.
16   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 May 19, 11:02am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

It’s been chilly on the west coast as well. My pool refuses to heat past 70°! Our days are low 60s to low 70s, which I personally don’t mind. However it’s not usual for this season which trends warmer.
I think the solar minimum is having an effect that’s actually visible.
17   marcus   ignore (1)   2018 May 19, 11:23am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote        

Malcolm says
Instead, the religious global warming left continues to explain away those things that challenge their predetermined model.


I see almost the complete opposite. There are different models that all the science people and most of the intelligent folks understand are only models based on educated guesses (not predictions). It was always about hypotheses, trends, scientific facts, evidence and RISK ..

IT was never about anyone claiming to have absolute certainty about what's happening. But it's the denier right wingers, that use the argument that without absolute certainty 9 different ways from Sunday, it's foolhardy to avoid risk simply by expediting the use of alternative and more environmentally friendly energy sources. Which is something that probably would have other long term geopolitical benefits anyway.

It's only those that massively profit from maximizing the use of fossil fuels that stand in the way of good common sense energy policy and investment.
18   justme   ignore (0)   2018 May 19, 12:58pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

The NASA data does not support the headline from Newsmax. So Newsmax is just making shit up.

By the way, do denialists understand that average SURFACE AIR temperature is NOT equal to the average temperature of ALL air, land, water and ice on the globe?
Nor is average SURFACE AIR temperature indicative of the average stored thermal energy of ALL air, land, water and ice on the globe. Do denialists even know basic thermal physics?
Do they know what heat capacity is? Do they understand that when a small area of the earth's surface consist of melting ice, the melting might cause the SURFACE AIR temperature to drop temporarily over a much larger area? What will happen when the ice-covered areas shrink and disappear because of melting from increased absorbed solar energy? That's right, the average surface air temperature will rise rapidly.

Denialist logic: It is colder today than it was yesterday, therefore, summer is NOT approaching.
19   Kakistocracy   ignore (0)   2018 May 20, 4:39am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

justme says
The NASA data does not support the headline from Newsmax


Alex Jones and InfoWars does as the does the Gateway Pundit and other websites catering to the far right crowd.
20   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 May 20, 5:00am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Kakistocracy says
the far right crowd.


Define far right. Alex Jones hates W Bush, and Bush hate sTrump. Is W far right or is AJ? Or is Trump. At least one of these can't be "far right", by definition.
21   Kakistocracy   ignore (0)   2018 May 20, 5:02am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

CBOEtrader says

Define far right


Ran out of time to play this morning. Have a great Sunday ! and don't forget to MAGA !
22   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 May 20, 5:10am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

justme says
Do denialists even know basic thermal physics?


No group outside of advanced physics education programs know "basic thermal physics".

Since you are an expert, enlighten us.

justme says
Nor is average SURFACE AIR temperature indicative of the average stored thermal energy of ALL air, land, water and ice on the globe.


Ok, please explain how our scientific community measures "average stored thermal energy of ALL air, land, water and ice on the globe." Then explain your theory and hypothesis of the earth's temp. Most importantly: please include what measurement changes would support vs disprove your theory.

From my knuckle dragging perspective it looks like some global warming supporters can spin any data into supporting their theory. Without empirical guidelines there is no science. Show us the basic guidelines of your chosen scientific theory.
23   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 May 20, 5:11am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Kakistocracy says
CBOEtrader says

Define far right


Ran out of time to play this morning.


The forum will be here when you're ready to answer the tough questions :)
24   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 May 20, 6:28am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

And here I thought the frozen tundra where I live will be like Hawaii when I am ready to retire-looks like it may be like the North Pole and liberals will still claim global warming or say global cooling is evidence of global warming!
25   CBOEtrader   ignore (2)   2018 May 20, 7:29am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        



Scientists are still at the "guess" step in the global warming theory. Until they present a future set of data that would either support or disprove the theory, it is not science.

The End.
26   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 May 20, 8:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

justme says
that average SURFACE AIR temperature is NOT equal to the average temperature of ALL air, land, water and ice on the globe?


Ya think?

2015 was the second warmest year EVER according to manipulated NASA data. 2016 was 4/100 of one degree hotter, THE HOTTEST YEAR EVER! according to the alarmists.

Since then it has been getting colder.

The name has been changed to "climate change" for a reason.
27   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 May 20, 8:23am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Kakistocracy says

Ran out of time to play this morning.

Typically, when you confront alarmists with facts, they run away.
28   mell   ignore (2)   2018 May 20, 8:56am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

May 20 and cold AF on the west coast. Must be "climate change" ;)
29   bob2356   ignore (1)   2018 May 20, 9:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Onvacation says
2015 was the second warmest year EVER according to manipulated NASA data. 2016 was 4/100 of one degree hotter, THE HOTTEST YEAR EVER! according to the alarmists.

Since then it has been getting colder.


OMG one year deviation. The horror, the horror.
30   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 May 20, 9:57am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

bob2356 says
The horror, the horror.



Some people are really disappointed that Manhattan is still above water.
31   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 May 20, 10:04am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

marcus says
I see almost the complete opposite. There are different models that all the science people and most of the intelligent folks understand are only models based on educated guesses (not predictions). It was always about hypotheses, trends, scientific facts, evidence and RISK ..

IT was never about anyone claiming to have absolute certainty about what's happening. But it's the denier right wingers, that use the argument that without absolute certainty 9 different ways from Sunday, it's foolhardy to avoid risk simply by expediting the use of alternative and more environmentally friendly energy sources. Which is something that probably would have other long term geopolitical benefits anyway.

It's only those that massively profit from maximizing the use of fossil fuels that stand in the way of good common sense energy policy and investment.


This is called backpedaling. The skeptic's side has predicted this, and that prediction did come true. This is such an about face, that I consider it an admission that the science is not settled and welcome you to the skeptic side, since you are no longer asserting that there is any foreseeable danger from global warming, I mean climate change.
32   marcus   ignore (1)   2018 May 20, 10:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote        

No it's not. What's wrong with you people ? Do all republitards have a character disorder ? Does emotion totally cloud your ability to reason ?

It's like all the idiots claiming that the "libruls" have said all along that Trump colluded with the Russians. No they really didn't. They suspect that he totally might have, and Trump had a bunch of shady characters (including his son) working in his campaign. And Trump even joked about Russians hacking Hillary.

It's an investigation !

Malcolm says
This is such an about face that I consider it an admission that the science is not settled and welcome you to the skeptic side, since you are no longer asserting that there is any foreseeable danger from global warming, I mean climate change.


Wtf ?

I still see a danger and a risk. I don't have to have absolute certainty about the exact magnitude of the danger in order to believe policies are justified.
33   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 May 20, 10:22am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

marcus says
Do all republitards have a character disorder ?

By definition.
35   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 May 20, 10:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

marcus says
I still see a danger and a risk. I don't have to have absolute certainty about the exact magnitude of the danger in order to believe policies are justified.


No, but you reexamine the model when its predictive theory fails.
36   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 May 20, 10:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Malcolm says
This is called backpedaling.

And it has been going on for a while.

We don't hear about rising sea levels and imminent ice free arctic anymore because they did not happen. In spite of the dire warnings, the hockey stick of multiple degree temperature rise never happened. Thus global warming became climate change.

Now the alarmists warn of catastrophe if the temp goes up two more degrees by the end of the century and the only way to stop this is to buy carbon credits (Al Gore is selling them) or stop emitting co2.
But don't hold your breath for the alarmists to ever admit they were wrong about CAGW.
37   marcus   ignore (1)   2018 May 20, 10:50am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

You act as if what's happened is so incredibly far from the projections of models. Sure, the most outragious "predictions' didn't come true, but even those tell you a lot about the intellectual dishonesty of the right wing skeptics. They love to quote Al Gore who said something to the effect that one scientist says POSSBLY the ice caps would be completely gone in the summer by 2014 (or whatever year it was).

From that they get "Gore predicted it. " If you call them on this lie, it's as if they are zombies that are programmed to not comprehend what you're talking about.

Do the deniers ever stop and notice "oh my god the arctic ice is melting really fast, faster than many of the projections ?" Of course not.

instead you get the asinine lie "nya nya nya nya nya, Gore predicted there would be no ice on earth by 2014" or some such bullshit.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/

Here are graphs of a bunch of models. We know that so far is that several of these models are relatively accurate.. But they are just models. Nobody ever said with absolute certainty they were able to predict exactly how it will unfold. Models take a bunch of inputs, including some assumptions based on historical correlations and so on. Everyone knows the earths climate is too complex to predict perfectly. To use the fact that it can't be predicted perfectly, as a cop out for denying a trend that's unfolding right before your eyes is in my opinion beyond stupid.

38   Onvacation   ignore (2)   2018 May 20, 11:10am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

marcus says
You act as if what's happened is so incredibly for from the projections of models.

Not even sure what that means.

marcus says
Al Gore who said something to the effect that one scientist says POSSBLY the ice caps would be completely gone in the summer by 2014 (or whatever year it was).

Oh yeah. Did the scientist predict the current cooling?

Onvacation says
will alarmists ever admit they were wrong about CAGW.

marcus says
Nobody ever said with absolute certainty they were able to predict exactly how it will unfold.

Thats a start.
39   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 May 20, 11:12am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

marcus says
Here are graphs of a bunch of models. We know that so far is that several of these models are relatively accurate.. But they are just models. Nobody ever said with absolute certainty they were able to predict exactly how it will unfold


How can there possibly be consensus and settled science then?
40   marcus   ignore (1)   2018 May 20, 11:19am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

I know that you guys are all about black and white, absolute certainty versus "I can ignore this," but please consider this question.

What probability would you have to attribute to one of the worse projections above being accurate in order to base government policy on the POSSIBILITY.

Would it take an 80% chance that one of the worst projections in that graph are what's going to happen ? A 50% chance ?

For some people that are in the habit of thinking about the reality of complex systems and risk in terms of probability, they would go as low as 5% or possibly even lower. Certainly for any rational and sane person, a 10% chance that those worst projections are correct would be enough for strong action.


Comments 1 - 40 of 251    Next »    Last »





The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions