Scienceglobalwarminghoax

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 12:11 PM

The Next ‘Little Ice Age’ Is Already Here

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/31/the-next-little-ice-age-is-already-here-russian-scientist-claims/
The Next ‘Little Ice Age’ Is Already Here, Russian Scientist Claims
A new study by a prominent Russian astrophysicist claims the “new Little Ice Age” started at the end of 2015 due to low solar activity, kicking off decades of “deep cooling” in the latter half of the 21st Century.

“As a result, the Earth has, and will continue to have, a negative average annual energy balance and a long-term adverse thermal condition,” Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, who is the head of space research for the Pulkovo Observatory at the Russian Academy of Sciences, wrote in a recent study.

“The quasi-centennial epoch of the new Little Ice Age has started at the end 2015 after the maximum phase of solar cycle 24,” Abdussamatov wrote. “The start of a solar grand minimum is anticipated in solar cycle 27 in 2043 and the beginning of phase of deep cooling in the new Little Ice Age in 2060.”

54 replies, 3348 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 54 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Next ‘Little Ice Age’ Is Already Here (Original post)
Jack Burton Oct 2016 OP
Paradigm Oct 2016 #1
AZ0 Nov 2016 #31
marmot84 Oct 2016 #2
specs Oct 2016 #3
Muzzlehatch Oct 2016 #4
W Va moonshiner Oct 2016 #6
Muzzlehatch Oct 2016 #13
specs Oct 2016 #16
Muzzlehatch Oct 2016 #21
oflguy Nov 2016 #38
Muzzlehatch Nov 2016 #39
oflguy Jan 2017 #40
oflguy Nov 2016 #23
marmot84 Nov 2016 #33
oflguy Nov 2016 #34
marmot84 Nov 2016 #35
oflguy Nov 2016 #36
oflguy Nov 2016 #37
specs Oct 2016 #8
marmot84 Oct 2016 #9
Muzzlehatch Oct 2016 #12
specs Oct 2016 #14
Muzzlehatch Oct 2016 #11
specs Oct 2016 #15
Muzzlehatch Oct 2016 #22
oflguy Nov 2016 #27
oflguy Oct 2016 #19
oflguy Nov 2016 #24
Muzzlehatch Nov 2016 #26
oflguy Jan 2017 #41
Muzzlehatch Jan 2017 #43
oflguy Jan 2017 #44
Muzzlehatch Jan 2017 #45
oflguy Jan 2017 #46
Muzzlehatch Jan 2017 #47
oflguy Jan 2017 #48
Muzzlehatch Jan 2017 #49
oflguy Jan 2017 #50
Muzzlehatch Jan 2017 #51
oflguy Jan 2017 #52
oflguy Jan 2017 #53
TexMex Nov 2016 #25
oflguy Nov 2016 #28
MountainDew Oct 2016 #5
marmot84 Oct 2016 #10
specs Oct 2016 #17
marmot84 Oct 2016 #18
MountainDew Nov 2016 #30
oflguy Oct 2016 #20
oflguy Nov 2016 #29
oflguy Oct 2016 #7
AZ0 Nov 2016 #32
oflguy Jan 2017 #42
birthmark59 Jan 2017 #54

Response to Jack Burton (Original post)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 12:19 PM

1. So all of that money I sent to CC so he could keep his

private jet fueled up seems to be paying off.

We need to keep sending him money so the energy used in his mansions and private limos are offset by his jet fuel use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paradigm (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 6, 2016, 06:33 PM

31. Who is this CC you sent money to?

You might want a refund.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Original post)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 12:28 PM

2. It amuses me

that scientific outliers like this are immediately accepted as fact by the deniers because it fits their bias while overwhelming scientific evidence in the other direction is immediately rejected. Seems like ideology and not science, just say'n.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #2)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 12:38 PM

3. Umm, because all the data supports what this says :) There has been no warming for 20 years :)

 

Also, our planet goes through cycles that are very dependent on solar activity and volcanic eruptions. These cycles have been noted by the very people that called it global warming up until the recent decade where they swapped to climate change because the planet was not warming at all.

See this is the history of your religion

1970 - 1990 we are going to freeze! They find out that it is not true and the planet starts to show some hotter years.

1990 - 2000 we are going to burn up! oh but wait! No we are cooling again!

2000 - present the climate is going to change! And it is Man's fault!

Basically, you guys do not know enough about the climate to understand what it is doing. You have to change the wording and reasoning every generation so you can keep the money rolling in

Some guy can piss in the ocean near one of the few recording instruments you use and you all will jump up and down and say the CLIMATE IS CHANGING AND IT IS MANS FAULT SEND US MONEY!

That is because you guys have not found a way to make Nature pay you, so you have to get it from the tax payers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #3)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 12:57 PM

4. The planet reached its warmest temperature for thousands of years in 2015

This "no warming for 20 years" claim is the most bizarre nonsense ever. It's just a lie. You must know it by now. Why do people like you keep repeating it?



http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/



http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #4)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 01:15 PM

6. you could use that graph to show the same thing when we came out of the ice age ,.

dont think there was very few humans around at the time ,..and 1860 to 1880 ,is about when we started to come out of the mini ice age and it was warmer between the two ,so global tems. go up ,then down ,then up ,then down ,..normal ....fallow the money ,..i well remember in 1970's same scientist back then said we would freeze to death ,..did i say fallow the money?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to W Va moonshiner (Reply #6)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 04:09 PM

13. The mechanics of the Earth's orbit and tilt are known, and account for the ice ages

Without human intervention, the Earth should be slowly cooling now (very slowly, compared to the rate we're going up at).

I assume you meant "some scientist", because it's not the "same" scientist. And it's not just a few scientists - it's pretty much all the scientists and science organisations in the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #13)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 06:00 PM

16. Satellite data comfirms that the planet is cooling due volcano activity and sun activity :)

 

Or lack of Sunspots if you wish. Seeing as the sun is very inactive the last 20 years

Maybe if you stopped believing in the religious nutballs like NASA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #16)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 08:03 PM

21. Satellite data? 0.5 to 0.7 degrees C increase over the past 20 years

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.6.txt

20 years ago: Sept 1996 0.022C, 12 month running mean -0.082C
Sept 2016: 0.568C, 12 month running mean 0.592C
Increase for Sept: 0.54C; for 12 months to Sept: 0;.674C

So, why lie and say "Satellite data comfirms that the planet is cooling due volcano activity and sun activity" ? If almost as if you haven't got a clue about reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #21)

Mon Nov 7, 2016, 12:37 PM

38. Why don't you do us all a favor Muzzle

and explain that chart for us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #38)

Tue Nov 8, 2016, 02:01 PM

39. It's fairly simple; when people talk about the 'satellite data' they typically mean

the calculations by John Christy and others at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, from various satellites' microwave sounding unit measurements (hence the 'msu' in the URL). They are for the lower troposphere - ie the atmosphere up to about 10km, which isn't necessarily exactly the same as temperature variation at the surface (probably the most relevant point for us, since that's where we live, our farming happens, oceans evaporate, and so on), but it's still useful.

They've got measurements going back to 1979; they give a global average, as well as other areas, and you can take either the average anomaly for just a month, or for the year leading up to that month - the 12 month running mean (since the southern hemisphere has significantly more ocean than the northern, there's a good case that for longer term trends and variation, we should look over a whole year to remove seasonal effects).

Anything more you need?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #39)

Fri Jan 13, 2017, 12:51 AM

40. Yes

Please explain the spikes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #13)

Tue Nov 1, 2016, 08:02 AM

23. Ah yes

At one time scientists said it was extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that the earth is flat and that if you sailed too far, you would fall off the edge.

But science is not determined by opinion. We don't vote on what reality is. Reality is what it is, and the so called "climate scientists" are now scrambling to explain why their predictions have been grossly wrong.

Sorry, but Obama's claim that there is a 97% consensus that man made global warming exists has ben debunked.

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

The 97 percent Solution
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #23)

Sun Nov 6, 2016, 07:23 PM

33. Your stuff is biased by denier preassumptions

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/05/27/shoot-and-a-miss-wall-street-journal-op-ed-attacks-97-climate-consensus/

When you post an article from real scientists questioning the result then I'll consider it. Otherwise your stuff is just more denier BS piled higher and deeper.

Dr. Spencer is a member of the 3% and I've dismissed his crap for years as it always proves to be wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #33)

Sun Nov 6, 2016, 07:50 PM

34. Wah Wah Wah

get a life

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #34)

Sun Nov 6, 2016, 08:28 PM

35. So when you can't make a logical argument

you just resort to personal ridicule. Yeah, that's a big part of why I know Climate Change is real, that scientists agree that it is caused by humans, and, that it is a serious problem for civilization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #35)

Sun Nov 6, 2016, 11:00 PM

36. You want a logical question?

You never answer them. Lets try again.

What is mean temperature data?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #36)

Mon Nov 7, 2016, 12:18 PM

37. orson? where did you go?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #4)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 02:31 PM

8. No,in 1300 it was warmer than it was in 2015 :)

 

The data you show in that chart is their predictions and it is not coming true Oh and this was put together by real climatologists, not the charlatan AL Gore

[link:|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #8)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 02:37 PM

9. Notice that this chart is provided by one "scientist"

who has a vested interest in denying the science. Meanwhile the hockey stick graph is agreed upon by the world consensus. The graph you provided is denier horse shit pseudo science dressed up to go out for the night.

Here is the science:



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #9)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 04:03 PM

12. You'll like this - Cliff Harris thinks the government is responsible for chemtrails

This DVD claims that many areas of the U.S., Canada, Europe and elsewhere are being sprayed almost on a daily basis by 'chemtrails' of toxic heavy metals, particularly aluminum. These are not the normal quickly dispersed jet 'contrails' as often seen.

These chemtrails are composed of tiny glass fibers coated with light-reflective aluminum that are intended to bounce many of the sun's rays back into space with the express purpose of cooling the planet. The chemtrails often cover the sky from horizon to horizon.
...
David Keith, a well-known geoengineer from the University of Calgary, said recently in a San Diego Climate Seminar, "The U.S. and many NATO countries are spraying in order to save the planet from runaway global warming."

It is the opinion of this climatologist that these reckless climate scientists, their greedy corporate sponsors and money-hungry geoengineers are PLAYING GOD. They are spending precious taxpayer dollars on these risky schemes without our permission or congressional approval for the most part. Follow the money and you'll always find the culprits.

http://www.cdapress.com/columns/cliff_harris/article_658d1073-442a-5e78-93c8-6a961ea092a6.html

That graph was drawn by a genuine paranoid nutcase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #9)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 05:46 PM

14. 17 out of 19 is not a consensus and science is never about consensus building :)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #8)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 03:57 PM

11. NASA. It's already in capitals, so just imagine I'm shouting at the top of my voice

to get through to the hard-of-understanding.

NASA

That's who produced those graphs. The USA's top climatologists. No, it's not 'predictions'; that's what has already happened.

Your 'graph', on the other hand, is made up from nothing. It's just a random curve with some dots right on it. They were pulled out of those guys' arses. It's complete bullshit from start to end. But it does have 'predictions' on it at the right.

It even lists the 'Hebrew Exodus from Egypt' as a real event. That's a myth, for goodness' sake. They're trying to use religion to do climate science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #11)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 05:57 PM

15. Repeat after me: Satellite data confirms no warming since 1998 :)

 

It was hotter in 1300 than it was in 2015 , Your graph is a prediction model that has been debunked by your very own Satellite data

The planet is still about 3 degrees Celcius colder from where it is at historically over the life of the planet

my graph is detailed information of when Volcano and Sun activity happened to show a correlation of cooling and warming trends. Do you really believe that the Hebrew people (Jews in your backwards way of thinking) were not slaves in Egypt? Of course, you do, you believe the earth is only a few hundred years old lol

hahaha there is a religion at play here and it is all in the belief that man has any control what so ever on the climate of this planet. Nothing you have said or those that preach the good word of Man Made Climate Change has come to pass since your religion was found over the last 200 years with your backwards ideology based on ignorance of real science and how our planet and nature affects our climate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #15)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 08:20 PM

22. "Satellite data confirms no warming since 1998" is a lie. See satellite data in #21

"It was hotter in 1300 than it was in 2015" is a lie. I've shown the scientific graphs; you've shown a line drawn a a chemtrail conspiracy theorist.

"Your graph is a prediction model" is a lie. It's the actual data from past years.

" that has been debunked by your very own Satellite data " is a lie - see #21.

"The planet is still about 3 degrees Celcius colder from where it is at historically over the life of the planet " is a meaningless phrase. When was "historically over the life of the planet"? You have 4.5 billion years to choose from (NB: not 6,000, as I suspect you may think). Bear in mind we need a climate in which we can grow crops for over 7 billion people. We have higher temperatures now than since the invention of agriculture.

"my graph is detailed information of when Volcano and Sun activity happened to show a correlation of cooling and warming trends" it's made up nonsense.

"Do you really believe that the Hebrew people (Jews in your backwards way of thinking) were not slaves in Egypt?" No, they weren't. It's a myth. There is no archaeological evidence for anything like it. It involves huge numbers of miracles too. And WTF is "Jews in your backwards way of thinking" supposed to mean?

"Of course, you do, you believe the earth is only a few hundred years old lol " - Again, WTF? You're the one denying the scientific facts, and pretending a myth was reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #22)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 08:56 AM

27. Hey Muzzled

Have you ever wondered how temperature data from satellites is measured? Ever wonder where it is measured?

Ever wonder how and where ANY data global warmers use is measured?

Now there is a little research project for you. I bet there is not a single global warmer in the forum that knows, or for that matter, has even wondered how and where data is measured.

(hint: Yes, I'm aware that satellites can measure temperature accurately)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #11)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 06:44 PM

19. People that want to prove global warming exists due to man go to work for NASA

period

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 1, 2016, 08:06 AM

24. I'll tell you why people keep repeating it

Because the two men that developed satellite temperature measurement say so

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #24)

Tue Nov 1, 2016, 11:16 AM

26. See #21. The satellite measurements show temps are still increasing too

Though it's worth pointing out that Carl Mears of Remote Sensing Systems says the surface measurements are more reliable (and, after all, it's the surface, where crops grow, and oceans evaporate, that we're most concerned with, not the troposphere):

This month’s Yale Climate Connections “This is Not Cool” video, following up on an earlier satellite temperature measurements video, explores the debate over the relative merits and comparative accuracy of surface thermometers vs. satellite data.

Preeminent satellite expert Carl Mears, of Remote Sensing Systems, sides with surface thermometers as consistently providing a generally more reliable record. “I would have to say that the surface data seems like its more accurate,” Mears said.

According to Zeke Hausfather, a regular Yale Climate Connections expert author and a doctoral candidate working with Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, “We’ve tried using just the raw data . . . globally, you get pretty much the same warming. The necessary and routine ‘adjustments’ to surface temperature data sometimes attract disproportionate general circulation media attention,” Hausfather says, but those have had very little significant impact over the last 30 years or so. “The satellite records historically have been subjected to much, much, larger adjustments over time,” according to Hausfather.
...
Along with Mears, atmospheric sciences expert Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, explains that a key source of error in the satellite record comes from having to string together data from a series of 13 satellites launched since the late 70s. “You have to cross-calibrate those satellites, and that’s probably the largest source of error in the satellite data set,” Mears says.

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/03/experts-opt-for-surface-rather-than-satellite-temp-data/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 14, 2017, 08:19 AM

41. And yet you can't answer how data is derived from sattelites or ground based stations

In addition to that, do you know that NOAAs own studies reveal that ground based weather stations are woefully inept when it comes to reliable data?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #41)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 07:35 AM

43. The process of taking the data measurements transmitted from satellites

and producing a dataset of temperatures for various altitiudes is something you need to be an expert to do, yes. So what? Yes, the process of taking data from ground stations is also complicated, and there's more than one approach (eg what to do about areas with sparse coverage, like the high Arctic). More than one group of scientists has done it, and they all end up showing a significant upward trend, including over the past 19 years (or however many is being cherry-picked now).

No, I don't know that "NOAAs own studies reveal that ground based weather stations are woefully inept when it comes to reliable data". Link to something to back that up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #43)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 08:13 AM

44. Not complicated at all

Satellite and ground based temperature measurements are used the same way. They measure temperatures throughout the day, then take the highest and lowest measurement, divide by two to get an "average" and that is what the mean temperature is for the day.

And you want me to think the temperature has changed a tenth of a degree from a year ago? Get real.

The NOAA report link is on another computer so I'll supply that later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #44)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 04:48 PM

45. OK, you have no idea how the satellite data is derived

Here's a Wikipedia explanation, but working all this out and putting it into practice will be more complicated:

Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature. The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have produced differing temperature datasets. Among these are the UAH dataset prepared at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the RSS dataset prepared by Remote Sensing Systems.

The satellite time series is not homogeneous. It is constructed from a series of satellites with similar but not identical sensors. The sensors also deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for orbital drift and decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
And as I said, surface measurements need algorithms for how to get temperatures for areas with sparse coverage. And then they have to adjust for sites that stop or start during the time period, effects of urbanisation (which, despite the claims of some deniers, they do allow for), and so on. it's far more than "we have 2 numbers, we'll take an average".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #45)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 08:51 PM

46. So how does your Wiki link dispel what I said?

Fact is, it does not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #46)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 10:13 AM

47. Because your idea of "how data is derived from satellites"

was only (because you said "it's not complicated at all") that it involves taking a high and a low value and finding an average. I'd already pointed out there is the issue of coverage in sparse areas, and you didn't even try to explain how that might be addressed. The Wiki link shows it's far more complicated than "they have 2 numbers and take an average".

Got that link now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #47)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 10:41 AM

48. You are confused

How temperature is determined by a satellite and how the data is used to derive a mean temperature are two entirely different things.

You want to take a stab at whether a degree is a unit of heat?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #48)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 09:02 PM

49. If you admit they're different things, why did you bring up the second?

First, you remarked in #41 "yet you can't answer how data is derived from sattelites or ground based stations" (which was odd anyway, since that hadn't been asked). So I said it's a complicated process for satellites (since the satellites don't "determine temperature"; their measurements have to be processed by scientists, and different groups have different algorithms, so they can get slightly different results from the same satellites).

Then you claimed in #44 that the answer for "how data is derived from sattelites or ground based stations" is that an average of daily high and low temperatures is taken to give a mean temperature. But now you're saying these are 2 different things; so why did you try to conflate them?

Still no sign of that link about the NOAA studies. Did the dog eat your other computer or something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #49)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 10:38 PM

50. You are even more confused than I thought you were

Satellites determine temperature. You are getting hung up on how. Somehow, you are determined to make this a complicated thing.

You seem to be completely unaware what mean temperature data is. How do you think the temperature of a day, week, month or year is determined?

I supplied the link to the NOAA study in this forum days ago. Since you missed it:

Gore predictions and reality
Prediction: 12 October 2007 Al Gore said with apocalyptic certainty while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, "The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff; 'It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now!" We all can point to thousands of media stories on this topic so Al has some company on this scientific propaganda.
Reality: It's now 7 years later and what do we have? 76% bigger ice coverage and thickness than just two years ago, 35% BIGGER than 2007 when Gore spoke from the pulpit. We won't discuss that Antarctica (South Pole) reached all-time record levels this year, oh by the way those all time records only go back to the 1979 satellite era when we had accurate information so we know very little about how big or small it actually got thousands of years ago. Let's move to the North Pole where the sea ice is actually 76% bigger and thicker than just two years ago, yes still below average but growing.

Prediction: Hurricanes numbers are increasing and getting stronger. This claim has been made by so many we've lost track...Al Gore, Dr. Mann from Penn State (guy behind the Climate Gate Scandal), etc. etc. When a politician gets on a cherry picker and his Power Point slide show says Hurricanes are going to get much more frequent and much stronger be afraid...very afraid!
Reality: The scary truth is Global and Atlantic basin hurricane activity and intensity has been plummeting for years and now at 50 year lows globally and 30 year lows in the Atlantic. The Atlantic basin is now in the longest stretch without a U.S. major land falling hurricane - 9 years and that's based on records going back 150 years.

Prediction: Snow and frost will disappear. Same group as point 3 but there are hundreds of scientists who made this claim over the past 20 years. More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning" Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.
Reality: As soon as the 30-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) cycle started it's cold phase in 2007 we've seen a wholesale change in the severity of cold/snowy Winters the past 7 years. Cold Pacific Ocean - cold snowy planet with 4 of the past 7 winters the snowiest on record based on NOAA/NASA measurements that started in the late 1960s. Wait until the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) cycle enters it's cold phase in a few years - it's still warm but already peaked and getting colder. Won't even talk about the Sun's role as it enters it's 300 year minimum in the next few years. Last time all 3 lined up in the cold phase together was the 1600-1700s aka the Little Ice Age.

Prediction: Global temperatures will be +0.8C to +1.8C above average by 2014 made by 74 IPCC UN Climate Models in 2005 - just 9 years ago and they were completely and utterly wrong and not one predicted the continued 17 years pause in global temperatures.
Reality: They all get an F and time to go back to the drawing board to figure out why! Last year July, all 90 IPCC climate models were completely wrong as the global temperature remained flat for 16 straight years - not one predicted the pause with the current temp below the 100% guarantee it won't be this temp. We are so let's go back and figure out why all the UN and academic climate models got it wrong.
Then again, rather than figure out what went wrong with the models, let's just go back and adjust all the weather history to fit the models as it's easier to change past history than forecast the climate. Yes, that's exactly what so many world meteorological agencies are doing and getting caught red handed in Australia, New Zealand and right here in the U.S. as well. In this example, NOAA went back and "adjusted the temperature records because they believe, again sounds like more religion vs science, that the older thermometers were less accurate than today so magically, with a few key strokes Maine's temperatures got colder by 2-5F back in the early 1900s and the more recent period got warmer by 1-2F. Just like that the graph is so much more helpful if you're trying to prove Global Warming is out of control. This is rampant in the climate arenas and it's sickening as this forever corrupts any REAL RESEARCH!!!!

Prediction: Tornadoes are getting more frequent, greater numbers and much stronger. You name it - every media outlet had you believing this back in 2011. See a pattern here...any weather event will jump to the top of the media's hype to convince you that the end is near if we don't shut off our refrigerators, cell phones, cars, AC, heaters NOW!
Reality: According to the severe storms forecast center, the actual number of violent monster F3 tornadoes has actually been decreasing.
What's even more amazing is how our own NOAA agency can't even place a weather station in the right spot with their OWN PLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS. Weather stations are supposed to be placed away from heat sources like pavement, buildings, grills, air conditioners, etc. etc. They're supposed to be 5 feet off the ground in a grassy natural environment over a 100 feet from trees and buildings. Got'a love the colossal disaster on the top right and if you check out Tucson, AZ weather history you get a nice bounce in heat once the weather sensor is surrounded by a parking lot that used to be grass. The sensor at the end of a new runway (bottom right) got'a love it! And the sensor bottom left is just outside a huge interchange and they put the sensor over concrete - that will be a hot sensor! But hey, we're certain the global temperature is +0.20C above average - sounds like statistical noise when we can't even get yesterday's temperatures that accurately.

Not surprising that NOAAs own study finds 91% of the U.S. Weather Stations are bad, very bad or insanely bad! And we have some of the best weather stations in the world...not saying much. But hey, we're 100% certain that the global temperature today is +0.20C above average!
http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog/Post/10-Predictions-vs-Reality-and-the-Winter-2014-2015-Hype-2008

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #50)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 01:28 PM

51. Just a claim by an anonymous person, without a link to anything from NOAA, then

Pah. That's useless bullshit. Give me a link to something from NOAA. And it's only about US weather stations, so has little relevance to discussion of global temperatures.

No, satellites do not measure temperature. That's the point. We'll say this again:

Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature. The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have produced differing temperature datasets.

And, of course, 2016 is now known to have been the warmest year on record. Unsurprisingly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #51)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 02:51 PM

52. You insist on being stuck on stupid

That being the case, I can't help you.

Did you know a degree is not a unit of heat?

Now, if you have some evidence showing that somebody is faking satellite temperature data, I'm sure the entire forum would be glad to hear it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muzzlehatch (Reply #51)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 03:35 AM

53. Bill Kirk may be unknown to you

He is no slouch. From his website:

Bill Kirk is the CEO and Co-founder of Weather Trends International. He has 28-years experience with a contagious passion for applying year-ahead business weather guidance and predictive analytics to help Fortune 1,000 companies achieve Better Business in any Weather®. To date, over $1 Billion in ROIs have been achieved for WTI's weather savvy clients.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 1, 2016, 11:02 AM

25. BS, we learned about the Greenhouse effect in JRHS

 

in 1981... You lay that shit on THICK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexMex (Reply #25)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 09:04 AM

28. Nice theory

Is it working out the way you were taught?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #2)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 01:06 PM

5. It amuses me that

 

you climate change freaks cried about the drought in KKKalifornia being caused by GloBull warming and are now crying that the above average rain is also caused by GloBull warming. In less than a month we've had almost 25% of our yearly average of rain (7 inches already).

It also amuses me that none of your predictions of gloom and doom have come true. What ever happened to the dire predictions of more massive and more frequent hurricanes? Maybe GloBull warming is also to blame for that?

It's all about using voodoo "science" to fleece the taxpayers and turn the USA into a TURD world nation. Your peak oil crap didn't work so you needed something else to be afraid of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MountainDew (Reply #5)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 02:40 PM

10. It is troubling that you can't understand the word

GLOBAL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #10)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 06:03 PM

17. It is troubling that you seem to think that is all you should know :)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to specs (Reply #17)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 06:14 PM

18. Oh I understand that there is more to know

rather than the knee jerk reaction that because it rains in California the world's scientists are wrong about Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 03:34 PM

30. How about when it didn't rain in KKKalifornia

 

and all the fuckwit climate hucksters blamed the drought on GloBull warming? Let me guess, you don't get the cash unless there is something to fear? Profiting on the fear of others is all you and the other hucksters have. Not one of your doom and gloom predictions have come true and yet you still scream like little children -- "The Sky is Falling". You all did the same shit with Peak Oil and that stupid Hockey Stick bullshit.

I guess that if you can live off of the taxpayers, never crawl out of your bed/basement and still rake in the cash then all is good -- amirite?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MountainDew (Reply #5)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 06:49 PM

20. These days you people do nothing but try to wiggle your way out of the failed computer model bags

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MountainDew (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 3, 2016, 09:07 AM

29. Speaking of California

Why did Algore buy a condo on the waterfront in San Francisco a few feet above sea level?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #2)

Mon Oct 31, 2016, 02:27 PM

7. "Seems like ideology and not science"

You are starting to catch on Marmot

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 6, 2016, 06:39 PM

32. It amuses me

that the cognitive dissonance and the 97% consensus resonates so strongly with left wing people. True science be damned.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZ0 (Reply #32)

Sat Jan 14, 2017, 08:26 AM

42. The 97% baloney has been debunked over and over

Yet you Obama followers continue to cling onto his speech, er lecture as if it were true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 03:33 PM

54. Right

Three consecutive warmest years on record = new ice age.

Youse guys!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Scienceglobalwarminghoax