Are we undergoing global cooling?

By Dale Leuck March 17, 2018

Data available in both text and csv formats at the NASA, GISS website have been routinely cited as indicative of global warming despite their known weaknesses. The three years 2015 through 2017 are widely reported as the three hottest years on record.

Tony Heller, however, has demonstrated that tampering with data from the U.S. Climatology Network (USHCN) has created the illusion of much higher temperatures in reported data than in the original data, for the continental United States. This leads one to wonder how much not so widely known "adjustments" in GISS data have been responsible for similar results at a global level.

The GISS data are updated around the middle of each month, and I have compared the January and March versions in figure 1, for the years 1881 through 2017. The data are smoothed over two years, in that, for example, the 1881 data point is the average of 1880 and 1881 and 2017 the average for 2016 and 2017. This is commonly done to make data more presentable, allowing movements to be more clearly discerned and to smooth out the effects of "abnormal" years...


...any data set from only 1880, and inadequately covering the earth's surface area, does not provide a definitive answer to the question of "global warming" in terms of geological time of thousands of years, and representing the entirety of the Earth. But, as it has been the data set often referenced to substantiate global warming, one would have thought the substantially lower temperatures of the last many months would have merited highlighting in the mainstream media.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/03/are_we_undergoing_global_cooling.html#ixzz5A0Cth8cS

The data definitely show global cooling in a form I did see mentioned in the article. Instead of seeing new annual temperatures reaching new lows what we really have are past recorded temperatures plummeting year after year [from the article:



This has been also happening for temperatures farther back in history which also have been falling at an ever increasing rate:

Ministry Of Truth – Erasing The Medieval Warm Period. https://realclimatescience.com/2017/06/ministry-of-truth-erasing-the-medieval-warm-period/

Ministry Of Truth – Erasing The Medieval Warm Period.

Most interesting.

That's what I was thinking too; something else that's interesting is the fact that nobody here is taking issue w/ the idea. Yet.

expat_panama said:

That's what I was thinking too; something else that's interesting is the fact that nobody here is taking issue w/ the idea. Yet.

Click to expand...

They've taken issue on other threads, but they'd rather ignore it.

When I first learned several years back that our current solar cycle, and at least the next three following it were projected to be lower, I said we would start global cooling if these cycles went as predicted.

Are we seeing it now? No. We still have some warming, though minimal. I suspect we will not see cooling from such a solar change for another decade or so. These large system changes take decades to see.

Lord of Planar said:

When I first learned several years back that our current solar cycle, and at least the next three following it were projected to be lower, I said we would start global cooling if these cycles went as predicted.

Are we seeing it now? No. We still have some warming, though minimal. I suspect we will not see cooling from such a solar change for another decade or so. These large system changes take decades to see.

Click to expand...

I think your right. Just the same as July and August are hotter than June yet we get more intense rays and longer period of sunshine in June.

expat_panama said:

That's what I was thinking too; something else that's interesting is the fact that nobody here is taking issue w/ the idea. Yet.

Click to expand...

It would require some scientific understanding.

They have not got the word of how to look scientifc from their chosen priests yet.

"Substantially lower temperatures of the last many months?"

2017 was the 2nd warmest year in this instrumental record. What lower temperatures are you referencing?

A few months ago it was winter, dude. That's why it got colder.

Deuce said:

"Substantially lower temperatures of the last many months?"

2017 was the 2nd warmest year in this instrumental record. What lower temperatures are you referencing?

A few months ago it was winter, dude. That's why it got colder.

Click to expand...

Their priests have long dropped the PER DECADE warming Prediction/Projections as published by the IPCC from 1990 onwards. They ignore it since they KNOW it is modeled failure based on the AGW conjecture. Many of their followers are ignorant of it, which is why it is not mentioned.

Yet when brought up, most ignore completely it and continue to push the misleading warmest, or second warmest year old record baloney.

I have a question....who the hell are these websites made by and what are their credentials....otherwise it is utter bullcrap that as Trump says a 400lb on his couch could write.

Fraggle Rock said:

I have a question....who the hell are these websites made by and what are their credentials....otherwise it is utter bullcrap that as Trump says a 400lb on his couch could write.

Click to expand...

Does this mean you have no answer to what are being presented?

If you actually read in the websites, you will learn they use the NOAA as their data source, Newspapers, the IPCC and so on.

[h=1]Approaching ‘grand solar minimum’ could cause global cooling[/h]There’s a lot of evidence mounting that solar cycle 25 will usher in a new grand solar minimum. Since about October 2005, when the sun’s magnetic activity went into a sharp fall, solar activity has been markedly lower, with solar cycle 24 being the lowest in over 100 years. Cycle 24 is part of a…
Continue reading →

expat_panama said:

By Dale Leuck March 17, 2018

Data available in both text and csv formats at the NASA, GISS website have been routinely cited as indicative of global warming despite their known weaknesses. The three years 2015 through 2017 are widely reported as the three hottest years on record.

Tony Heller, however, has demonstrated that tampering with data from the U.S. Climatology Network (USHCN) has created the illusion of much higher temperatures in reported data than in the original data, for the continental United States. This leads one to wonder how much not so widely known "adjustments" in GISS data have been responsible for similar results at a global level.

The GISS data are updated around the middle of each month, and I have compared the January and March versions in figure 1, for the years 1881 through 2017. The data are smoothed over two years, in that, for example, the 1881 data point is the average of 1880 and 1881 and 2017 the average for 2016 and 2017. This is commonly done to make data more presentable, allowing movements to be more clearly discerned and to smooth out the effects of "abnormal" years...


...any data set from only 1880, and inadequately covering the earth's surface area, does not provide a definitive answer to the question of "global warming" in terms of geological time of thousands of years, and representing the entirety of the Earth. But, as it has been the data set often referenced to substantiate global warming, one would have thought the substantially lower temperatures of the last many months would have merited highlighting in the mainstream media.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/03/are_we_undergoing_global_cooling.html#ixzz5A0Cth8cS

The data definitely show global cooling in a form I did see mentioned in the article. Instead of seeing new annual temperatures reaching new lows what we really have are past recorded temperatures plummeting year after year [from the article:

This has been also happening for temperatures farther back in history which also have been falling at an ever increasing rate:

Ministry Of Truth – Erasing The Medieval Warm Period. https://realclimatescience.com/2017/06/ministry-of-truth-erasing-the-medieval-warm-period/

Ministry Of Truth – Erasing The Medieval Warm Period.

Click to expand...

My criticism of the chart is that it uses the term "measured" instead of "estimated (guessed)"

The blue line should be labeled as "Old Guesses" and the red line as "New Guesses"

Sunsettommy said:

Their priests have long dropped the PER DECADE warming Prediction/Projections as published by the IPCC from 1990 onwards. They ignore it since they KNOW it is modeled failure based on the AGW conjecture. Many of their followers are ignorant of it, which is why it is not mentioned.

Yet when brought up, most ignore completely it and continue to push the misleading warmest, or second warmest year old record baloney.

Click to expand...

What does this have to do with the alleged cooling in the OP?

SirGareth said:

My criticism of the chart is that it uses the term "measured" instead of "estimated (guessed)"

The blue line should be labeled as "Old Guesses" and the red line as "New Guesses"

Click to expand...

Math isn't guessing.

Deuce said:

Math isn't guessing.

Click to expand...

"Math? What Math? I don' see no friggin math"

How much did my mother weigh at birth?

You can consult all the mathematicians you need and I'll tell you how close they got

Deuce said:

...2017 was the 2nd warmest year in this instrumental record...

Click to expand...

The statement sounds an awful lot like those political rants we been hearing from partisan political factions in the news lately. Like we all know that a "year" can neither be cold nor warm, it's just a unit of time.

What you're probably thinking of is something like say, the earth's biosphere? Could you please share w/ us any records you have of temperature measurements along w/ info on what part of the biosphere got measured? A link to actual raw temp measurements would be great. Let's please understand that so called "anomalies" or "deviations from averages" can easily be fudged by political hacks after ignoring and deleting the original readings, that's why the original numbers are so important.

If you can do that then we could compare the readings to older readings to see how far off we've gone.

Fraggle Rock said:

...who the hell are these websites made by and what are their credentials...

Click to expand...

Political rants are from hacks --for entertainment purposes only. When we're interested in figuring out what's physically happening in the world then we can investigate using scientific methods. Please let me know if you're interested, we can dig into it here.

Jack Hays said:

...a lot of evidence mounting that solar cycle 25 will usher in a new grand solar minimum...

Click to expand...

tx fer the heads up. From what I can see solar activity is EVERYTHING for climate. More sunlight makes hot climates and less makes colder ones. Somehow the obvious always gets swept away when the political food fights begin.

expat_panama said:

tx fer the heads up. From what I can see solar activity is EVERYTHING for climate. More sunlight makes hot climates and less makes colder ones. Somehow the obvious always gets swept away when the political food fights begin.

Click to expand...

It's a little more complicated than that, but you're right that the Sun is in charge.

SirGareth said:

...it uses the term "measured" instead of "estimated (guessed)" The blue line should be labeled as "Old Guesses"...

Click to expand...

go ahead & change it if you want, just copy & paste it into Windows Paint & have at it. Graphs are super easy to fudge, political hacks do it all day long. That's why I like actual temp measurements --in this wonderful info age of ours getting the numbers has been easier by the day and w/ hard numbers we can graph/excel our brains out!

do let me know how it goes or if you want to put it together right here on this thread.

Jack Hays said:

It's a little more complicated than that...

Click to expand...

OK, so the sun really isn't everything, it's only 99.9999% of climate. Like, that temperature thing determines available liquids, winds --OK so the earth's tilt + rotation speed along w/ geotech mechanics etc. may have some input but hey let's face it, no sun = no climate.

expat_panama said:

OK, so the sun really isn't everything, it's only 99.9999% of climate. Like, that temperature thing determines available liquids, winds --OK so the earth's tilt + rotation speed along w/ geotech mechanics etc. may have some input but hey let's face it, no sun = no climate.

Click to expand...

Solar plus galactic cosmic rays. I recommend the Svensmark thread.

expat_panama said:

Tony Heller, however, has demonstrated that tampering with data from the U.S. Climatology Network (USHCN) has created the illusion of much higher temperatures in reported data than in the original data, for the continental United States.

Click to expand...

Y'know, I've seen a lot of inane and poorly devised arguments here. This has got to rank with the worst of them.

The United States is not the entire planet. In fact, the surface area of the continental United States is 1.58% of the planet. Temperatures in the US are not in lock step with the entire planet. And when you look at the raw data, there is STILL a clear trend of rising temperatures.

This is a chart of both raw and adjusted GLOBAL temperatures. We are, after all, talking about GLOBAL warming:



Back in the real world: Every dataset of global averages makes adjustments these days. Scientists have done this for decades. It's all public. Anyone with a basic familiarity with the science knows about them, and why they're made. Note the adjustments overall are quite small, particularly after 1940; and of course, the adjustments before 1940 actually revised temperatures up. This is no different than calibrating a telescope or mass spectrometer.

In a move that is equal parts hilarious and sad, the deniers will complain when the data is adjusted -- and complain when it ISN'T adjusted. If it's adjusted to compensate for urban encroachment on measuring stations, then it's a fix! If it isn't adjusted, then they're allowing an artificial bias and... it's fixed!

I mean, really. Your idea of a "scam" is scientists who publish the raw data, the adjusted data, and the actual scripts you can use to adjust the data yourself? Whose adjustments show less warming in the past, and almost no adjustments now?

Those types of arguments are not rational, they're not scientific. That's just straight-up denial.

Sunsettommy said:

Does this mean you have no answer to what are being presented?

If you actually read in the websites, you will learn they use the NOAA as their data source, Newspapers, the IPCC and so on.

Click to expand...

if 97% of the scientist agree.that is good enough for me. If you went to a surgeon and they said they could remove your appendix with a small hole in your abdomen and that surgery method was accepted by 97% of the surgeons you would think that was a consensus. Now 3% said they could remove it by going up your arse......which method would you choose. Lets be clear I am realistic the people who have been studying this their whole lives I will defer to them. Not a bunch of guys in their underpants in their basement offering the world their opinions on a website. Again what are their credentials for even implying they know diddlie squat on the subject