• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Global Cooling Is Under Way

Since 2016 there has been a sharp drop in global temperatures, and with the sun approaching minimum there's every prospect the cooling will continue for some time. Despite the denialism of AGW zealots this will inevitably affect the ongoing climate debate and further undermine the already-tottering AGW paradigm. Henrik Svensmark, whose prediction of cooling now seems to have been merely early rather than wrong, is waiting in the wings.

Climate News
Don’t Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling

Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you’d know it, since that wasn’t deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?

Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.
“The 2016-2018 Big Chill,” he writes,“was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average.
Isn’t this just the sort of man-bites-dog story that the mainstream media always says is newsworthy?
In this case, it didn’t warrant any news coverage. . . .

Full story here
Source for data: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt



April was the 400th straight month with higher than average 20th century temperatures.
'Course, that's just the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration...

http://www.noaa.gov/news/april-2018-was-3rd-warmest-on-record-for-globe
 
Since 2016 there has been a sharp drop in global temperatures, and with the sun approaching minimum there's every prospect the cooling will continue for some time. Despite the denialism of AGW zealots this will inevitably affect the ongoing climate debate and further undermine the already-tottering AGW paradigm. Henrik Svensmark, whose prediction of cooling now seems to have been merely early rather than wrong, is waiting in the wings.

Climate News
Don’t Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling

Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you’d know it, since that wasn’t deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?

Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, “global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.” That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.
“The 2016-2018 Big Chill,” he writes,“was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average.
Isn’t this just the sort of man-bites-dog story that the mainstream media always says is newsworthy?
In this case, it didn’t warrant any news coverage. . . .

Full story here
Source for data: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt



Another day, another link to wattsupwiththat, another 50 cents in Jack Hays pocket.
 
April was the 400th straight month with higher than average 20th century temperatures.
'Course, that's just the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration...

April 2018 was 3rd warmest on record for the globe | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Yes, I know. You're the second poster to cite that meaningless statistic meant to take attention away from the steep drop in temperatures since 2016. The temperature data is from NASA.

Source for data: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
 
Last edited:
That statistic isn't meant to do anything. It's the result of NOAA research and monitoring. Are you saying the NOAA is trying to deflect attention from NASA?

No. NASA did not publicize its temperature data, but it was noticed nonetheless. The decision to publicize the "400 months" statistic was most likely a PR initiative to try to distract attention from the temperature drop.
 
No. NASA did not publicize its temperature data, but it was noticed nonetheless. The decision to publicize the "400 months" statistic was most likely a PR initiative to try to distract attention from the temperature drop.

Again, do you think the NOAA is trying to distract attention from scientific data? From anyone, NASA or whatever.
Why do you think the NOAA would try to distract from legitimate research data?

edit- And do you think the '400 months' data is wrong? You put it in quotation marks.
 
Again, do you think the NOAA is trying to distract attention from scientific data? From anyone, NASA or whatever.
Why do you think the NOAA would try to distract from legitimate research data?

edit- And do you think the '400 months' data is wrong? You put it in quotation marks.

The "400 months" statistic is no doubt accurate. Yes, I think it was released to distract attention from the drop in temperature from 2016 to the present. Those who released it likely thought they were doing a public service by tamping down talk of cooling. When scientists become advocates, advocacy is presented as science.
 
The "400 months" statistic is no doubt accurate. Yes, I think it was released to distract attention from the drop in temperature from 2016 to the present. Those who released it likely thought they were doing a public service by tamping down talk of cooling. When scientists become advocates, advocacy is presented as science.

You think it shouldn't have been released? Damn. If releasing pertinent data is considered advocacy you're already seeing science through partisan eyes.
 
You think it shouldn't have been released? Damn. If releasing pertinent data is considered advocacy you're already seeing science through partisan eyes.

I didn't say that. It's perfectly OK to release it. But the motive is clear nonetheless. Do you recall a previous release of 399 months above average? 398? 300? The answer is no. Why? Because it's a meaningless statistic valuable only as PR.
 
Could someone, skeptic or otherwise explain few points to me? 1- why not present your data for an article in Science or Scientific American to spread the word among scientists and torpedo the alarmists. 2- can you trace just how the notion of human caused climate changes insinuated itself into the scientific community. Why would they falsify data? Only explanation I have heard posited is that they don't want to buck the consensus and lose fellowships or something, pretty weak tea. 3- I assume that energy companies have financed doubt due to their economic interests, but oil company websites seem to acknowledge the phenomenon, and talk about the changes they are enacting.

But what are the downsides of the actions proposed to deal with climate change? As Sen McCain, put it, if what is posited is real, we should be doing stuff; if not real, much of what is suggested we do is good policy anyway.
 
I didn't say that. It's perfectly OK to release it. But the motive is clear nonetheless. Do you recall a previous release of 399 months above average? 398? 300? The answer is no. Why? Because it's a meaningless statistic valuable only as PR.

It's a round number. You know this. It's the bread-and-butter of statistics. Sports statistics, political statistics, scientifc statistics, whatever. They all publicise benchmarks.
Doesn't make it meaningless, just easy to remember. Bad if you don't want it remembered, I guess.
 
It's a round number. You know this. It's the bread-and-butter of statistics. Sports statistics, political statistics, scientifc statistics, whatever. They all publicise benchmarks.
Doesn't make it meaningless, just easy to remember. Bad if you don't want it remembered, I guess.

It is meaningless because it doesn't support the AGW conjecture.
 
Could someone, skeptic or otherwise explain few points to me? 1- why not present your data for an article in Science or Scientific American to spread the word among scientists and torpedo the alarmists. 2- can you trace just how the notion of human caused climate changes insinuated itself into the scientific community. Why would they falsify data? Only explanation I have heard posited is that they don't want to buck the consensus and lose fellowships or something, pretty weak tea. 3- I assume that energy companies have financed doubt due to their economic interests, but oil company websites seem to acknowledge the phenomenon, and talk about the changes they are enacting.

But what are the downsides of the actions proposed to deal with climate change? As Sen McCain, put it, if what is posited is real, we should be doing stuff; if not real, much of what is suggested we do is good policy anyway.

The data for low climate sensitivity to CO2 has been Published, most recently Lewis Curry 2018,
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1
Using infilled, globally-complete temperature data gives slightly higher estimates;
a median of 1.66 K for ECS (5−95%: 1.15−2.7 K) and 1.33 K for TCR (5−95%:1.0−1.90 K).
But a more complete answer to your question, would first involve an understanding of what the consensus of
scientist are in agreement about. I contend the consensus is only that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that will cause some
warming if we double the level.
When Scientist look at the way the climate has reacted to the CO2 increases of the past (observational data),
they find the climate's sensitivity to added CO2 to be in the low end of the IPCC's range.

You ask what is the downside, I say plenty! Humanity has several real problems that we need to address to move into the future.
By not identifying the correct problems, we waste precious resources, on irrelevant problems.
The two real problems are energy and fresh water, but the right supply of energy can solve both.
Consider this, Our planet does not have enough stored hydrocarbon energy to allow the current population
to live a first world lifestyle for more than a few decades.
There is more than enough solar energy hitting the surface of the earth to have a sustainable future for everyone,
but the low duty cycle of that energy makes it more like a second or third world supply.
(the electricity is on sometime, but no guarantees.)
If we want to utilize solar power, we need a way to store and accumulate, in a usable form.
In research, many times, it helps to see how nature does a task, and try to mimic that process.
For storing energy, nature mostly uses hydrocarbons, and sugars, (which are hydrocarbons with some oxygen bonds).
The Navy, Audi Sunfire, and a few others have publicly been working in this area.
Green Syngas - Sunfire
U.S. Navy Wants to Fuel Ships Using Seawater - D-brief
 
But what are the downsides of the actions proposed to deal with climate change? As Sen McCain, put it, if what is posited is real, we should be doing stuff; if not real, much of what is suggested we do is good policy anyway.

As a result of the hype over CO2/Global warming we, today, use vast amounts of food as biofuel.

This uses 40% of US grain and a similar amount of EU food. The largest grain buyer in the UK is a plant that buys Russian grain.

Over all this has probably raised the price of basic food stuff by 100% or so.

For us rich people it hardly matters. The $600/year or so you pay extra to keep large landowners rich is not much of a matter for you. The poor of the world however are being serriously mangled by this. Almost half the world lives on $2.50 per day or less. For these people the additional cost is less than for you and me since they don't eat as much and buy the cheapest food around. But it is around 80% of their income that is spent on food.

If the policy of artifically raising food prices in this way stopped my conservative guess is that 20 million deaths would not happen next year. The effect on subsequent years would be far higher.

The benefits to the economy of the poor of the world would make progress for them very much quicker than the glacial pace it is happening now. If you live on $1.70/day and the price of food halves you might just be able to think about buying basic medicine for your malaria and thus working more days.

If you live on $2.30/day and the price of food halves you might be able to think about buying that water pipe so you can have clean water in your house and paying the local plumber to fix it. You might be able to send some of your children to school. You might be able to buy a bycicle in a year or two.

The combination of this injection of money into the hands of the poor would allow them to pay each other to do the plumbing and bycicle repair jobs that cause the whole lot of them to get richer.

The Arab spring and the start of the Syrian war happened just after US policy in this caused food prices to increase.

Are 20 million deaths per year a significant down side?
 
As a result of the hype over CO2/Global warming we, today, use vast amounts of food as biofuel.

This uses 40% of US grain and a similar amount of EU food. The largest grain buyer in the UK is a plant that buys Russian grain.

Over all this has probably raised the price of basic food stuff by 100% or so.

For us rich people it hardly matters. The $600/year or so you pay extra to keep large landowners rich is not much of a matter for you. The poor of the world however are being serriously mangled by this. Almost half the world lives on $2.50 per day or less. For these people the additional cost is less than for you and me since they don't eat as much and buy the cheapest food around. But it is around 80% of their income that is spent on food.

If the policy of artifically raising food prices in this way stopped my conservative guess is that 20 million deaths would not happen next year. The effect on subsequent years would be far higher.

The benefits to the economy of the poor of the world would make progress for them very much quicker than the glacial pace it is happening now. If you live on $1.70/day and the price of food halves you might just be able to think about buying basic medicine for your malaria and thus working more days.

If you live on $2.30/day and the price of food halves you might be able to think about buying that water pipe so you can have clean water in your house and paying the local plumber to fix it. You might be able to send some of your children to school. You might be able to buy a bycicle in a year or two.

The combination of this injection of money into the hands of the poor would allow them to pay each other to do the plumbing and bycicle repair jobs that cause the whole lot of them to get richer.

The Arab spring and the start of the Syrian war happened just after US policy in this caused food prices to increase.

Are 20 million deaths per year a significant down side?

Good lord.

This again?
 
It's a round number. You know this. It's the bread-and-butter of statistics. Sports statistics, political statistics, scientifc statistics, whatever. They all publicise benchmarks.
Doesn't make it meaningless, just easy to remember. Bad if you don't want it remembered, I guess.

I don't care whether it's remembered because it is in fact meaningless. What will be remembered is a lengthy period of cooling, now two years on with no end in sight.
 
But what are the downsides of the actions proposed to deal with climate change? As Sen McCain, put it, if what is posited is real, we should be doing stuff; if not real, much of what is suggested we do is good policy anyway.

In a nutshell, many of the actions purported to deal with climate change are extremely expensive and produce only negligible change. That's money and resources not available to address more pressing and real problems. Bjorn Lomborg has written extensively about this, starting with his landmark book, The Skeptical Environmentalist.
 
As a result of the hype over CO2/Global warming we, today, use vast amounts of food as biofuel.

This uses 40% of US grain and a similar amount of EU food. The largest grain buyer in the UK is a plant that buys Russian grain.

Over all this has probably raised the price of basic food stuff by 100% or so.

For us rich people it hardly matters. The $600/year or so you pay extra to keep large landowners rich is not much of a matter for you. The poor of the world however are being serriously mangled by this. Almost half the world lives on $2.50 per day or less. For these people the additional cost is less than for you and me since they don't eat as much and buy the cheapest food around. But it is around 80% of their income that is spent on food.

If the policy of artifically raising food prices in this way stopped my conservative guess is that 20 million deaths would not happen next year. The effect on subsequent years would be far higher.

The benefits to the economy of the poor of the world would make progress for them very much quicker than the glacial pace it is happening now. If you live on $1.70/day and the price of food halves you might just be able to think about buying basic medicine for your malaria and thus working more days.

If you live on $2.30/day and the price of food halves you might be able to think about buying that water pipe so you can have clean water in your house and paying the local plumber to fix it. You might be able to send some of your children to school. You might be able to buy a bycicle in a year or two.

The combination of this injection of money into the hands of the poor would allow them to pay each other to do the plumbing and bycicle repair jobs that cause the whole lot of them to get richer.

The Arab spring and the start of the Syrian war happened just after US policy in this caused food prices to increase.

Are 20 million deaths per year a significant down side?

The CT forum is that way...
 
I don't care whether it's remembered because it is in fact meaningless. What will be remembered is a lengthy period of cooling, now two years on with no end in sight.

Do you realize by stating things like this you are just destroying your own argument? 2016 was extremely hot. Compared to any other recent period. The fact that two years after this are cooler doesn't say much. Especially when you look at it in the larger picture where 2 years of data really doesn't change much at all. Especially since the "cooler" years are still much warmer than the past. You are either being purposely misleading, or are ignorant in regards to very basic statistics and the scientific method.
 
Last edited:
Do you realize by stating things like this you are just destroying your own argument? 2016 was extremely hot. Compared to any other recent period. The fact that two years after this are cooler doesn't say much. Especially when you look at it in the larger picture where 2 years of data really doesn't change much at all. Especially since the "cooler" years are still much warmer than the past. You are either being purposely misleader, or are ignorant in regards to very basic statistics and the scientific method.

Just wait until you hear the other denier argument (Longview’s) made here...that 2016 wasn’t that hot because you need to wait a few years to see the effect of El Niño.

The best part is that he uses data starting in 1998 to back his argument.
 
Do you realize by stating things like this you are just destroying your own argument? 2016 was extremely hot. Compared to any other recent period. The fact that two years after this are cooler doesn't say much. Especially when you look at it in the larger picture where 2 years of data really doesn't change much at all. Especially since the "cooler" years are still much warmer than the past. You are either being purposely misleader, or are ignorant in regards to very basic statistics and the scientific method.

Well, no. I just don't believe those years of warming were principally driven by GHGs. I think your "larger picture" is a story of misattribution. Neither "very basic statistics" nor "the scientific method" is at risk. What is at risk is the already-tottering AGW paradigm, now well on the way to being exposed for the error it is.
 
Just wait until you hear the other denier argument (Longview’s) made here...that 2016 wasn’t that hot because you need to wait a few years to see the effect of El Niño.

The best part is that he uses data starting in 1998 to back his argument.

Yea, at this point its not worth discussing with them. They are ignorant about anything they might say. Even the data they provided that made it look like things were starting to cool down. Its utter horse**** to say the least.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom