Has the Global Temperature Trend Turned to Cooling?

Because the effects of local human activities other than CO2 emissions on local thermometers are greater the colder it is, especially at night. That's why almost all "global" warming has occurred in nighttime temperatures where there are significant human activities: because the warming effect of human activities is insignificant compared to what we receive from the sun during the day, but very significant compared to the energy we get from the moon at night (all the stars and planets combined give us only a microscopic fraction of the EM radiation we receive reflected from the moon). Even in rural areas, the increased presence of things like paved roads and highways, farm buildings, outdoor lighting, etc. has a significant effect on temperature readings.

 

The simple reality ...

Mainstream science has been proven to be correct with their predictions.

Deniers have spent the last 40+ years been as wrong as it's possible for a human to be. They still can't even get the direction of the change right.

By denier logic, that proves deniers were right.

So black is white, white is black. Why?

CONSPIRACY. Yes, the whole planet really is plotting against them as part of a vast evil secret globalist socialist conspiracy.

And because they say that, deniers should definitely be taken very seriously. After all, in the past, every group that claims how everyone is plotting against them has always been shown to be correct.

 

This qualifies as a rant.

 

Because mainstream science does not include anti-CO2 scaremongers, and never supported their absurd doomsaying.

With that one word, you disqualify yourself from serious discussion.

Anti-fossil-fuel fanatics have no actual facts, logic, or arguments to offer, so you are reduced to just makin' $#!+ like that up.

Radically increased solar activity and El Nino rescued your hypothesis from humiliating falsification last year, OK. But you can't count on Mom Nature to rescue it indefinitely.

That is an absurd fabrication.

A handful of powerful people in positions of authority is not "everyone."

 

He makes claims without evidence in this post he made but ignores this below a hard databased presentation because he can't refute any of it as it comes from official sources such as NASA, NOAA, IMBIE, Nature, EMDAT, NWS, ClimAtlas, JMA, CMA, BOM, Rutgers Snow Labs, NCEI and more.


Where Is The “Climate Emergency”?

LINK

 

Climateers admitting error:
Models Wrong Again: “Hotter Weather Not Diminishing Runoff, River Discharge”!
By P Gosselin on 21. January 2024

“Results are somewhat in contrast to climate projections”

Hat-tip: Klimanachrichten

The European Space Agency (ESA) here reports on runoff and river discharge, which are important components in Earth’s water cycle.

With the globe allegedly warming, drought and heatwaves are said to be more frequent and so the hotter climate should lead to reduced water runoff and river discharge. But scientists, using data from satellites, are finding out “this isn’t always the case.”

Runoff occurs when the soil is saturated and has lost its capacity to soak up any more water. The water is then forced to flow over land until it reaches a stream or a river. River discharge describes the volume of water flowing per second at a given point along a river.

ESA says that river discharge is an indicator of climate change and trends on this can be derived from satellite data. In these days of climate panic, many scientists believe that heat and drought will lead to drier soils and so less runoff into rivers.


The map shows soil moisture during February 2023 compared to the reference period of 1995–2022. It is clear to see that Turkey is particularly dry, but so too are parts of the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium much of France. Credit: ESA (data source: GDO, CEMS)
The Hydrology Group of the Italian National Research Council has developed an innovative approach using satellite observations of terrestrial water storage, soil moisture and precipitation to predict runoff and river discharge. The results were published in the Geoscientific Model Development journal.

The team of scientists led by Stefania Camici of the National Research Council of Italy, found that “runoff is also increasing parts of southern Europe, including central Italy, Sardinia, Corsica and the in the Pyrenees.”

Much of northern Europe had been stricken by drought over the 2018-2022 period, and so runoff and river discharge decreased. But the heavy rains of late 2023 have literally erased the low runoff situation. Soil saturation and river discharge are high

The ESA reports on their results:

Dr. Camici commented, ‘These results are somewhat in contrast to climate projections, where runoff is expected to decrease only over southern Europe. While these results need to be further validated and cross-checked, they open up interesting new activities for hydrological research in the near future.’ “

Conclusion: Don’t trust the climate forecasters! They are having a tough time understanding what’s really going on, wrongly assume lots of things in their models, and so end up suggesting absurd policy decisions.

Entire ESA article here.

 

The modern cold period continues.
Solar Update January 2024
David Archibald
Religious cults promise a wonderful future if only people would believe. The promise the global warming cult made is that we would see the end of snow, no…

 

El Nino dropping away from high.
UAH Global Temperature Update for January, 2024: +0.86 deg. C
February 2nd, 2024
The Version 6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2024 was +0.86 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, up slightly from the December, 2023 anomaly of +0.83 deg. C.


The linear warming trend since January, 1979 now stands at +0.15 C/decade (+0.13 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.20 C/decade over global-averaged land).

 

Here's a fine gem from the past -- Archibald, in 2011, predicting immediate massive cooling, with the whole WUWT crowd agreeing.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/13/archibald-climate-forecast-to-2050/

Needless to say, that didn't happen. Strong warming continued instead.

So, Archibald was as wrong as it was possible to be, and ... apparently, he's still an awesome source. Go fig.

But then, failed predictions of icy armageddon are no problem. Each time frozen doomsday fails to arrive, a doomsday cult will just push back the date some more.

 

Consilience. It's another reason why climate science has such credibiltiy. Every branch of science comes to the same conclusion about the strong warming.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01919-7.pdf
300 years of sclerosponge thermometry shows global warming has exceeded 1.5 °C

"Anthropogenic emissions drive global-scale warming yet the temperature increase relative to pre-industrial levels is uncertain. Using 300 years of ocean mixed-layer temperature records preserved in sclerosponge carbonate skeletons, we demonstrate that industrial-era warming began in the mid-1860s, more than 80 years earlier than instrumental sea surface temperature records. The Sr/Ca palaeothermometer was calibrated against ‘modern’ (post-1963) highly correlated (R2 = 0.91) instrumental records of global sea surface temperatures, with the pre-industrial defined by nearly constant (<±0.1 °C) temperatures from 1700 to the early 1860s. Increasing ocean and land-air temperatures overlap until the late twentieth century, when the land began warming at nearly twice the rate of the surface oceans. Hotter land temperatures, together with the earlier onset of industrial-era warming, indicate that global warming was already 1.7 ± 0.1 °C above pre-industrial levels by 2020. Our result is 0.5 °C higher than IPCC estimates, with 2 °C global warming projected by the late 2020s, nearly two decades earlier than expected."

 

Actually CO2 warm forcing can't drive that much claimed warming by its own math which YOU ignore all the time.

It had been warming for 185 years before CO2 started going up from 280 ppm in 1880 thus a lot of the warming has nothing to do with CO2 at all.

That is a lie as it had been warming for well over 100 years by the time the Civil war came along.

 

Given that more than half the years since 2011 have been El Nino years I'm not sure you have much of a point.
Archibald remains on the right side of this debate in view of the accumulating (now overwhelming?) evidence that the Sun is quite a bit more important than CO2 in driving temperature.

 

No, your claims continue to be reliably false. Several active posters expressed skepticism about this prediction, and some outright disagreed.

No, your claims continue to be reliably false. It warmed for about five years after 2011, then gradually cooled until 2023, when solar activity showed an extraordinary and unpredicted increase and El Nino conditions returned.

No, your claims continue to be reliably false. It is quite possible to be wronger than Archibald, such as by making the CO2 doomsday scaremongers' predictions that island nations and arctic sea ice would disappear, tens of millions of "climate refugees" would flood into temperate countries, etc. by 2023.

Sort of like the CO2 doomsday cult push back the date of fiery Armageddon every time it fails to arrive....?

Obviously, you have to pretend not to know the fact that the great majority of climate realists do not subscribe to Armageddon prophecies by either side -- have I, Jack, Tommy, 557, AFM, drluggit, etc. ever predicted an imminent return of LIA conditions? -- whereas your anti-CO2 death cult continues to be married to its unanimously falsified prognostications of imminent fiery doom.

 

First, what does that have to do with any point? El Nino or La Nina, the trend is upupup.

And second, it's wrong. I count 4 El Nino years and 5 La Nina years, and the rest neutral.

So even though your theory fails in its predictions, it's still right, and even though AGW was correct in its predictions, it's still wrong.

You've got yourself a religion there.

 

Flat earthers say that too. Nobody cares about them either.

But by all means, keep preaching in a SafeSpace. That'll show 'em.

 

Data refute uninformed claims.
El Niño and La Niña Years and Intensities

Golden Gate Weather Services
https://ggweather.com › enso › oni


1958-59, 1968-69, 1972-73, 2015-16, 1971-72 ...

 

What predictions?

 

Flat earthers also say 1+1=2. But because you think who says something is more important than what they say, you think because flat earthers say 1+1=2, 1+1=/=2.

Why would anyone care who you think cares?

Oh, wait a minute, that's right: for you, who cares is more important than what's true.

Lack of even an attempt at debate from you noted.

 

No, your claims continue to be reliably false. The trend was down for six years, 2017-2022, until solar activity unexpectedly soared and El Nino conditions returned.

No, your claims continue to be reliably false. I predicted a couple of years ago, in this forum, that the downtrend since 2016 would be broken if solar activity increased markedly. I was proved right.

Our theory is not the one that predicted an ice-free arctic, island nations disappearing, millions of climate refugees, blah, blah, blah, by now and got them all hilariously wrong. Yours is.

No it wasn't. Your claims continue to be reliably false. See above. It was hilariously wrong. But you still belieeeve.

You've got yourself a religion there -- complete with threatened fiery apocalypse if humanity does not mend its sinful ways.

 

See my posts #176 and #188 in this thread.

 

Your own link directly refutes you. Do you even look at your own sources? Do you remember that you said "since 2011"?

El Nino years 2014 2015 2018 2023
La Nina years 2011 2016 2017 2020 2021 2022

This isn't a debate. You were wrong when you said that more than half of the years since 2011 have been El Nino years. Abandon your failed theory and move on. Maybe you should jump on Brighton's "SOLAR ACTIVITY SUDDENLY SOARED" crazy bandwagon.

 

This solar cycle is only a little stronger than past 2 cycles. It's not even close to being enough to explain the warming spike.

The lack of any 11-year cycle in the temp data shows your theory is nonsense.

The data says your theory is wrong, so it's wrong, no matter how fanatical your belief in it is.

It takes an incredible level of religious fervor to declare that record high global temperatures show how the world is cooling, yet that's what we're seeing here. At this stage, you're all only interesting as examples of cult psychology.

 

You should count again. Eight of the thirteen years since 2011 have been El Nino years.

 

Because the last cycle but one was historically strong, while this one is quite a bit stronger than the previous historically weaker one when it was expected to be even weaker.

Why are you disingenuously pretending the recent strong El Nino phase could not have contributed to the warming spike?

No, that's false because we know sunspots are just a proxy for some other aspect or aspects of solar activity whose effects on global surface temperature are not only not well understood yet, but have not been definitively identified. So it is not -- as you have assumed -- the phase of the 11-year cycle that matters, but perhaps whether a given cycle is longer or shorter than average, how fast activity is increasing or decreasing, the balance of visible and UV radiation, the solar wind, etc. I don't claim to know the exact mechanism, but your claim that the phase of the cycle is the only possible factor is absurdly naive.

The paleo data clearly show that while CO2 and temperature are correlated, temperature has more effect on CO2 than CO2 has on temperature. Moreover, the association of the global LIA with the lowest sustained solar activity in thousands of years and the 20th century warming with the highest clearly indicates where research needs to focus to understand the climate system: the sun, not CO2. The data says your theory is wrong, so it's wrong, no matter how fanatical your belief in it is.

Yes, because that is just more $#!+ you have made up. The cooling 2017-22 when La Nina conditions prevailed and solar activity was low showed how the world was cooling. The warming in 2022-3 when El Nino returned and the sun unexpectedly became very active showed how the world was warming. Not rocket science.

At this stage, you're all only interesting as examples of cult psychology.

 

"There's some magical factor we don't understand that controls climate, and I believe in the magic, so I'm right!"

That's ... not science.

Yes, CO2 is both a forcing and feedback. It makes no sense to say one effect is more. It's impossible to explain paleoclimate without bringing in the strong forcing effect of CO2.

Kind of true. But then, obvious. You're the only one saying that mainstream science doesn't look at the sun. Of courses it does, your fantasies to the contrary.

That statement isn't connected in any way to reality. The sun is historically weak, the warming is very strong, and it's crazy to say that a weaker sun is driving fast warming.