NOW they tell us. Scientists say Worst-case climate change scenario is EVEN WORSE than we thought (due to hi-growth economy)

DiscoGary wrote:

Actually America built the best health care system in the world using the free market. (prior to WW2)

I'm curious if you have data supporting this assertion.

More predictions. Wake me when there is actual science

From February 2016 to February 2018, global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees (K), the biggest two-year drop in the past century.

Of course, MSM would never report such an inconvenient fact.

They'd rather tell you that some random outpost was the "hottest ever" it has been during some specific month (or day) of the year.

Rowan Dean told his Sky News Australia audience on Saturday the Earth has cooled 0.454 degrees Celsius since Donald Trump got elected.

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsAust/status/997996391896002560

Temporary effect? wrote:

Rowan Dean told his Sky News Australia audience on Saturday the Earth has cooled 0.454 degrees Celsius since Donald Trump got elected.

So at this rate, it will be about (8/1.5) * 0.454 = 2.42 Celsius degrees cooler by the time he's unelected in 2024? Will this throw us (Earth) into a new Ice Age?

Earth has cooled 0.54C since the year Donald Trump got elected. That is the fastest 24 month cooling since 1916.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/chart1_shadow-15.png

Hi Flagpole

Listen up Warmists wrote:

Earth has cooled 0.54C since the year Donald Trump got elected. That is the fastest 24 month cooling since 1916.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/chart1_shadow-15.png

We don’t have to record new data to track global warming. The science was settled years ago.

Experts doubt it will play a role in the historic meeting between Trump and Kim scheduled for next month in Singapore. But if the summit occurs, they say, it could have a negative effect on global warming. Well, I'm already confused. Is a "negative effect on global warming" a positive thing for humans, or?

That’s because if sanctions against North Korea are lifted, the hermit nation’s coal could flow onto the world market, with the bulk of it ending up in South Korea, Japan and China. Also, the United States and its allies once again are offering to help North Korea provide electricity to its people — a sweetener that has been used in the past and that would likely be accomplished with fossil fuel technology that would take advantage of North Korea’s domestic coal reserves.

The country has an estimated 100 billion metric tons of coal in reserve, and exporting it is an economic mainstay. Last year, the U.N. Security Council responded to North Korea’s missile tests by slapping a $400 million annual cap on North Korean coal exports.

In related news, science now proves eggs are good for heat health.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-heart-eggs/egg-a-day-tied-to-lower-risk-of-heart-disease-idUSKCN1IM2G9

Sunspot cycle watcher wrote:

From February 2016 to February 2018, global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees (K), the biggest two-year drop in the past century.

Of course, MSM would never report such an inconvenient fact.

They'd rather tell you that some random outpost was the "hottest ever" it has been during some specific month (or day) of the year.

This climate disinformation meme originated, as many of them do, with the UK-based "Global Warming Policy Foundation". The gist of it is that they are playing the aggrieved victim of an unfair press which considers the red line in the following plot newsworthy and the blue line not so much.

The drop since 2016 is attributable to the transition from very strong El Nino positive to mild La Nina (El Nino negative). We're apparently moving back to El Nino neutral which is why they're pushing the meme now.

Listen up Warmists wrote:Earth has cooled 0.54C since the year Donald Trump got elected. That is the fastest 24 month cooling since 1916.

I think you mean 0.454, not 0.54, right (from the previous post)?

Anyway, the numbers vary a little bit according to what data source you use. I tend to refer to the HADCRUT (NH+SH)/2. For April 2018, the 24 month drop in monthly temperature anomaly for that dataset is 0.450 (close enough to your news report).

This is actually the 9th biggest drop over 24 months since 1916, not the biggest. There were bigger 24 month drops ending in Jan, Feb and Mar 1917; Feb 1929; Jan 1951; Mar 1955; Dec 1984 and Feb 2018 (this year).

I'm not sure why we would look back 24 months though, unless we are cherry picking... the monthly T anomaly is about the same as when Trump got elected (Nov 2016), or just slightly lower than when he assumed office. In other words, global temperatures are effectively unchanged thus far during Trump's tenure.

Not that that hot air bag could have a positive influence on AGW anyway...

Citizen Runner wrote:

Sunspot cycle watcher wrote:

Of course, MSM would never report such an inconvenient fact.

They'd rather tell you that some random outpost was the "hottest ever" it has been during some specific month (or day) of the year.

This climate disinformation meme originated, as many of them do, with the UK-based "Global Warming Policy Foundation". The gist of it is that they are playing the aggrieved victim of an unfair press which considers the red line in the following plot newsworthy and the blue line not so much.

https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/nasa3.jpg

The drop since 2016 is attributable to the transition from very strong El Nino positive to mild La Nina (El Nino negative). We're apparently moving back to El Nino neutral which is why they're pushing the meme now.

Here's the problem. We know our climate scientists lie. We know they cook the books in their climate models and ignore data they don't like and emphasize data supporting their conclusions. We know they have corrupted the peer review process to lock out any research that challenges their beliefs. We know they try to destroy the careers of skeptics. We know they can not use their models to predict future climate patterns. We know that every major institution in climate research has been caught at one point or another corrupting the science to promote Global Warming.

So when a chart like this comes out, how can anyone know its accurate?

When their models can predict future climate patterns, then I'll take notice. Until then its all chicken-little sky is falling scare tactics used to generate grant money. We should not base government policy on an unstable political fad.

Climate change is just the new religion for the godless left.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivz89C130QY

DG, you are coming across as a tinfoil hat-wearing, raging lunatic. Is that what you're aiming for?

DiscoGary wrote:(1) So when a chart like this comes out, how can anyone know its accurate?

(2) When their models can predict future climate patterns, then I'll take notice.

(1) You are free to do your own independent reading and research to test the veracity of the temperature anomaly data. I have, with a fair degree of (admittedly non-professional, casual, hobbyist) rigour. The chart is a fair and reasonable reflection of actual temperature anomaly over the time period shown. Whether you believe it or not has no bearing on the relative strength of the data.

(2) You'll think about the future when we can predict the future? That seems more than a little idiotic. I guess you mean you'll pay attention to the "so-called AGW problem" when the models can predict the future? I can sort of follow you down that path, to a degree... Sort of akin to "when somebody can prove god's existence I will believe in god." Most people (religious or spiritual ones, anyway) don't apply that standard to belief, but happily apply it to AGW. Personally, I consider the AGW hypothesis unproven and (currently) unprovable, which isn't the same as believing it cannot be true. One way of looking at it would be to adopt Pascal's wager (about the existence of god) to AGW; you might not be sure, but the benefits of belief may be long-lived with widespread effect, and may substantially outweigh its costs, whereas the benefits of non-belief may be short-lived and selfish. I'm sitting on the fence until I can decide for myself which way to believe, and that may take until after I've passed (it's not an easy topic to fully absorb, particularly for those of us with limited intellect). That opens me to criticism from both sides of the debate, but I don't particularly care, and my own personal opinion has no power to sway the masses toward doing or not doing something particularly bad or good.