Global Cooling Is Under Way

[Threegoofs]

The graph includes a source link to the (sweet irony) PAGES database. The "squiggly lines" are all labeled.

That’s a bad answer to the first part.

I guess it allowed you to duck your explanation.

 

[Jack Hays]

That’s a bad answer to the first part.

I guess it allowed you to duck your explanation.

If you're referring to the unfortunate Kaufmann et al 2020 in your "hockey stick" thread then all you've done is provide more evidence of the unsuitability of strip bark bristlecone chronologies in paleotemperature reconstructions.

 

[Threegoofs]

If you're referring to the unfortunate Kaufmann et al 2020 in your "hockey stick" thread then all you've done is provide more evidence of the unsuitability of strip bark bristlecone chronologies in paleotemperature reconstructions.

You just can’t explain that graph, can you?

 

[Jack Hays]

You just can’t explain that graph, can you?

It's a paleotemperature anomaly overlay of several different research databases.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Today’s temps are higher than any average temp found in 12,000 years, and its expected by virtually the entire scientific community (who aren’t high school grads on blogs or with ‘several years in engineeering’) to get signifiacantly warmer over the next century.

Is that better?

Your whining on semantics is funny.

Please do us a favor of a legitimate graph. Like Jack Hays provided.

 

[Threegoofs]

It's a paleotemperature anomaly overlay of several different research databases.

Yes? And that’s global?

P.S. having RIF on your side generally is a bad sign for credibility.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes? And that’s global?

P.S. having RIF on your side generally is a bad sign for credibility.

Doesn't matter. Your #2562 did not set a global condition.

 

[Threegoofs]

Doesn't matter. Your #2562 did not set a global condition.

Jesus.

You’re right. The temperature in the southwest corner of my backyard is stable, so therefore I’m going to use it as evidence there isn’t warming. [emoji849]

 

[Lord of Planar]

I understand quite well.

You want the current temperatures to increase for 200 years before we do anything about it.

LOL...

No silly.

You keep showing how unqualified you are with your remarks.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Elaborate.

If you can.

We have elaborated, but you fail to comprehend.

 

[Threegoofs]

We have elaborated, but you fail to comprehend.

"we"?

1) I was addressing Jack
2) you havent elaborated on the unlinked unsourced (oh,my! Didnt you soil your drawers over one of those before?) graph that Jack claims definitively disproves todays global temps arent the highest in 12,000 years, yet only is regional paleoclimate data.
3) Your comprehension skills have been severely lacking for years, at least when it comes to facts that arent compatable with your political stance.

 

[Lord of Planar]

"we"?

1) I was addressing Jack
2) you havent elaborated on the unlinked unsourced (oh,my! Didnt you soil your drawers over one of those before?) graph that Jack claims definitively disproves todays global temps arent the highest in 12,000 years, yet only is regional paleoclimate data.
3) Your comprehension skills have been severely lacking for years, at least when it comes to facts that arent compatable with your political stance.

Is your head hard enough to shatter a diamond?

 

[Threegoofs]

Is your head hard enough to shatter a diamond?

I guess when you can’t make a point, you need to go for the ad hom.

Wouldn’t expect anything less from you, honestly.

 

[Jack Hays]

"we"? . . . 2) you havent elaborated on the unlinked unsourced (oh,my! Didnt you soil your drawers over one of those before?) graph that Jack claims definitively disproves todays global temps arent the highest in 12,000 years, yet only is regional paleoclimate data. . . .

The graph is both linked and sourced, and shows paleoclimate temperatures higher than today's. Doesn't matter whether it's regional; there was no global condition on your claim.

 

[Threegoofs]

The graph is both linked and sourced, and shows paleoclimate temperatures higher than today's. Doesn't matter whether it's regional; there was no global condition on your claim.

I see no source. And if I recall, it’s very very important to you.

My claim related to the OP and the entire thread, obviously.

You dishonestly (or more likely, cluelessly) didn’t bother to say the irrelevant chart was regional Greenland temps. In fact, you probably didn’t know until I just told you now.

 

[Jack Hays]

I see no source. And if I recall, it’s very very important to you.

My claim related to the OP and the entire thread, obviously.

You dishonestly (or more likely, cluelessly) didn’t bother to say the irrelevant chart was regional Greenland temps. In fact, you probably didn’t know until I just told you now.

I knew it was regional when I saw it was Alley. The source link is on the graph. And no, your claim did not include a global condition.

 

[Threegoofs]

I knew it was regional when I saw it was Alley. The source link is on the graph. And no, your claim did not include a global condition.

You think thats all from Alley?

Wow. You literally have no idea what that graph means.

 

[Jack Hays]

You think thats all from Alley?

Wow. You literally have no idea what that graph means.

The link is Alley. Try to keep up.

 

[Threegoofs]

The link is Alley. Try to keep up.

LOL.

You didn’t even check out your own link!

The link labeled ‘Alley’ goes to PAGES 2K, which is kinda like linking to a google search.

 

[Jack Hays]

LOL.

You didn’t even check out your own link!

The link labeled ‘Alley’ goes to PAGES 2K, which is kinda like linking to a google search.

I already told you it went to PAGES. It was my homage to your regular links to the IPCC. You're still behind.

 

[Threegoofs]

I already told you it went to PAGES. It was my homage to your regular links to the IPCC. You're still behind.

So, it’s an unlinked graph.

Boy.

You hate those.

Sometimes.

 

[Jack Hays]

So, it’s an unlinked graph.

Boy.

You hate those.

Sometimes.

No. It's linked and sourced.

 

[calamity]

No. It's linked and sourced.

All this cooling...

June 2020 tied for the planet's warmest on record, closely matching the anomalously toasty temperatures observed globally during June last year.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/07/07/warmest-june-siberia-planet/

It's starting to remind me of all that Trumpian winning. :lamo


What's your excuse now, Jack? More, "B...b...but el Nino!" bull****?

 

[Jack Hays]

All this cooling...

It's starting to remind me of all that Trumpian winning. :lamo


What's your excuse now, Jack? More, "B...b...but el Nino!" bull****?

The claim of a tie was of course a lie, as has been demonstrated here.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=2]‘Most Of The Globe’ Could Experience ‘No Warming’ For 30 Years Due To Temperature-Driving Internal Variability[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 13. July 2020
Share this...



[h=4]A new study documents the dominance of internal variability in decadal-scale global temperature changes and suggests we may experience a global cooling trend during the next 15 or even 30 years despite rising greenhouse gases.[/h]Maher et al. (2020) acknowledge that internal variability in global surface temperature variations is “a difficult concept to communicate” because we have very few observations of its impact and so we must rely on assumptions about how the climate system might work.
Those who try to explain how internal variability affects global surface temperature often use the “Butterfly Effect” paradigm; they assume that small changes now can lead to larger changes decades from now.

Because global temperature trends are “largely determined by internal variability”, global cooling or another warming hiatus could very well be observed over the next decade. Actually, as Maher and colleagues explain, “even out to thirty years large parts of the globe (or most of the globe in MPI-GE and CMIP5) could still experience no-warming due to internal variability“. . . .