Facebook Twitter Youtube

‘Rapid cooling’ underway: Big Drop In Earth’s June Temperatures According To Satellites

Via: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/07/02/big-drop-in-june-temperatures-according-to-uah/

Second largest 2-month drop in global average satellite temperatures.
Largest 2-month drop in tropical average satellite temperatures.

 

NOTE: This is the fifteenth monthly update with our new Version 6.0 dataset. Differences versus the old Version 5.6 dataset are discussed here. Note we are now at “beta5” for Version 6, and the paper describing the methodology is still in peer review.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2016 is +0.34 deg. C, down 0.21 deg. C from the May value of +0.55 deg. C (click for full size version):

 

UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2016_v6

 

This gives a 2-month temperature fall of -0.37 deg. C, which is the second largest in the 37+ year satellite record…the largest was -0.43 deg. C in Feb. 1988.

In the tropics, there was a record fast 2-month cooling of -0.56 deg. C, just edging out -0.55 deg. C in June 1998 (also an El Nino weakening year).

The rapid cooling is from the weakening El Nino and approaching La Nina conditions by mid-summer or early fall.

…

With most models predicting La Nina conditions by the autumn, we can expect temperatures to tumble a lot further by the end of the year.

image

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/

Full report here: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/07/02/big-drop-in-june-temperatures-according-to-uah/

#

Related Links: 

2013 Report: ‘Growing number of scientists are predicting global cooling‘

Flashback 1974: U.S. Government’s Top Climatologist Said ‘Global Cooling’ Threatened Us With ‘Severe Food Crisis’

Flashback 1974: ’60 theories have been advanced to explain the global cooling’

Flashback 1974: ‘Global cooling trend affects wacky weather’ – ‘Implications can only be described as disastrous’

Flashback 1974: CIA Warned GLOBAL COOLING Would Cause Terrorism

Study: German Scientists Conclude 20th Century Warming ‘Nothing Unusual’ …Foresee ‘Global Cooling Until 2080?!

The ‘Global Warming’ Pause Update: May 2016: 18 years, 9 months – ‘The Pause still refuses to go away, despite all expectations.’ 

Globe:

May16 globe

The 12 month mean to May 2016 is +0.46C.  The Pause is still an embarrassing reality!

#

Share:

Marc Morano

Marc Morano

639 Responses

  1. I have absolutely zero trust in data derived from gubment sources when it comes to the climate. Especially since they started using their models to “predict” the past instead of using the actual data.

    1. Louie3rd:
      Absolutely right. When we look at all the causes of global surface temperature, there is a whale in the room. Sunlight. Nothing else comes even close to sunlight as a variable that controls temperature. With no sunlight, earth would hover near absolute zero. At least it wouldn’t vary so that much!

      In multivariate equations, little things like methane are trivial compared to one huge variable that does most of the work of determining surface temperature. The little variables like methane, CO2, cloud cover, etc., are blown away by even small variations in total sunlight.

      So yes, until we know very, very precisely what sunlight is doing, and how sunspots and other changes produce variations in sunlight, then all the other variables are too small too measure accurately. This is just elementary statistics.

    2. Correct in a nutshell. Also warm oceans release Co2 to the atmosphere, cooler oceans take up atmospheric Co2, accounting for Co2 variances lagging temperature change by roughly 80 years.

  3. Well, statistically, there is one big thing that jumps out of this graph. The variance far exceeds any trend line that goes through it. Let’s face it. We don’t know what is happening with climate. With so much noise present in the myriad “spaghetti graphs” that we are expected to sort through, there is only one real finding. Spaghetti.

      1. TroyGale:
        Thanks for your reply. Through all this controversy there is one statistical finding that is strong, robust, and can be replicated easily over time. The proportion of “warmists” is vastly over-represented by leftists. This over-weighted proportion could not happen by chance. It’s is too huge to dismiss. Thus, prima facie, there is something that strongly connects leftist beliefs and warmist beliefs.

        1. Ah, there is a link, it is called emotional decision making.
          Of course, the left always denies it, but they really don’t think as much about things, as they feel about things.
          Regards

    2. For the most part, “climate scientists” seem to assume global temperatures are normally distributed with consequently well-behaved variance over about 30 years. In fact, there is no basis for that assumption, as temperatures appear to have statistical “fat tails.” It’s entirely possible that climate variance can’t even be calculated as a meaningful statistic. In such a circumstance, one might expect the 30-yeay running average widely used among climate scientists to have significant fluctuations over, say, a 60-year cycle, a 300-year running average over a 600-year cycle, etc. You get into trouble somewhere around a 3 billion-year running average because the Earth’s not much older than that.

    3. That’s been my argument for a while. We don’t have a fully functioning model of Earth’s climate. We understand some things about it, and know some variables. But we don’t fully understand it, and are not able to account for all of the variables.

      The real truth about climate and human activity probably lies in the realm of we have an effect, but it’s not a very large effect…or at least not large enough to counter other effects that occur in response. Because if it were a major effect, we would see a clear trend. But we don’t. As you said, it bounces all over the place. So that means it is a small effect. And being small, we can’t reasonably predict anything about it.

      The bottom line is, the majority of climate papers that have come out for over a decade aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. You can’t make predictions about a system, when you have no way to fully model that system.

      1. What has been steady is the annual increase in CO2. The lack of warming for over 15 years should be UNEQUIVOCAL PROOF that CO2 is NOT the climate driver that the hysterics claim it is.

      2. Quite right. For all there sophistication and complexity, climate models are still mostly empirical. That is, they depend on thousands of arbitrary constants that govern processes, such as regional cloud formation and ocean currents, that are too complex for first principles treatment. A climate scientist adjusts those constants such that the model reproduces climate trends over the past how ever many years, and then makes claim that the model can be used to pedict future climate trends. The rub is that there is a high likelyhood that other, completely different sets of arbitrary constants produce essentially the same results. How does one know whether a given set is the “correct” one, or even whether the model itself is “correct?” Smart money says that if your model has been adjusted to reflect an increasing temperature trend over the past 50 years, it will predict that trend to continue over the next 50, regardless what set of arbitrary constants you’ve chosen.

  4. Ok, it wasn’t global warming, it was global cooling after all. Now we can all transition from hand wringing about the polar bears not having ice to….what’s next- monkeys shivering in the rain forest? Break out the imaginary computer models and start refudging the data, another version of imagined climate disaster is on the drawing boards.

    1. jd44:
      There is not enough data know either way. Statistical training is not even necessary to see what is on that graph. Huge variability. Common sense tells us that if there is huge variability, it’s hard to know what’s going on.

      2. Oh, we know what’s going on, the largest scam in history, climate change is nothing more than an attempt to gain control and spread global socialism.

        1. There never were any massive changes in the direction of warming either. The scale, as you point out, has very small gradations. The elites pushing leftism via rabid ecological religion used that to scam the folks who don’t pay attention, or are very poorly informed, which is unfortunately a LOT of people.

      4. Actually we KNOW what is going on. If you look at the past 100 million years you see a repeat pattern of wtrming and cooling which is well known to be related to the earth’s orbit. We are near the end of a warming period so yes, the planet has been warming but it has absolutely nothing to do with humans.

        1. I saw an item buried in the news about 7-8 years ago, where geologists took core samples in Greenland from a depth that was equivalent to 10,000 years ago. No ice or snow, just green vegetation indicating Greenland was damn near tropical back then. It’s all cyclical, always has been.

        2. Continental drift and various other cosmic events that can be easily referenced make this comment pure hor$e$hit! And if you had a clue about the Earth’s natural cycles you’d know that it is in long-term cooling due to current global axial nutation compounded by a slightly cooling sun. The unprecedented unnatural warming is due to human-induced CO₂.

    2. We have too many refridgerators that are left open and are producing global cooling. Or air conditioned cars with the windows open. So global cooling is a man-made phenomenon. Save the monkeys! Save the monkeys!

          2. Or would it be the second law… entropy lost to the environment as a heat sink. First law states that energy can not be create or destroyed. Lol funny, I’m taking my fundamentals of engineering exam for my license next monday, which includes thermodynamics, and I can tell you that nothing in thermodynamics or heat transfer supports the idea that CO2 affects climate. Water vapor on the other hand, could theoretically affect climate, but God created precipitation for a reason

            1. It’s been 44 years since I took the “Engineer in Training” exam and I was a little rusty with which law applies. In any case we seem to be in general agreement and have the same doubts about “Climate Change”.

            3. nothing in thermodynamics or heat transfer supports the idea that CO2 affects climate

              You’re either delusional or a liar. Pick one. You’re not going to be a very good engineer and I don’t see you passing next week with that terrible lack of grasp of science.

        5. Watch for certain buzz words to start appearing. Long ago Dr. Dean Edell put forth the lexicon of the “snake oil salesman”.

          There are always 3 alternative outcomes to a problem to inaction, or to inappropriate action. 1. It will get better, 2. it will stay the same, or 3. it will get worse. The snake oil salesman will always respond: 1. See, we got it under control. 2. We are helping but haven’t treated it long enough to see positive results. 3. Sorry, we didn’t get to it in time or we didn’t medicate enough.

          Watch for algore or one of the other myth supporters to start using those classic responses.

        1. ohhhhh……. Al “the sex poodle” is embarrassed . . . . . . . . . . don’t worry Al. Barack will come to your rescue with some mandate . . or executive action or some thing or another with his “phone and his pen”. . . . . . because, as our ”esteemed” “”leader””, he says,

          “I gots dis'”

            1. You should have more up votes, but your comment has been lost on your “Hooderisms”, which is the funny part. I am laughing and rolling on the floor.

              1. I thought Y2K was a creative scam, but this is beautiful…too cold for Warming just change it to Climate Change…yea, that’s the ticket, that’s what I always meant.

                1. Y2K wasn’t a scam. It was a potential problem which was properly addressed by the relevant people and so didn’t become the problem that it could have had nobody been doing all that recoding of computer calendar systems. The problem is that if something doesn’t blow up, it not blowing up because somebody fixed that which could have blown it up, and it not blowing up because it never really was going to, look pretty much the same to a casual observer.

                  1. well, you do know Obongo stopped the economy from going into depression…and he created or saved millions of jobs that would have been lost if not for his economic heroism…

                    1. The present stats show the US had an average GDP growth of 1.91 percent — the worst in over 100 years. An AP article stated that Commerce will reduce the overall growth by 2 percent — meaning that for 7.5 years, the economy flat lined — the worst recovery in US history. That equates to the economy of the Dark Ages, which grew one percent in 20 years. Congrats, Obama is equaling the worst economy since the fall of Rome.

                    3. 9 Trillion when W left
                      19.4 Trillion now – 7 months left with Uncle Pookie.
                      20 – 9 = 11.

                    5. but, but, the media keeps touting the recovery…(said with fat lower lip)…

                  2. Both businesses and governments put a lot of effort in assuring no major problems with Y2K. Doom and gloomers couldn’t understand that a problem humans cause may be solved by humans.

                    1. Exactly. And so they assumed it never really was a problem in the first place.

                    1. Yes. There were a lot of people spreading it– while others were (mostly quietly and behind-the-scenes) fixing the various computer issues. The fearmongers and scammers got all the attention and scared a lot of people (who, it turned out, didn’t need to be scared because those other guys had fixed all the important stuff.

              2. And every member of our government who pushed this scam needs to be fired and have all of their benefits and retirement seized to help pay for the trillion plus they have scammed us out of over the years.

                    3. That is truWe. we lose all that lovely screaming with them going in head first. OK, feet first, slowly, with total immersion.

                    5. <<o. ✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤:::::::!gq33p:….,…..

                2. Well it didn’t happen. All scientist including the fossil fuel industry agree and confirm that releasing Carbon in the atmosphere is causing the climate to get hotter when it should be cooling. Questions, 97% of the doctors you see say you have cancer, but the insurance company says that you do not. I guess you will believe your insurance company thinking the doctors are lying just to get your money. Sorry, but that’s insane just like your denial of man made climate change.

                  1. Not true. That BS figure was a fabrication. Still no proof of your beliefs. Like any cult you are brain washed. The changes are natural , “Chicken Little”.

          2. <<o. ✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:::::::!uf178w:….,…

          3. <<o. ✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:✸✸✸✸✸:::::::!uf40w:….,….

          4. <<o. ✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤:::::::!gq33p:….,….

          1. Leftists ALWAYS blame right-wingers of things that they themselves are guilty of.
            The UN now has a $100B fund for various Gore-bull warming needs….such as funding “studies”.
            Obama wrote them a check for $500M out of a fund Congress unConstitutionally established to study the Zika virus.
            Congressional outrage was all over the news!!! Didn’t you see it?!?!
            (me either)

      3. Exactly. You seldom hear the “global warming” reference anymore. Climate change indeed covers whatever Green Propaganda they wish to put out there.

      4. Actually, they moved to “change” from “warming” because change is more difficult to argue (one way or the other) than it is to argue warming. They’re simply implying, or in some cases flat out saying, that they’re smarter than everyone else and we’re just to trust them; that they’re so steeped in the models that they no longer have to look at the data. I suppose I would act like a rabid dog too if my livelihood depended on government funding.

        1. I believe in climate change, winter spring summer and fall. What I don’t believe is that i or anyone else have any influence over that climate change. Anyone who believes they do is deluded.

          1. Actually you do have an affect. Has been computed at; .000000000001 percent. p.s. That is a universal “you” as in all of man’s activity.

            Seriously; Looks like they are trying to get a jump on a recently confirmed Astrophysics Theory with regards to the SUN. Does not address anything other than a range of expected cooling and a duration of about three decades.

            Companion commentary indicated rapid climate change over regional areas, And, that it would not be consistent. However, this is outside of the purview of Scientific inquiry.

            Gets a little scary when Scientists won’t discuss consequences. Would welcome a guess from them over anything climatologists have to say.

        2. Who is “they”? You know it was the Republicans who decided to push the term “climate change” over “global warming” in the early 90s. Republicans realized global warming sounded scary and the public would push for the government to take action, so they decided to call it something more benign sounding. In any case, the scientific community has been using both terms for decades.

          1. That’s hilarious. So, according to you, Republicans forced greenies who are overwhelmingly leftist to use their term of choice. Sure. ..

            1. I mean, look dude, you’re free to believe whatever nonsense on whatever blogs or such you follow. I’m just telling you the reality as it happened. Take it or leave it, I suppose. I’m not claiming to be on the left or right, just on the side of facts. It’s not really a matter of debate and is well established that Republican pollster/messaging guru Frank Luntz ran focus groups in the 90s showing “climate change” was a less alarming term and so would be less likely to get the general public riled up and recommended to Republicans in a well documented memo that they reposition the issue as “climate change” instead of “global warming”. As I said scientists have always used both terms pretty much interchangeably. As the public became more accustomed to “climate change” the left generally adopted it as well. They also adopted it upon realizing that the lay public assumed that “global warming” implied that localized weather patterns would always be getting warmer and so “climate change” was a better descriptor for the lay public to understand that adding heat energy to the climate system would lead to broad changes and wider swings (and overall warmth over the long term) rather than localized warming at every location at every point in time.

        3. Liberals always claim to be smarter than normal people. Not one discussion I have been in with liberals has been devoid of them calling me a “repubtard” of a “wing nut” or any one of a hundred creative names to say how stupid this author and college professor is. I am just plain humbled by their brilliance and their ability to avoid facts in favor of name calling.

      5. They make their living off of government grants so they have to give the politicians something to scare and control the population with….

      7. …AND THEY continue to call it “man made climate change”… although now they hide the ‘man made’ part deep in their reports…

      8. God, not this ancient trope again. It was Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster, who advocated calling it “climate change” because it seemed less threatening. And the climate has indeed been changing over time, but not over the last few thousands of years, and never near as fast. And while CO₂ may have been a following indicator in the past, it is the leading cause at this time, as has been understood by atmospheric physicists for decades.

        1. left-etc:
          Please re-check your data. The Co2 data has been heavily cherry-picked. It’s not clear that Co2 has even changed. The single Co2 observatory is in Hawaii, near a volcano that produces Co2. It’s time to stop saying, “as has been understood by atmospheric physicists for decades”.

          Atmospheric physicists are in strong disagreement about every single claim of the global warming scam. If a scientist agrees with you, check their pulse. They may be dead. Scientists disputed Newton’s laws of motion and Einstein eventually proved they were right to dispute those laws. Scientists disputed Einstein, and Heisenberg showed that people were right to question Einstein. Co2 doesn’t ’cause’ global warming, sunlight causes global warming. It explains more than 90% of the variance. Co2 makes a trivial contribution, if at all.

          Commies agree, because they are driven by dogma. But scientists don’t agree. They don’t do dogma.

          1. The Co2 data has been heavily cherry-picked

            FALSE!

            The single Co2 observatory is in Hawaii, near a volcano that produces Co2

            You’re either delusional or a liar. Pick one. There are observation and monitoring stations around the world include the Arctic and Antarctica.

            doesn’t ’cause’ global warming, sunlight causes global warming. It explains more than 90% of the variance

            It takes 1 calorie to heat 1 g of water 1°C, and 1 J/s (1 W) is equal to 0.238902957619 calories, we now know that it takes 4.184 J/s to heat 1 g of H₂O by 1°C. To expand, 4.184 joule of heat energy (or one calorie) is required to raise the temperature of a unit weight (1 g) of water from 0 to 1°C. The volume of ocean, granted is not pure water but will work for illustrative purposes. There are 3785.4118 g of H₂O/gallon. It takes 15,838.163 J/s to heat that gallon by 1°C. That’s 15,838 Watts consumed to heat that water 1°C. The link below will fill you in on how much heat is currently estimated to be stored in the oceans. Anyway, it must be clear to you by now that the miniscule amount of VARIATION in solar metrics, the solar enthusiasts are putting forth, has the energy to do anything at all measurable let alone observable to climate via transfer of energy from the TOA to its surface and below is just not plausible. Not even when somehow amplified. http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

            1. Careful about what you call false. Unless you have scrutinized the source data yourself, then nullius in verba does not apply. Citing NOAA data is not useful unless that data has been directly scrutinized. There are many known errors in NOAA data. You obviously have not seen the data, in this figure below, and your absence of knowledge about that leaves the argument moot. Your eagerness to argue appears to extend beyond your knowledge base. So I will leave it at that.

              Source: Dr. Tim Ball
              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/725c65329ff594655ab37b75586aff1b8885b35963135404f09e30721eeb1d16.jpg

              2. Sourcing Dr. Ball a well-debunked science denier who has zero peer-reviewed climate science papers in the past 15 years or more speaks volumes. The irony that you suggest to check primary sources then you reference Ball. Care to expand on the veracity and source of Ball’s CO₂ data. The argument is not whether NOAA’s data has errors or not but whether those errors can be identified and checked … hence homogenization. Obviously you’re free to pull the raw data down and do your own homogenization and publish your findings. I doubt whether they would be materially different from NOAA, Best or HADCrut, etc..

                1. Leftwith:
                  Well, I think I will just leave it at that. I think I have made my points, and I also think you can guesstimate how this discussion would unfold if we continued. I can guess, because I have had discussions like this before. I am sorry if I offended you in any way. I may have been too harsh, and maybe a bit arrogant.

                  So goodbye.

      10. Who is “they”? You know it was the Republicans who decided to push the term “climate change” over “global warming” in the early 90s. Republicans realized global warming sounded scary and the public would push for the government to take action, so they decided to call it something more benign sounding.

      11. The dems and their bought scientists have consistently and defrauded the citizens by conveniently calling their fiasco “climate change”! Climate change has existed upon this earth from the beginning of earths creation.

        ” On our 24-hour clock, modern man would have only appeared about 1 second ago and the sum total of all recorded human history amounts to about 1/10th of a second.”

        Did man cause the receding of the glaciers that gouged out the depressions that are now filled with water and we call the Great Lakes? Glaciers would indicate that that area once had a sub-polar climate!
        I live in a mountain climate in which there is coal at elevations of 4,000 feet above sea level. The fossils of plants and animals in the strata around those coal seams are in an abundance that indicates that at one time this area of which I speak once had a humid sub-tropical climate. This climate change! occurred before man!

        The ”warmers” want to include in their alchemy – using falsehoods (by omission) – all of the climate change results that occurred before man came onto the scene! One seldom sees in the MSM the term man-made climate change! How can it be proven that the alleged man-made climate change would not have happened had man not ever been here on earth?

    5. It’s both. While the earth has been warming due to greenhouse gases, another equally strong counterforce is just starting to build. The sun cycles through its own hot periods and cool periods — times when there are very few sun spots shooting solar mass material at the earth. About every 300 years, the sun goes into an extreme cooling period for approximately fifty years, called a “solar minimum.” The last solar minimum was in the 1700’s when the US was just becoming a nation.

      Sometimes we have called these periods “mini ice ages” when they have become extreme enough. The sun entered one such period around the year AD 1000.

      The sun appears to be entering a solar minimum now, right on schedule. This year we’ve had some days with no sun spots at all. The number of days like that will increase as we get deeper into the solar minimum, and the earth will cool significantly as a result.

      That does not mean that global warming due to greenhouse gases has ceased. Instead, the solar minimum will be less cold than it would have been without the greenhouse gases, and during that time we’ll be glad we had the greenhouse gases because, however cold it gets (even if this turns out to be one of those minimums that lasts long enough to be called a “mini ice age,” it would certainly have gotten colder without the greenhouse gases.

      The downside to that is that the sun always comes out of solar minimums and returns slowly to solar maximums. With the greenhouse gases, the solar maximum will be worse than previous solar maximums. The sun started slowly sliding toward its minimum at about the point where greenhouse gases reached their peak, so that somewhat countered the effect of greenhouse gases over the past decade.

      For the next thirty or so years, however, we may be glad we had our greenhouse gases; but we’ll be very sorry if we still have them after that.

      –David Haggith
      The Great Recession Blog

      1. These goofballs like David Haggith never fail to pontificate on what they do NOT know. Ever notice these climate nuts always speak in 30-50 year cycles? They can’t be proven right or wrong in their lifetimes but they use the opportunity to go around pretending to be “experts”. Sorry, David…your above text is just another in a very long list of “expert climate analysis” pieces that very likely is all hogwash!!

      4. “About every 300 years, the sun goes into an extreme cooling period for approximately fifty years, called a ‘solar minimum.'”

        Um, no. Please educate yourself first.

        You know it’s bad when even Wikipedia gets it right and you don’t: “Solar minimum is the period of least solar activity in the 11 year solar cycle of the sun.”

        This happens every eleven years, dummy. Quit copy/pasting such garbage.

          1. Very true, but only one specifically called the “solar minimum,” which is what the poster I responded to claimed was a 300-year cycle. That is false.

            Protip: If you don’t know what you’re talking about, you should butt out of other people’s business, dummy.

            “Solar minimum” happens every eleven years. Fact.

            2. Indeed the term ‘solar minimum’ refers mainly to the immaculate phase of the 11-year cycle. But there are other longer term cycles and possibly non-cyclical changes in solar activity which modulate how much activity there is in the active parts of the cycles (the ‘solar maxima’) between the minima. From lots and lots to not very many. It would be good to know how inactive the solar maxima really were during, for, instance the ‘Maunder minimum’. Records indicate basically no spots for decades running, but nobody was observing with modern methods. Many small spots could have been missed.

        2. Um, no. Please educate YOURSELF first. You only got half an education when you went to Wikipedia because you didn’t know where to look for the rest of the story. If you read my comment closer, you’ll see that I said about every 300 years we go into a “mini ice age.” That is different than just going into the regular solar minimum.

          One of the times when the sun did this was called the Maunder Minimum. Another time was called the “Little Ice Age.” When we start to go into a quiet period like the Maunder Minimum, the peak number of solar flares in each eleven-year cycle gets lower than the cycle before.

          So, yes, we go into a solar minimum every eleven years, as your research shows (and then climb back up to a solar maximum every eleven years, too). However, these eleven-year cycles follow a larger cycle where the number of solar flares in each maximum gets higher, then stabilizes for a long time at a certain level, and then the number of flares in each maximum starts getting lower again until there is NO maximum or, at least, very few flares even in the maximum. That cycle goes into its low phase about every 250-300 years.

          For the last three eleven-year cycles, the peak of each cycle has been significantly lower in solar flares than the cycle before it. The present cycle had only half as many solar flares at its peak than the cycle that peaked 22 years ago. Whenever we’ve seen that much change over the course of three cycles, the sun has gone into one of its mini ice-age periods. During that time, there are almost no solar flares from anywhere from thirty to about a hundred years. Since the last low phase ended almost exactly 300 years ago, it stands to reason we are going into another one just as the diminishing peaks of the last three cycles indicates.

          If it follows its typical pattern, there will be one more peak, but it will be very low. Then, the next cycle after that will have no peak at all. Then the next cycle after that will have a very low peak, and then the peaks will rise at the same rate they’ve been falling for the past 33 years.

          “The current solar cycle 24 is the lowest sunspot cycle in 100 years and the third in a trend of diminishing sunspot cycles. Solar physicists expect cycle 25 to be even smaller than Cycle 24 and expect the sun to move into a new minimum, comparable with the Dalton or even the Maunder Minimum.”

          That said, thanks for providing some additional research for the people above who don’t like to think hard enough to do some research on their own before they fire off insults just because someone shares something interesting. At least, you’ve revealed to them that there ARE solar minimums on an eleven-year cycle, and those are the basis for the mini ice ages. (Look up the “Maunder Minimum” if you want to learn more about this very real, fascinating and fairly predictable solar cycle.)

          Here’s an article from this same site that covers the normal solar minimums AND shows how much the peaks have been dropping:

          http://testclimate.wpengine.com/2016/06/25/the-sun-goes-blank-again-during-the-weakest-solar-cycle-in-more-than-a-century/

          Graph of the major low minimums over the past 1,000 years:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum#/media/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg

          –David Haggith
          The Great Recession Blog

          1. “If you read my comment closer, you’ll see that I said about every 300 years we go into a ‘mini ice age.'”

            No, you didn’t. You copy/pasted someone else’s statement that contains a provably and demonstrably false statement that “solar minimums” happen every “300 years.” You then edited in your other points after the fact because you KNEW you were wrong.

            Here, I’ll educate you, since you can’t even remember what you, yourself, pasted. Here’s a DIRECT QUOTE of what you copy/pasted:

            “About every 300 years, the sun goes into an extreme cooling period for approximately fifty years, called a ‘solar minimum.'”

            No. That is wrong. The “solar minimum” happens every eleven years. Fact. End of story. And anybody that gets such a basic tenet of solar cycles wrong should not be trusted on anything else concerning the subject.

            Plus, nice how you edit your post to add in your “mini ice age” garbage to try and save face.

            Own it, cupcake. You were wrong. I know it. You know it. Everybody here knows it.

            1. Now you’ve shown yourself to be both unfair and also a liar.

              Yes, the event that happens every 300 years or so is called a “solar minimum,” and it is one of MANY solar minimums, which I didn’t explain sufficiently for you in my first post. I’ll grant that my first post should have gone into more detail, but I was trying to keep things short (at that point). Clearly, I needed to explain the deep solar minimum or mini ice ages in greater detail from the beginning.

              What is notable about the 300-year cycle, as pointed out in the articles I just posted, which you just completely ignored out of laziness, is that it is far more extreme than all other solar minimums. That’s just a fact, Sugar Plum. It happens almost like clockwork. Sun spots have been cataloged by astronomers for hundreds of years, so we have a pretty good record of how they wax and wane on a longer cycle.

              If you were fair in quoting what I said, which you obviously have no intention of being, you’d notice that I qualified my statement about the “last solar minimum” by stating that I was talking about “an extreme period of approximately fifty years.” To be more clear, I should have said “the last EXTREME solar minimum.” Yes, it was one of many “solar minimums,” but it is notable in being much deeper and longer than other minimums, which happens about every three-hundred years.

              Where you are a liar is in claiming I edited my post to add “mini ice age” to the original. At that point, you go from just ignorantly ignoring the articles I posted about the cycle of extreme solar minimums to outright lying. The term “mini ice age” was in my original post from the beginning and was intended to qualify the kind of solar minimum I was talking about.

              Were I to have edited it, I would have changed it to “Little Ice Age” because in writing my follow-up post, I noticed the last extreme minimum was actually called the “Little Ice Age,” not the “Mini Ice Age,” but I left the original as it was, figuring if you are going to take me to task over accuracy on as fine a point as that, you’re not worth the pixels it takes to argue back. There was also a period in AD 1000 that is even more commonly called the “Little Ice Age.” It is not known, though, if that was due to an extreme solar minimum because no one was looking at sun spots back then.

              The fact is there is no precise term for these deep minimums that I could use because they are a cycle that has only recently been noted. Only recently have scientific papers been published that note there is a pattern of deep minimums (the term used by one scientist) and that we appear to be going into another one that fits right into that pattern.

              While I have not seen any scientist arguing against the existence of this 300-year pattern, there is some argument among scientists as to how much that pattern affects weather. Some say only a little (probably because it doesn’t fit their global-warming motif). (None claim that it has no affect.) Others say it affects global temperatures quite a bit.

              I think those who say it affects temperatures quite a bit make the most sense. Since solar flares bathe the earth in huge amounts of solar radiation, they have to add energy (and, therefore, heat) to the earth. Removing all solar flares for a period of fifty years or more is a huge change. So, i think the scientists who are now claiming that we will be going into a global cooling period, rather than more global warming, make a lot more sense. Others are just reluctant to give up the global-warming argument they’ve dedicated their lives to.

      5. But if we peasants would simply start acting like peasants, return to the soil, and toil away without creature comfort, for the good of the earth, the world would be saved. Of course, the elites deserve all wonderful things like rapid transportation, food that is kept refrigerated, and homes that are kept at comfortable temperatures, because they are taking care of the rest of us lowly serfs, eh, comrade? Gimme a break already.

        1. Has nothing to do with anything I said. I’m just talking about the sun and its effect on temperature. If you want to serve the elites, go for it; but I think you’re a fool if you do. Not my suggestion. I have a whole website dedicated to getting people to STOP serving the global elites and stop voting for the foolhardy establishment. ( http://thegreatrecession.info ) So, serving the elites is not my coup of tea. Go Brexit!

          –David Haggith

      6. David . . . the predominant GH gas is “Watervapor” . . . .
        Every Molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2500 Molecules of “Other Gases” . . .
        Watervapor has always been there . . . the CO2 thing is a Scam of Gorebull Proportions.

      8. Haggith, tell we what the weather will be like the first Sunday week of October. I’ll back check you and the decide if what you say about 30 years from now means a whack.

    6. It is climate change now, not global warming. This way it can be used for heating, cooling or anything else that happens in the world and the governments can extract more money from rich countries for wealth redistribution.

    7. It doesn’t matter if the earth is cooling to “warmist’s”. They are true believers in man-made global warming.
      Even if the facts support a global cooling (the big fear back in the 70’s), they will still say it is caused by man-made global warming.
      It’s fascinating to watch their mental contortions to justify their “belief’s” while the data is against them.

        1. Ummm…. were you around in the 70’s? I was, I was in my 20’s. And, yes, the “scientists” of the day were convinced that we were going to enter into a prolonged period of cooling. If you “consensus” you mean “mania”, like there is with “gloaal warming”, then the answer would be no. People were hadn’t been dumbed down by the government’s educational gulags, and, frankly, people just had a load more common sense back then. And, of course, the internet didn’t exist, so lame brains couldn’t get togehter and whip themselves into infantile emotional tangents that happen today.

          http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

          Hey, even Leonard Nimoy got in on the act.

          1. Sorry I admit I misinterpreted your original message, as you didn’t mention anything about scientific consensus. Was there a mainstream fear whipped up among the mass media and the lay population? Perhaps. Was the scientific community on board with that interpretation of the data? Certainly not. I’m not putting my faith in the media then or now to sort this out. They’re notoriously bad at interpreting and communicating scientific research. But the scientific consensus in the 70s was not on cooling, while it most certainly is on warming today.

            1. No worries… it’s the internet where words go to be misunderstood.

              https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=o0M_AAAAIBAJ&sjid=2FEMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3160,2814827&hl=en

              It was a different day and time. Less histrionics, but there were a significant number of scientists, such as the ones at NOAA (ref’d in this article) that were predicting global cooling, even an ice age and the possible extinction of mankind due to our pollution of the atmosphere. While we clearly we needed to get our pollution of the atmosphere under control, and we did (compare our skies to China and India today) the views of those scientists was clearly comparable to the hysteria of the warmists today.

              I was in college from 1971 – 1975 and there was a lot of hype on global cooling and the same kind of idiots who fell for global warming today were around back then falling for global cooling and demanding that the government take over the economy, eviscerate the constitution and Bill of Rights, etc. so that the government coiuld save us from ourselves. Just like today.

              While it may seem the press was driving the story, they were basing it on the discussion of the scientists of the day.

              That’s my opinion and worth nothing more than that. Others will/may remember/view the situation back then differently. Cool beans. Either way the lot of them were wrong back then and now.

        1. I think they may have been more confused in the 60s. I remember a Twilight Zone episode that was about Earth being sweltering hot – then the protagonist woke to find just the opposite, the Earth was a frozen ball.

    11. I knew it! Global Warming was all due to my neighbor’s SUV. We made him get rid of it last decade and the temps have been falling since.

    13. No, they are smarter than that….they the elites…the ones who go to climate conferences by burning jet fuel in their personal aircraft. They will come up with another crisis to exploit. They are evil, but smart.

      Their supporters among the masses are dumb as rocks.

    14. The next looming disaster will be Lack of Adequate Climate Variation, requiring a new LACV agency to be created and manned by hordes of unemployables, recent graduates with degrees in Toadying, Problem Invention, and Obfuscation. The last will be drawn mainly from the legal profession, primarily from those who have failed their state bar exam.

    18. The “climate change” propaganda is used for a globalist/UN agenda to force the NWO on sovereign nations. The NWO….a scheme birthed decades ago that plans to put power into one centralized group. It is a fact- they called it “global warming” until the science was not backing that – then for political reasons called it “climate change” which is the most unpredictable crap shoot to unsuspecting masses. I am an environmentally minded person who has reduced my “carbon footprint” by reducing my gasoline use, recycling water in So Cal and everything else, composting – recycling metal…etc – and I don’t use pesticides. Of course polution is bad and we need to clean up the environment. However, these NWO globalists have used the planet for propaganda. They have lied to advance their political agenda and they will even prosecute “climate change deniers.” http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-von-spakovsky/attorney-general-lynch-looks-prosecuting-climate-change-deniers

    19. Global cooling follows the solar minimum and is not imagined. According to Nasa scientist John Casey, we should study the impact of previous eras of cooling. In the US the last one, in the 1800s – devastated crops and at that time the US population (not including Native Americans) was 4 million. He says agricultural/crop failure is the biggest concern. Beyond that, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions increase, both being more severe. The eruptions could leave a lot of debris in the atmosphere which will also impact crops. Since most Americans are no longer farmers as they were in the 1800s – they rely on corporate farms and corporate distribution of food. This dependence on government is a weakness of modern society if corporate farms fail to produce. The same idea could be applied to any region on the globe.

    21. IN the 70s it was Global Cooling, in the 80s Global Warming in the 90s Global warming could cause global cooling. then in the 2000 when they had no idea what was happening they changed ti to climate change.

    1. No worries. My 1998 Ford Expedition with 157,000 miles gets all of 9 mpg and I drive it to this day. F Algore, F Obummer. F every lib that tries to change my behavior. Sorry a-holes, you’ll literally have to kill me to change me. I will not comply.

    2. Al Gore will turn his phony “Hockey Stick” chart upside down and claim he has it covered. He will run in circles shouting ” We will be frozen solid by 2022..”. Let the pucking begin.

    3. But they sure know the difference between their ass and a government grant. Just let them know what the answer should be. The right answer changes with Administrations.

  11. ALGORE will be busy trying to come up with another scam, to make more millions off of idiots that are looking for something to freak out over.
    Meanwhile the rest of the sane human population will say “it’s the weather, it changes”

    1. I ran a computer simulation of the weather changes on my computer and it predicted an increase in the number of ‘cute kitten’ videos on the web.

    3. Build and sell more SUV’s to warm the planet and save us all from the coming deep-freeze! Do your part and drive more – now! You owe it to Mother Earth. The federal government can now begin to issue subsidies to the welfare-class so they too can drive a free Escalade.

      Liberals = Morons

      6. Still not as dumb as the retard with a ‘D’ behind his name who worried about Guam capsizing because of the weight of the aircraft being parked at the airbase. Johnson, IIRC (some kind of tool, anyway).

  19. Al Gore and other charlatans claimed global warming was man made and through government intrusion into our lives forced us to change our lifestyle costing us billions that enriched their bank account. Maybe they were right but they forced us to go too far to stop the warming and now we will be forced to reverse ourselves to bring heat back. Of course that will further enrich their bank accounts. Then somehow we will go too far in that and will have to reverse ourselves again…………………………

  21. Did anyone check with the village idiot, al gore????? Just proves gore, the commie muslim obama and the DEMOCRATS have been full of crap for years.

  22. Isn’t it odd that the solar cycle just so happens to coincide PERFECTLY with global temperature fluctuations? CO2 is driven by temperature and it just so happens that during the active sunspot cycles increased CO2 just happens to coincide with that temperature increase?

    Hmmmm…… Here I was told that my car and I can change the entire planet’s temperature just by breathing and it seems it was the Sun the whole time.
    Dang it! How am I supposed to feel super duper important now? I need to go to my safe space 🙁

  25. Yee Haaawwww, Bring on the brass bands and baton twirlers. We’re gonna have a paaartaey now. Cummon Alvin, what do you have to say about this!

  26. Solar activity is the largest influencing factor on our global climate/temperatures. No one vested in perpetuating the man-caused global warming scam ever acknowledged that our measurements of temperatures on Mars tracked identically with variances on Earth. Not the same temperatures, of course, but if you look at graphs, the same identical pattern of temperature variation. The climate scammers will not show this data because it totally invalidates their argument of man-causality.

  27. You left wing, communist global warming freaks need to get your crap together. Which is it going to be? Are we going to be boiled alive or frozen solid? Either way your goal is to have all of our money to redistribute. You are not fooling anybody.

  28. As a scientist and global warming “skeptic” does this mean I don’t have to pack my bags for jail? I’m so glad. I hate orange.

          1. Laughing uproriously. We New England fans would rather be hated than pitied. We’ve been both in our history. Hated is far better.

            1. agreed…dolphins then giants fan here so i used to get both at the same time…

              on the other hand its difficult to discern which i enjoy more…supporting those teams or hating jets/pats

  29. When oh when will the Global warming/cooling/kinda warmish/colderish alarmists realize that observed real data trumps theoretical computer models EVERY SINGLE TIME?
    It’s the foundation of science in testing a hypothesis and somehow this precept is thrown away? Why do the alarmists continuously ignore the real data in favor of the hypothetical model data?

    Oh yeah… they get grants from the government.

    Never mind!

  30. First they were freaking out over global warming, then global cooling, then warming again, now freezing again. They flip flop more than a fish out of water. Will George Soros make up his freaking mind already. His bought off self-proclaimed scientists are getting a headache out of being completely confused over what he wants.

  33. Parks, Snow Skies and Ice Skates will be the late summer seller’s hottest Items and all the retailers are stocked up on swim suits and beer!

  35. But this can’t be. The elite say the science is settled and unless we give them more power over our lives and taxes to fix what isn’t broken, we’ll all die.

    Funny how their logic and certainty is constantly shown to be empty isn’t it? It’s called weather.

    There was a time when Greenland was green. Man had nothing to do with it. Then the long term weather changed again. They had vineyards in places much too cold today. These are long term weather cycles based on ocean currents, solar activity, and a host of variables that the “it’s solved and certain” crowd can’t grasp.

  37. This simply cannot be true.

    I have seen no mention of this in the new york times, washington post, or any of the major networks, and algore has not made a movie about it.

    1. Did we see this in the New York Times? Source: Dr. Tim Ball. It shows the ice coverage during the last ice age. In some place the ice was 9,000 feet thick (!). 14,000 years ago, the Atlantic ocean was still frozen as far south as Spain. In those areas you see that were under ice, the land is still rising, as iti rebounds from the massive weight of ice. So in the North, the sea level is dropping quite quickly.
      Thus, the last ice age is not over yet.

  40. obviously global warming is melting the ice caps which causes cold water into the oceans. The cold water cools the temperatures. Once the ice caps are melted then the temp will rise.

    2. Yes let’s go take a ride through the polar oceans, oh, wait they’re still frozen, with more ice than ever, record ice in the south! Climate change is a global socialism scam!

    1. “Ooo, nooo, the sky! Look, look… look at the sky! It’s on fire! Oh my God, oh my God, we’re all gonna die, we’re all gonna die!” ~ Dr. Burningsky

  43. Oh, and for those of you who haven’t read it, I highly recommend:
    “Dark Winter” by John L. Casey. It predicts with detail what the author believes will happen to our climate over the next 30 years or so. One point he made in the book was so odd, that I’ve been watching for it. He indicated that when the Sun enters periods of minimal activity, that small earthquakes increase, though he nor anyone else can say why. Anyone else notice that small earthquakes seem to be on the rise? Think Oklahoma quake swarms, and their are more places recording small quakes. A good book which should be read by all concerned citizens.
    Regards

  44. This is almost too absurd to comment on. First it’s global warming and now scientists find the earth is cooling. The earth goes through natural cycles, not man made. These cycles have been occurring for thousands of years. If we can get the politics out of this debate and have credible reporting by scientists with credible information, etc., maybe we could all agree on one thing–we’re being played.

    2. Lets be honest and not hide behind the biblical myth of creation.
      Climate change cycles have been operation for billions of years.
      That is my biggest argument against it. We have been accurately recording weather for about 500 years in the span of billions of years that have no recorded data.
      Climate change is fairy dust.

  45. So, do we go back and correct the changes made to older temp records, which were modified to support “global warming”? I wonder if ALGORE will make a buck off of this too?

    1. More global climate summits where all the elites fly their private jets into places like Switzerland and drive fleets of limos around.

      It’s not much, but it is the least they could do,

  47. So, how do you get a bunch of scientists to say “The science is settled” and continue with the lie of AGW?, you control the grant money and force them to say and do what they’re told. Politicians will always do what politicians do, corrupt the system for personal benefit. The scientists who actually care about science are ridiculed. It’s like say an FBI chief telling us that Hillary made a “Mistake”.

  49. so if its global cooling.. why have they been warning certain states to be careful out in the hot temps? this whole global warming/cooling things is a load of crap. imho.

  50. Saw a poll on this page asking if climate change causing extinction due to habitat loss is possible.
    And I saw the results were 51 Possible to 49 Impossible.
    It should be 100% Possible. Of course climate change can cause extinction. Heck it could make every living thing extinct.
    It just depends on how extreme the climate change is. Al Gore spewing carbon from his jet travels? Probably not gonna do it.
    An asteroid hitting the Earth? That might do it. Way different climate after something like that happens.

    1. can you read: “This gives a 2-month temperature fall of -0.37 deg. C, which is the second largest in the 37+ year satellite record…the largest was -0.43 deg. C in Feb. 1988.”

      its the largest. that is the overall point. of course it has this trend, just not this steep.

  58. Find and read “Disgrace to the Profession”, edited by Mark Steyn. Global warming/cooling and climate change is a fascist conspiracy to control the human race.

  59. Imprison Al Gore for becoming an almost billionaire by lying to the American idiots. I mean people. Make him and Hillary cell mates. A pair of BFL’s

  60. If you think this news will stop the money grab by the money changers, you are sorely mistaken. When these fools did their original models, they left out that large fusion generator as part of the equation. The sudden lull in solar activity once again proves their absolute lack of scientific standards to take into account all variables when modeling.

  61. Sounds to me like Al Gore may have picked up a bunch of bankrupt West Virginia coal mines at bargain prices and wants to make another boat load of money. First tobacco and cigarette fortune, second carbon credit fortune and now, some kind of energy fortune. Since the Democrats are already making money from putting our military into non-winnable situations, then leaving them on the steps of the VA to suffer, one might think the “scientists” are too smart to fall for their scam of more research money.

  63. OK, fine. Now, let’s see if the loony left can figure out some scam to try to make money from this development. For starters, with temps in TX now running uncharacteristically HIGH for this early in the season, I guess they’ll have to start cooking the books on these temps like they did with the “global warming” myth to make it work. Pretty pathetic bunch of losers, the loony left is.

  64. Billions and billions of dollars have been extorted from this tyrannical plot, and the perpetrators need to be tried and convicted of conspiracy, fraud and extortion. Sentences that include hard labor in deep east Texas under the watchful eyes of Texas Rangers on horseback would be appropriate.

  65. Does this mean that IPCC has to turn the hockey stick upside down? Is it still a hockey stick if it points down, or is it something else, like a hoe?

  67. Why do Americans put up with this load of crap and corruption? The climate chameleon is just a distracting symptom of the underlying cancer in our government/media/academia.

  68. Pull back the scale on your graph above. The little uptick everyone is worried about is simply part of a larger variation in temperature that is NORMAL for our planet. If you zoom the lens in on the ripples in the bathtub they look like a tidal wave. Pull back the lens a bit. This has been going on longer than man has been able to put out carbon into the air. What we should be worried about is pollution of the oceans which is a real and impactful thing we can change.

  71. That’s it !! I am putting turbos in my VWR32 !! This is perfect PROGRESSIVISM. I was a new teacher in a Minneapolis suburb in 1970 for the first “Earth Day.” The 3,000 student campus was overrun by past graduates whose morality was jump started by academics to invade the schools with the message about “GLOBAL COOLING.” All these years later the “Coolers” have come 360 degrees around… to their original hysteria. One of my Profs in the U of M History Department… a scholar of Progressivism, always had fun with his analysis of their ideas … Their idea of “PROGRESS” was always “Progress into the Past.” They want to go back into an age before petroleum especially. . In the Twin Cities they have ruined major streets and avenues with their pet projects of bicycles and electric trains which cost billions, few people ride and almost none pay for. Next I predict they will mandate horse troughs and be surprised when the unanticipated outcomes are horse dung and attendant flies and disease. Their hatred is always so focused and ignorant about the effects of their ideas. These “Planners” have implanted themselves in the unelected structures of government where they are funded lavishly allowing them to bring their utopian schemes into reality and imposed on us like a huge cookie cutter in the hands of Mustapha Monde. They need to silence and crush the opposition. That leads to less free speech and more intimidation and finally, perhaps, a new Gulag Archipelago.. perhaps deep in the trees of Northern Minnesota.

  72. Don’t you people get it? It’s NOT Global Warming! It’s Climate Change, and it’s ALL our fault!
    After all, there’s no grants in the weather changing all by itself…

  74. Climate Change! The climate changes. It has been warmer, and it has been cooler. We do not live in a thermostat controlled environment. We need to learn how to adapt to the weather and not think that we are so powerful and wise that we can control Mother Nature. Gia can be a real bitch when you tick her off.

  76. I see the government (NOAA and NASA) along with higher education global warming researchers in a pickle. After years of “corrections” to the historical record, and years of assigning blame for these climate highs to mankind, do we abandon the global warming meme? Do we massage the data once again so that new climate lows appear alongside the recently discovered climate highs suggesting the meme “global climate change”, either warming or cooling? Or do we attack global cooling by attacking the messengers of global cooling as was done to “global warming deniers”?

  77. “global WARMING” . . . . . . . . . . ~ Al “the sex poodle” Gore
    “ah . . not warming .. but climate CHANGE” . . . . ~ Al “the sex poodle” Gore
    “ahhh . . . ok . . I’d say it’s getting COOLER then” . . . . . . . . . ~Al “the sex poodle” Gore
    “ohh… hmm….. OK …. OK …. I MEANT global COOLING” . . . . . . . . . .~Al “the sex poodle” Gore

    Stay tuned folks . . . . for more “CHANGE” . . . . . any day now . . . . .

  78. I do think there is a direct correlation between climate change and dingle Barry. Notice it was warming when he was giving speeches and when he stopped the Temps have been decreasing. Solution, ban democrats from giving speeches that are nothing but hot air.

    1. Temperature effects from methane, water vapor, CO2, cloud cover, etc. are TINY compared to sunlight. Current climate models do not even come close to handling the effects of sunlight properly. As this graph shows, sunlight is NOT a constant, and it cannot just be “subtracted’ from the temperature data. It’s far too big for that. Tiny changes in sunlight from sunspots, etc. could obliterate the effects of methane or CO2.

  80. This changes nothing. Warming, cooling, staying the same. We still need to stop the RETHUGLICRIMINIALICAN RUSHBOT RACIST BIGOT HOMOPHOBEZ FRUM DISTROYIN DA PLANET!!!! GIMMIEDAT!!!

  82. . . . . better fire up those lawn-mowers, char-coal grills, and backyard bon-fires and warm this place up before all the chimpanzees in DC start shivering from the cold . . . . . .

  83. Could the fact that there are a record number of ongoing active volcanoes combined with 5 new ones that have recently erupted spewing ash into the atmosphere have anything to do with this precipitous drop in temperatures… ? HMMMM… ya’ THINK?

  84. Now seeking: members to join the new “Global Cooling” movement – first up, litigate car manufacturers for being complicit in the intentional manufacture of electric vehicles, knowing full well that they would contribute to the cooling of the planet…

  85. Let’s see…in my amateur look at the top chart, from 1979 to 1997 the earth seemed to be in a cool cycle but was trending warmer. Then from 1997 to the present the earth looked to be in a warm cycle but trending cooler. If you ask me, Mother Nature has earth’s climate well in-hand and under control.
    The ARROGANCE of humanity to believe they can affect and then fix the climate is jaw dropping!!

  86. The Co2 data were cooked from the get-go. We don’t know what global Co2 levels are. We don’t now if they are rising, because the warmists cherry picked the low Co2 measurements form the past. That makes the present levels look higher, but nobody knows the truth.
    Source: Dr. Tim Ball

    1. There are 400 PPM of C02, a critical, naturally occurring gas in atmosphere.

      That is 400/1,000,000.

      Mankind is responsible for less than 10 percent. (IPCC) 10 percent of 400 PPM is 40. USA emits 25 percent, or 10 PPM. That is 10/1,000,000. It would cost HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars to get a 20 percent reduction in our C02 emissions.

      Assume we did reduce emissions 20 percent. That would be 2 PPM or 2/1,000,000. So the USA could effect perhaps 2 PARTS per MILLION change in C02.

      With season C02 variations of about 7 PPM, it would be near impossible to even measure any c02 changes outside the typical margin of error.

  87. It’s not global warming or global cooling, it’s Carbon Credit scam. Yet another leftist way to enrich themselves and control the people.
    (D)emocrats are a (D)anger to civilization.

  88. An old friend of mine passed the other day. I have known him since the 1st grade. He started my first band and played guitar way better than average. We both served in Nam and remained friends for so long, we thought we were brothers. We fished together, drank together, laughed together. We took on the PUC with action for “the people” together. We talked politics and religion and children and wives and relatives and friends. We shared a lot of things, including our disdain for the politicians who rule America now. He was a patriot. I am a patriot. We both cared a lot about our country. Now . . . . . he has not a care in the world. He doesn’t know about Clinton’s new revelation. And he doesn’t give a
    d ^ m n. I’m starting to think he’s in the best place and I shouldn’t give a d ^ m n either.

    That’s today. We’ll see what tomorrow brings. . . . if it gets here.