But we told you so.

Amidst Global Warming Hysteria, NASA Expects Global Cooling

"NASA Sees Climate Cooling Trend Thanks to Low Sun Activity".

“We see a cooling trend,” said Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”

The new data is coming from NASA’s Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry or SABER instrument, which is onboard the space agency’s Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) satellite. SABER monitors infrared radiation from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a vital role in the energy output of our thermosphere, the very top level of our atmosphere.

“The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle affects our planet,” said Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER.

The new NASA findings are in line with studies released by UC-San Diego and Northumbria University in Great Britain last year, both of which predict a Grand Solar Minimum in coming decades due to low sunspot activity. Both studies predicted sun activity similar to the Maunder Minimum of the mid-17th to early 18th centuries, which coincided to a time known as the Little Ice Age, during which temperatures were much lower than those of today.

Best go buy some warm clothing & some heaters. If you want to help the currently frozen northern hemisphere, burn some coal.

The climate dogmatists will continue preaching their nonsense, even through teeth chattering with the cold.

I notice you didn't say where you sourced that information from, but I can tell the source must have been ultra-biased - even Fox News mentions that this isn't global, but out in space! And "the Earth's climate will remain unaffected".

See http://www.foxnews.com/science/nasa-warns-long-cold-winter-could-hit-space-in-months-bringing-record-low-temperatures

You'll notice that report contains the same quotes that what you posted does.
You may also spot that it's old news, from 2018.
Since then we've had two of the hottest three years on record.

I know you're desperate to believe in global cooling, but our climate isn't set by wishful thinking. Temperatures are going up!

What is it with people & climate change ? There's nothing repeat nothing we can do about it. What we could do but would interfere with our frivolous & lavish life-style is to cut pollution as much as possible.
Pollution is our Nr 2 enemy after indoctrination Stupidity !

IT'S TOO LATE TO FIX THE PROBLEM

IT'S TOO LATE TO FIX THE PROBLEM
Mr Opinion,
Were you to take a good long look into the mirror, you could possibly see the reflection as part of the problem ! Could you not fix that ?

individual,

Ask Jen.

I wonder if the likes of Mr O will ever understand that it is impossible to fix a problem that doesn't exist?

Hasbeen,
>...it is impossible to fix a problem that doesn't exist
You were recommending doing just that less than three hours before. What's changed?

Here is the original article:

http://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/

Here is a link from the article debunking what Hasbeen is putting and giving a graphic on the misinformation pathways employed by his cohort.

http://climatefeedback.org/false-claims-coming-ice-age-ecosystem-unreliable-news-sites-blogs-social-media-accounts/

And finally here is the data set.

http://www.spaceweather.com/images2021/28feb21/tci_info.txt

Dear Hasbeen,

The statement was “If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.” To have done that the temperature in question would have had to drop below that set on Feb 13th 2009 of 2.05e+10W.

However the lowest it eventually got to during 2018 was 3.13e+10W on Dec 17th.

Today's reading is 4.88e+10W

So mate you can rest easy.

The earth has been greening for the past 30 years. Since 2000, NASA's vegetation index shows that the planet's vegetation has increased by ~10%. Since 1990 the Sahara has shrunk by 8%.

So whether the planet is cooling or warming, let's hope it continues on it current trajectory in regards to vegetation since that's unambiguously good. According to NASA, 70% of the increase greening is due to CO2 fertilisation although others think its more like 50% with higher temperatures contributing the rest.

As to the question of where we're headed, I'd point out that the HadCRUT data set using HadSST4 data, probably the most respected of all the data sets, shows a declining temperature trend over the last half decade. Most of the data sets also show a decline.

(Yes yes I know, 5 years isn't long enough. It needs to be 30 or 20 or 10 or 50 or whatever is required to prove we're all gunna die.)

_______________________________________________________________

SR wrote:

"To have done that the temperature in question would have had to drop below that set on Feb 13th 2009 of 2.05e+10W."

Its always cute when SR tries to pretend that he knows what he's talking about. The problem is however that he's getting mixed up.
2.05e+10W isn't a temperature. Its a measure of power (hint: the W stands for Watts).

Honestly SR, whenever you see a number you should just run the other way.

Dear mhaze,

Are you really still sooking over being picked to pieces with your Covid numbers? Move on mate.

As to watts and temperature in this case there is no phase change so perfectly acceptable to correlate the two. The scientists involved do it themselves naming different wattage levels cold, warm and hot.

Is this little bit of nit picking the best you are going to contribute here? Once again a piss poor effort old boy.

SR wrote:" Are you really still sooking over being picked to pieces with your Covid numbers?"

Sorry SR, but logically one can't sook over something that didn't happen.

"The scientists involved do it themselves naming different wattage levels cold, warm and hot."

Yes but they don't try to pretend that things that are 'cold' can be independently and minutely compared, as you attempt to do. Let me put it in terms you might understand. Women's shirt sizes are a proxy for temperature - short = warm, long = cold etc. But you can't look at two dresses that might be .005cm different in length and determine that the temperature changed by .037K. That's effectively what you tried to do. Bonkers? Yep. Very SR? Hell yes.

"Is this little bit of nit picking the best you are going to contribute here? "

Well I guess you missed the first and major part of my post. Well it did contain numbers so I guess you got lost.

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

Mate, you really do need to give up winging it.

Who else but you would take a fully quantitative measurement and try and equate it to womens shirt sizes.

Trying to disassociate the heat transfer rate from temperature is just laughable and if that is really all you have then as I said it is a very piss poor effort.

I even linked to the data set. They aren't just graded as cold, warm or hot but are distinct values. The lower the number the cooler it is. Why is that so difficult for you?

Look mate, I don't mind seeing the usual deflections from you but this is something else. Grab something from left field without thinking and then desperately try and defend it? You used to be able to do better than that.

SR wrote:" They aren't just graded as cold, warm or hot but are distinct values. The lower the number the cooler it is. "

That's not at all what the data says. It broadly places numbers into cold,warm groups but doesn't try to equate specific POWER values with specific TEMPERATURE values which was your mistaken claim.

We've now reached the point where I cannot be sure if it is too hard for SR to understand his error, or too hard for him to accept his error.

Either way, it too hard for me to continue to deal with moronic innumeracy of this magnitude.

Dear mhaze,

Lol. Typical. You paint yourself in a corner then decide to jump out the window.

This is a direct quote from the article:

“We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”

And:

“Thermosphere Climate Index” (TCI)–a number expressed in Watts that tells how much heat NO molecules are dumping into space. During Solar Maximum, TCI is high (“Hot”); during Solar Minimum, it is low (“Cold”).

This is a direct measurement of the infrared glow or heat being emitted from the NO molecules. Why are you running from this?

As a replacement for physically sticking a bloody thermometer in the thermosphere this is an excellent, quantifiable measurement of relative temperature. Higher wattage means higher temperatures full stop.

Really mate, if you have any further issues you need to take them up with the authors but I feel they have made it pretty simple even for a layman like yourself.

Yes SR, the data they use is a proxy for temperature. But it isn't temperature - its a proxy. Yell out if I'm going too fast for you.

You said a value for POWER (2.05e+10W) is temperature. (" the temperature in question would have had to drop below that set on Feb 13th 2009 of 2.05e+10W.").

But its not temperature, its a value for POWER. They are similar but they aren't the same. Just like your thinking is similar to logical but not the same.

Last year we were debating those that claim the Earth is getting hotter; this year the facts seem to suggest the Earth is cooling. Where is Al Gore, Tim Flanary and Gretta on this?

Josephus,
>Last year we were debating those that claim the Earth is getting hotter;
Why were you doing that? The evidence is clear!

>this year the facts seem to suggest the Earth is cooling
What facts? Did you miss the post where I pointed out this is from 2018 since which we've had 2 of the hottest 3 years on record?

Dear mhaze,

Oh, you were being that semantic. I see.

Usually when we talk about proxies for temperature or climate it might be something like ice cores not a direct measurement of heat transfer.

As I said in the beginning unless there is a phase shift involved there is a direct correlation between watts and temperature in this instance.

In this case it is the watts being produced which are the most fundamental unit as it is only the heat transfer into a measuring medium such as a mercury bulb which ultimately gives us our temperature reading.

So it seems we have chewed up a thousand useless words because of your little hangup.

Marvelous.

IT'S TOO LATE!

Aidan,

"from 2018 since which we've had 2 of the hottest 3 years on record?"

I repeat..."As to the question of where we're headed, I'd point out that the HadCRUT data set using HadSST4 data, probably the most respected of all the data sets, shows a declining temperature trend over the last half decade. Most of the data sets also show a decline."

I'd also point out that, given the margins of error involved, it could just as easily be argued that these post 2018 years don't even fall into the top ten category. Remember when NASA declared 2014 the hottest year ever only to have to walk that back when they admitted that, due to MoE, they could only be 34% sure of that claim.

SR,

When I first pointed out your error, I said "2.05e+10W isn't a temperature. Its a measure of power (hint: the W stands for Watts)".

The thousand words you talk about were you trying to find some way to deflect from said error.

mhaze,
Ah yes, the old deniers' trick of cherry picking evidence! 2016 was very very slightly warmer than 2020, and 2018 was significantly cooler, so cherry picking that half decade would show a cooling trend even though any longer analysis would show a warming trend.

>I'd also point out that, given the margins of error involved, it could just as easily be
>argued that these post 2018 years don't even fall into the top ten category.

Maybe there's a one in ten thousand chance they don't; it still doesn't override the warming trend!

>Remember when NASA declared 2014 the hottest year ever only to have to walk that
>back when they admitted that, due to MoE, they could only be 34% sure of that claim.

Hardly walking back; yes is possible that some prior year was hotter, but 2014 was more likely than any prior year to be the hottest on record. It's also possible, though unlikely, that 2014 wasn't cooler than every subsequent year. More likely, though still with <50% probability, is that it's 2020 rather than 2016 which is the hottest year yet.

BTW Steele's trivial error doesn't detract from his main point.

Aidan,

You pick out two years. I pick out 5 years. And I'm cherry-picking?

I fear you don't understand the nature of Margin of Error.When you see the values of average temperatures globally over a year, these are mere estimates within a range of values. Saying this year's estimate is higher than last year's estimate is neither here nor there. They all fall within the same relative range of values meaning that there is no conclusive evidence of warming over recent times.

Whatismore, given that the differences are so small, its mere sophistry to claim they mean something.

There is this misunderstanding abounding in the community that these are precise calculations. They are far from it and drawing conclusions on these estimates is fraught. Even if the numbers are vaguely accurate, the claim that temperatures have increased by 0.3c over the past 40 years doesn't mean much.

If one year is a tenth of a degree warmer than another, even if that were accurate, its a big yawn.

You make the same error that SR makes. Taking a proxy for temperature and then thinking that not only is the same thing but that it can be compared down to two decimal points.

When NASA said that they couldn't be certain that this year was warmer than that, it was because they are aware of the errors inherent in the data. If you were to keep that MoE in mind you'd be less inclined to assert that this or that year was the hottest.

Its much better to look at trends which ,over time, reduces or cancels out the MoE. The trick then becomes how long a trend to take. I prefer to take the last 12000 years, which shows that there's been a broad cooling trend since about 2000BC.

mhaze,
>You pick out two years. I pick out 5 years. And I'm cherry-picking?
Yes. The two years I mentioned (out of the five you did) were merely an explanation of why your five years showed a very slight cooling trend. And your five years started after a very big rise in temperature.

>I fear you don't understand the nature of Margin of Error
Then fear not! I have an engineering degree and am familiar with statistics.

Do you understand statistics? You seem to be desperately trying to avoid seeing the very clear warming trend!

You seem to be under the presence of a margin of error makes the data useless. That's far from the case. Even if the confidence level for a particular year being the hottest on record is low, the confidence level for the last 5 years containing the three hottest years on record is very high.

I presume your final claim was a joke?

Dear mhaze,

Your “When I first pointed out your error” really should have read “When I yet again decided to be a pedant rather than address the issue”.

You really are an amusing fellow sometimes.

The thermal energy of NO measured in watts directly dictates the temperature. Less means it is colder and more warmer.

Why are you trying to disassociate them?

Aidan,

"Do you understand statistics? "

I have statistics in my degree and for a good part of my life was involved in a computer software effort to provide statistical information to the international shipping industry. So, yeah, I understand statistics.

"You seem to be desperately trying to avoid seeing the very clear warming trend!"

On the contrary, I've never denied the warming trend from 1975 or thereabouts (depends on your favourite dataset). But that doesn't mean I fail to see potential inflection points in the trend. 2016 is a potential inflection point. I do also place caveats on that given that I don't have overwhelming faith in the precision of the actual data.

"You seem to be under the presence[?] of a margin of error makes the data useless."

No, indeed MoE makes the data more useful. Provided you are aware of the MoE and take it into account when the data is evaluated.

"the confidence level for the last 5 years containing the three hottest years on record is very high."

Case in point. You see, that's just not true and failing to understand the magnitude of the MoE potentially leads one down the garden path.
For example, again taking the HADCrut4 data (not my favourite but alarmists use it so I do likewise since it saves other arguments) the trend for 1/2016 to 1/2021 is -1.039 ±1.321 °C/decade (2sigma - can't do the sigma sign here). That is, the MoE is greater than the actual change in the data. So ignoring or minimising the MoE means you totally fail to understand the data. It also demonstrates that, for that period, the confidence level isn't high at all.

"I presume your final claim was a joke?"

Why? What I said is entirely true or at least supported by large volumes of paleo data. Its just not well known. I wonder why?

With no special instruments I will predict the Southern Hemisphere winter will on the average be colder this winter.

IT'S TOO LATE!

WE'RE ALL DOOMED!

I don't know what garbage the warmists will push for this just finished summer, but let me assure you it has been the coldest in the last 29 years, for which I have kept my local records.

Days were about average, but the nights have been by far, 1.7C colder than any other. If you didn't have a thermometer, the fact that instead of just a pair of shorts, almost every night required a shirt, & most a jacket. Unheard of cold for a Queensland summer.

Dear mhaze,

You wrote: “But you can't look at two dresses that might be .005cm different in length and determine that the temperature changed by .037K. That's effectively what you tried to do.”

No it is not. I equated a higher wattage with a higher temperature which was perfectly fine. Sure I should have tidied the language up a touch and said: "To have done that the temperature in question would have had to drop below that set on Feb 13th 2009 BY 2.05e+10W."

Gas in the thermosphere is so thin it is incapable of conducting heat so temperatures exceeding a couple of thousand degrees register well below zero on a thermometer. Measuring the heat transfer is a perfectly robust indicator of temperatures.

Dear Aiden,

Just having a bit of fun mate.

Dear Hasbeen,

I have already posted this before with no response from you. Care to comment?

Quote.

Dear Hasbeen,

You wrote: “In South East Queensland we are having the coldest summer in my 30 years here. Days are about average, but I have never before seen everyone bearing jumpers on summer nights.”

Mate it must be your thinning blood because there isn't a single statistic which bears out what you are claiming.

The stats for Hervey Bay show the mean low temperature for January was 21.0 degrees. In 2016 it was 20.4. In 2003 it was 20.0 and in 2000 it was 20.7.

In December last year it was 21.8 which was higher than the year previously at 21.4, and the year before at 21.5, and the year before that at 21.0 and it goes on. In fact the last time it was higher was in 2009.

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=38&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=040405

Perhaps you might like to give me another town nearby to check although a medical check might be advisable

You're still trying to talk yourself out of this SR? Seriously, just admit the error and move on.

I'm pretty sure you know you're wrong and just won't own up (we've seen it plenty of times before) but just in case, let's hit you over the head with logic yet again.

Power is NOT temperature. Its a proxy for temperature but its not a one to one relations. If the power levels drop by 0.1% it doesn't mean temperature drops by 0.1%.

Yet you specifically called the value of a power reading as being temperature. Its just wrong.

Take tree cores as another example. If the tree rings are wide apart it suggests the temperature was warmer than usual. And if they are close together, it suggest a cold period. But paleo-climatologists don't (repeat don't) say that they are the same. They are indicative proxies.

Imagine if a paleo-climatologist were to say because the tree ring in year 'A' was 1mm the temperature was 1mm. They'd be laughed out of town. Imagine if they doubled down and said the tree ring in year 'B' was 0.999996mm therefore it was colder in 'B' than 'A'.

They'd be thrown out of town.

That's what you've down SR. Used the measurement for one thing and called it another and then assumed a one-to-one relationship.

Take-away lesson - SR shouldn't take up paleo-climatology.

Dear mhaze,

ROFL.

This is so typical of you. You had nothing substantive to contribute as usual so you get fixated on an insignificant semantic point and like some drunkard prospector yell Eureka over a bit of fools gold.

And once again you mince and prance about all beside yourself with some faux smugness when you have nothing.

The authors were perfectly justified in framing their levels of cold, cool, neutral, warm and hot around the quintiles of thermal transfer of NO in the thermosphere and it is perfectly justified in this case in saying a higher wattage equates to a higher temperature.

So when you rabbit on with "Its a proxy for temperature but its not a one to one relations. If the power levels drop by 0.1% it doesn't mean temperature drops by 0.1%." it is irrelevant. No one said it was either. However a lowing in wattage directly equates to a lowering in temperature, something you are struggling to accept.

"I hate to say I told you so..."

Hey Hasbeen,

Yes I tried to tell them too.

Do you want to know who else tried to tell us?

Dr Suess did.
Yep and he departed 30 years back born in 1904.
Dr Suess could predict the future, I'm not lying:

See this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/anal-swab-china-coronavirus/2021/01/27/cc284f56-6054-11eb-a177-7765f29a9524_story.html

And now see this:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/EvqAJzOXcAkz1w7.jpg

In any case kids of tomorrow will never know, because Dr Suess books have been marked for the great book-burning.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/dr-seuss-books-canceled-notebook/2021/03/02/b3496b98-7b55-11eb-a976-c028a4215c78_story.html

Of course it is warmer around the more built-up areas due to heat reflection & retention !

I installed my weather station when we moved here just over 29 years ago. I have rainfall figures since then, but I found a set kept by a 87 year old local dairy farmer & his father dating from 1920.

I also have the record posted by the local paper of official rainfall from 1896. The BOM hate such records, as it shows up the lies of their homogenization trickery.

Only have my own temperature records, max & min since 1992, but those are enough to put the lie to global warming. This summer has been about average max, but has been the coldest minimums in that 29 years by enough to make the average the coldest in 29 years.

I know of course you will scream weather not climate. Strangely you are one of the first to claim record highs are climate, not weather.

The fools at the BOM don't appear to be able to get anything right. Yet again this year we see a La Nina year producing well below average rainfall. 100mm below average here, & worries about Brisbanes dams getting very low, at the end of our wet season. Yet the BOM persists with claiming El Nina produce the wettest years. Just like some clowns actually believe global warming caused the Northern Hemisphere record cold.

Dear Hasbeen,

“I also have the record posted by the local paper of official rainfall from 1896. The BOM hate such records, as it shows up the lies of their homogenization trickery.”

Rubbish mate.

I have already posted Hervey Bay records showing this year was not even the coolest this current century.

I have asked you if you had another town whose records you would like me to check and as yest I haven't heard an answer.

How about you stump up for once.

Argue about it all you like but the reality is THE PROBLEM IS NOW TOO BIG TO FIX.

Mr O, I, unlike those who said "I hate to say we told you so", actually enjoy saying, "I told you so"!
There is NOTHING to be "TOO LATE" about, as there is NOTHING unusual or for that matter, "MAN MADE", about GW or CC or whatever the heck the con-men pushing this contentious notion that we are all responsible for something we DID NOT DO, say we did.
My one wish is that people become a little more aware of what's going on around them, that affects THEIR LIVES, livelihood and long term well-being.
For that to happen we need people to grow-up and become responsible members of society, and NOT child-like members of some kind of sporting club, because all I see around me are entitled spoilt brats who find more time and effort in spending/wasting money and time, and not putting their time to positive and gainful things which will ultimately lift their standard of living and life-style to the level of those they hate so much, for having achieved that same goal they would aspire to if only focusing on the priorities in life.
One percent of the population, invented or created something that people wanted, and they became very rich.
The rest, had to actually "WORK" to achieve some kind of semblance of long term security.
You prefer bludging and seeking more holidays, then you don't get to comment about anything, because like this GW, CC fallacy, if you were actually interested or even remotely engaged in what was was going on, instead of sticking your stupid heads in the sporting section or on TV, you have NO IDEA.
Therefore your comments are irrelevant and moot.
So time will bring forth the truth about all this, but will anyone seek out the perpetrators, with the same evil drive as the Jews did in seeking out the Nazi's?
I doubt it.
And the ignorant, un-informed, mis-informed, useless people, just keep believing everything that's spewed out and we keep copping a hiding.
It's no wonder the older we get, the more we look forward to dying