Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable

sheskunk

Well-Known Member
(NaturalNews) Planetary temperatures have remained largely stable throughout the past several decades, according to new data released by the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite. Mean temperatures gauged across multiple measurement platforms including GISS, HadCRUt4, NCDC, UAH and RSS definitively show that the planet has not been warming for nearly 18 years, taking the wind out of the sails of the global warming fallacy.

Based on the figures contained in the new datasets, surface temperatures have continued to fluctuate as they have since the beginning of time, but there has not been a steady rise in mean temperature as we have all been led to believe. To the contrary, surface temperatures are technically lower on average than they were several years ago, and appear to be continuing on a generally downward trend in an apparent cooling phase.

"According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for March 2014 is just in, the global warming trend in the 17 years 8 months since August 1996 is zero," explains Climate Depot. "There may have been no global warming at all during the entire lifetimes of all students now in high school."

Warming trends were gathered from each of the respective datasets and are averaged in order to make the assessment. And with this average hovering at 0.14 degrees Celsius over nearly 18 years, which is well within the +/-0.15 degrees Celsius combined measurement, the data analyzed suggests that global warming is nonexistent, to put it bluntly.

"The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 212 months from August 1996 to March 2014," adds Climate Depot. "That is just over half the entire 423-month satellite record," which first began back in 1979.

Biggest recorded temperature increase occurred between 1663-1762, long before industrialization
Interestingly, planetary warming was most pronounced long before the industrial revolution took place. The fastest centennial warming rate, or the largest temperature increase that occurred over the course of a 100-year period, was in Central England during the 1600s. The period between 1663 and 1762, to be precise, saw a century-length increase of 0.9 degrees Celsius.

The fastest temperature increase lasting a decade or more also occurred in the 1600s, long before there were coal plants, manufacturing facilities, gasoline-fueled vehicles, and other modern inventions often blamed for global warming. The 40-year period between 1694 and 1733 saw the century-length equivalent of a 4.3 degrees Celsius increase in surface temperatures, the highest ever recorded.

"Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend is equivalent to 1.2 degrees Celsius per century," reads the Climate Depot report, putting things into perspective. "The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 degrees Celsius per century."

In other words, as damaging as man-made industry may be to the health of our environment, it does not appear that this activity is having any substantial influence on global climate patterns. Our planet is simply in a constant state of flux, whether that be upwards or downwards for a time, and using fossil fuels or raising cattle -- yes, the government is now blaming cow farts on global warming -- plays little or no role in this process.

"Climate change is the natural process the world goes through year after year, century after century, eon after eon," writes one Fox News Insider commenter about the new data.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.climatedepot.com

http://foxnewsinsider.com

http://change.nature.org

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/045005_global_warming_climate_change_greenhouse_effect.html#ixzz31VpRYpp4
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, the completely discredited and partisan Skepticalscience website is no longer a valid contributor to any debate. You bring this chump up as a source to discredit her sources?

Try again...MUCH HARDER.
Skeptical science is a valid source. If you disagree, show/explain why
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, the completely discredited and partisan Skepticalscience website is no longer a valid contributor to any debate. You bring this chump up as a source to discredit her sources?

Try again...MUCH HARDER.
nice attempt at explanation, but you are off by 18 points.
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Skeptical science is a valid source. If you disagree, show/explain why
Old news already fully proven in earlier thread. Intentionally misclassifying peer-reviewed works as supporting their theory...multiple instances and verified by the authors of said works. Old news.

nice attempt at explanation, but you are off by 18 points.
Wasn't an explanation, you might call it a castigation or possibly an excoriation. Or you could just call it speaking factually. Some members might want to try that a little more often...Hmm?
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Old news already fully proven in earlier thread. Intentionally misclassifying peer-reviewed works as supporting their theory...multiple instances and verified by the authors of said works. Old news.
You've already admitted there's nothing you would accept as proof of anthropogenic climate change, so it would seem the source is irrelevant..

You don't like what the information says, doesn't matter where it comes from
 

FLkeys1

Well-Known Member
I will take warming over heading back to another ice age any day :fire:
The biggest carbon foot print is a person, so why don't we stop allowing people to have so many kids? would that not help??
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, the completely discredited and partisan Skepticalscience website is no longer a valid contributor to any debate.
i recall your standard of proof and willingness to discredit sources you did not agree with in the past.

your track record was supremely shitty.

recall:

Those are awesome polls UB. Are they oversampling Dems by even 1 percent? If they are, you can throw them out with the garbage, it ain't gonna happen. But, on the bright side, you can spoon with those polls after the election and tell yourself how the evil Republicans cheated, cause THE POLLS showed Obama should have won.
Horseshit.

I've consistently said the polls are full of shit and using 2008 turnout figures is ludicrous. I stand by that, if the polls are still oversampling Dems by 8-9%' and they are, then I still say they're full of shit and Romney's lead is even greater than they reflect. I haven't wavered an inch from that position.

I've now seen five focus groups of undecided voters and they are virtually identical in their findings. Roughly 75% of the folks said they were likely to vote for Romney. If the undecideds are moving to Romney and the enthusiasm of Dems is lower than it was in '08 and Republican enthusiasm is up from '08, how are they justifying the use of '08 percentages in their polls. It would be funny if it weren't so painfully obvious and pathetic.

I also keep seeing focus groups of undecideds, that shows a majority of them leaning to Romney. I think your poll swing prediction will only come to pass if they start oversampling Dems by even more...which wouldn't surprise me at all. Shit, if they can use a fictitious 7-8%, why not go for the gold and use 15%? Looky, looky, Obama is up by 7 points now, all is well...all is well.

Oh, so they're NOT oversampling Dems by that much? Well, they themselves are lying then, because they admit it. And yes, it is based on 2008 turnouts, not the more recent 2010 numbers...lol right back at ya. Obama is done and will be placed right there with Carter in the race for WORST PRESIDENT EVER.

Actually, the polls are still oversampling Dems by 10%, assuming turnouts for Dems larger than 2008. Laughable. That fact, in addition to the fact Romney is ahead, cements my prediction of an easy 6 point win by Romney.
Are you aware that Romney is leading even though they're still oversampling Dems by an average of 10%?
And with the 8% oversampling of Democrats, I'd say that puts him ahead by about 5-6%.
Wishful thinking. I just saw a report on the highly coveted "Walmart Moms" group. Romney has jumped Twenty points after last nights debate. I guess it's a good thing all those polls oversampling Democrats by 8+ points are accurate and Ohio and the other swing states are lost for Romney.
The swing state polls show Obama with about a 5% lead in those three states, but they oversampled Dems by 7%, right after they had a report less than a month ago showing Republicans enjoyed a majority of registered voters for the first time in decades. LOL.

I'm predicting a Romney landslide, despite the MSM's coordination with the administration.
so, how'd those predictions, inability to understand simple, scientific polling, and standard of evidence work out for ya last time?

:lol:

no matter, you probably have it all nailed down this time with much more complex math and science though.
 
Top