GEOENGINEERS ABSOLUTELY BTFO

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3974846/Stunning-new-data-indicates-El-Nino-drove-record-highs-global-temperatures-suggesting-rise-not-man-emissions.html#comments

>Stunning new data indicates El Nino drove record highs in global temperatures suggesting rise may not be down to man-made emissions

>Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C since the middle of this year – their biggest and steepest fall on record.

>The news comes amid mounting evidence that the recent run of world record high temperatures is about to end.

>The fall, revealed by Nasa satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere, has been caused by the end of El Nino – the warming of surface waters in a vast area of the Pacific west of Central America.

>The satellite measurements over land respond quickly to El Nino and La Nina. Temperatures over the sea are also falling, but not as fast, because the sea retains heat for longer.

>This means it is possible that by some yardsticks, 2016 will be declared as hot as 2015 or even slightly hotter – because El Nino did not vanish until the middle of the year.

>But it is almost certain that next year, large falls will also be measured over the oceans, and by weather station thermometers on the surface of the planet – exactly as happened after the end of the last very strong El Nino in 1998. If so, some experts will be forced to eat their words.

Looks like the scare tactics are about to fail and globalist propagandists will have to manufacture a new reason for millions of "Climate Refugees" to move to white countries. Although they are already working hard on that one.

Other urls found in this thread:

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/global-temperatures-fallen-isnt-reported/
youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
phys.org/news/2016-11-arctic-sea-ice-growth-slower.html
bbc.com/news/science-environment-38138132
washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/30/he-created-a-beloved-blog-about-the-melting-arctic-but-it-got-harder-and-harder-to-write/
takepart.com/article/2016/11/30/19-ways-arctic-climate-change-could-unleash-global-catastrophe
washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/30/the-ground-beneath-our-feet-is-poised-to-make-global-warming-much-worse-scientists-find/
youtube.com/watch?v=LsnW6L7VBp4
btdb.in
climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

All global horrors are 10-20 years out so that no one will remember the claims when that date comes.

>American education

Its called climate change, not global warming. The climate is changing.

>Remember how rises in global temperatures were reported earlier in the year? Here is a taste from the Guardian in July. Funny thing is, though, global temperatures are now falling equally sharply – and no-one, with the exception of the Mail on Sunday last weekend, seems to be bothered about reporting it.

>Not even Nasa seems interested in reporting its own data for global temperatures. Instead, Nasa last week put out a press release about a study which claimed to have found a reason to explain the hiatus in global temperatures between 1998 and 2013 – the conclusion of which was, in as many words: it was all an illusion. The oceans were still warming up, but they were storing much of the Earth’s increased heat, which will be spewed out into the atmosphere in due course.

>Well, maybe – or maybe not. The authors themselves admit that they need more data to test their theory. But in the meantime, wouldn’t it be a bit more newsworthy for Nasa to make a little more of its own data on global temperatures, which show that the sharp rise in 2015 and early 2016 has been equally sharply-reversed. You have to search for it yourself. It is on the last graph, titled ‘Monthly Mean Global Surface Temperature’.


blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/global-temperatures-fallen-isnt-reported/

So wait. Are we actually heading for the ice age now or is it just some cooling?

No fucking shit, but it is not necessarily a reason to start throwing billions to alternative fossil fuels. NASA came out with this report days ago, have you seen any reporting on this?

kek

youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw

No, but anyway why is it a bad idea to throw billion at them for when it does run out ?

No, IT IS global warming. Global warming CAUSES climate change. The only reason people keep calling just climate change is because retards like OP read an article on dailymail or see that it's snowing in Montana in June and say "well that proves global warming is a hoax, because it's snowing in one place on the planet at an odd time"; never mind the rest of the fucking world.

At some point we are. A cycle of ice age, rise in temperatures, and fall back into another ice age has been how Earth's climate has worked since long before humans have existed.

GLOBAL TEMPERATURES HAVE FALLEN DUMBASS.

G L O B A L
L
O
B
A
L

According to NASA's satellites.

El Nino is a natural phenomenom.

...

Trump literally solved global warming

wtf I'm a #Cruzmissile now

I am not against alternative fuels. The petro dollar needs to die and the middle east has too much control over global currency.

The alarmists screaming out about florida being underwater and all that just may have been wrong despite their insistence that they need grants to study this continuing man made climate change which may not even be man made.

it's kind of funny to me that everyone forgot about el nino. i remember they were saying it was going to be one of the strongest on record. they probably forgot about it on purpose

If your dumbass actually went to the NASA site instead reading dailyshill you'd see that although the temperature can vary from year to year THE TREND is upward.

Bottom pic is fake

I don't you think you understand the mindset of global warming believers. Climatology, geology, satellite data, fact that we live through the coldest era in 65 million years will not constitute an argument for these people. John Oliver and Leo Di Caprio do.

All of this is bullshit until we know why and what they are spraying in the clouds. I see chemtrail plains every single day no matter where I go.

data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

I did look at it. The chart you should be looking at is monthly mean surface temperature.

>In Canada
>Its December
>Its 10 above 0
>Its raining
>Theres no snow
>In Canada

MFW people deny global warming

I should be knee deep in beautiful white flakes of frozen water bootin around on my sled.

The reason it's stronger is because of global warming. Check and mate. Global warming proponents win again.

>Global temperature drops

>But its not cold in Canada xDD

A fucking leaf.

I got caught in a hail storm in georgia, in august

global warming my ass

This issue is going to destroy the left...Probably lead to the extermination of the entire Ashkenazi genetic allele

> In northern sweden
> Snow came about 2 weeks ago
> Temp alternates between 0 and -10, or so.
> Birthday mid nov. Rule i noticed is sometimes it's snow, and sometimes it isn't. This year it is. Nothing odd.
> Last year no snow until december. The year before that too. This matches the strong el nino - very hot, now going back to normal.
> Neither for nor against global warming by principle. Not sure what to think.

That's the point of this thread. Any skeptics are shouted down by scientists who are paid to continue researching this "man made" phenomena. Skepticism is healthy.

Sounds like a freak storm, I spent the last week walking around in pants and a t shirt buddy. I still have a fucking tan.
The past years have all been way warmer than usual increasingly every year.

I doubt we'll even have snow on Christmas.

>Daily Mail

Get off of this website you nigger

Yeah but it's been like 65° the past few days and humid af from the rain but finally just dropped and I'm comfy again. You up north georgiabro? Downtown ATL here.

Weather isn't climate... except when Bill Nye says it is.

Had enough of the doomsayers mashing everyone's panic button for massive government spending and power grabs. Enough already.

I was just passing through

Why throw them at solar and wind when there's so much more to be gained from nuclear? The new technology in those future reactors are cleaner, (much) safer, more efficient, and using new fuels like Thorium that we will never run out of.

The poo-in-loos have the right idea.

>1880s
>1900s
I'm sure they had global mean temperature readings all over the Earth. Surely.

...

Try this one.

data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

The graph is called monthly global surface mean temperature.

I haven't had to wear my kodiaks in over a decade. I miss winter man, it isn't even worth having a sled unless you know someone up north with land and trails.

you dont think this is an upward trend?

Monthly mean surface temperature you illiterate dumbass. You have to click on it to see it. It only goes bak to 95.

>1880s
>2020

Yeah. Legit.

Not the graph you posted. So stop trying with the unethical bullshit. THIS is why no one takes you fuckers seriously.

What the fuck are you even saying? Those are graphs I was referring to.

I am saying it is not correlated with the amount of greenhouse gases, but natural phenomenon El Nino and La Nina.

LGTFY

phys.org/news/2016-11-arctic-sea-ice-growth-slower.html
bbc.com/news/science-environment-38138132
washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/30/he-created-a-beloved-blog-about-the-melting-arctic-but-it-got-harder-and-harder-to-write/
takepart.com/article/2016/11/30/19-ways-arctic-climate-change-could-unleash-global-catastrophe
washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/30/the-ground-beneath-our-feet-is-poised-to-make-global-warming-much-worse-scientists-find/

Applying "trends" to climate is like trying to make a mathematical model for the stock market.

Good fucking luck.

Go back farther.

You guys fuck with the scale to show an extreme upward trend, whereas over millions of years it's nothing.

The planet has been much warmer than it is now.

issue is its only going back to 1995, if C02 is whats causing this shit, then go back to the start of industrial revolution, when c02 started spiking

That's more thin surface ice over the sea, the thick ice cover over the land is whats melting away

I have to agree with Styx on the issue:

youtube.com/watch?v=LsnW6L7VBp4

If it's "man-made", i.e. human caused emissions are the largest or most significant factor, we're fucked anyways. Because there simply is no way humanity as a whole will get to carbon-neutral anytime soon. Especially the chinese and other developing nations are not giving a single fuck about pollution.

If the "climate change" we are observing is not man-made, we can't do anything about it anyways. It would have happened without us and it will happen no matter what measures we take.

And if climate change is not as severe as the alarmists tell us, we don't have to worry anyways.

However, all that being said, I don't see anything wrong with doing the small everyday things that "reduce emissions", even if it's too late or if it doesn't change anything.

Because it's throwing money at the vastly inferior option based on a false premise that it will save our planet.

We should be investing in energy sources that can be done safely, even if they pose a risk to the environment if not properly managed. (i.e Nuclear, Fossil fuels) rather than inefficient, garbage tier technologies like wind/solar power. Even hydro is pretty shit considering how devastating it can be on local ecosystems if not engineered properly.

Don't get me wrong, I can respect small scale applications of wind/solar. Using solar to power a few things in your home or whatever is pretty neato. It's just not practical on a larger scale.

but this stuff funds research into cheaper solar panels for me so i can stop paying a power bill
thats what everyone should want
why stop that?

if you're retarded millenial unaware that planet existed before you were born

The actual problem is people who THINK they know what it means by climate change don't actually know shit.

The sun, yes THAT sun, has been very gentle for a while now (as it's supposed to). Not to mention our own climate models predict another ice age just on the cusp (as it's supposed to). Both facts conveniently left out by climate change supporters.

The "prediction" is green houses gases "MIGHT" interrupt that cycle and prevent another ice age from forming.

Ask ANY scientist what they actually think about it and the answer, "Well, we don't actually know what is going to happen." Because they don't. It's a hypothesis at best and never a theory.

So why the doom and gloom? Well, we already know. Unethical politics revolving around money and liberal votes. I reject ANY liberal out-of-hand regarding climate change because there isn't a single instance where they won't resort to cheating, lying, polarizing politics, or fear mongering.

All of which are anti-science to begin with.

No reason to stop, but the narrative that the world is ending needs to die because modeling global climate trends is impossible and nobody really knows what is going on.

Not only CO2, it's so widespread because it's causing least damage compared to other things like CO or CH4

Watch this movie

Private research and funding can do whatever.

Public research and funding on the other hand should be distributed based on factors like "How soon could this technology be deployed?", "Is it capable of generating energy year round?" or "How much infrastructure will we need to utilize this energy?" and not "ITS GREEN LOL"

It's global warming, world will end in 5 years! Jk, it's now climate change and it will destroy life in 10 years! What, you don't believe life will end in 15 years? Foolish goyim, submit and pay your existence (carbon) tax now or you will perish in 6 gorillion years!!!

Kill yourself faggot

oh come on. people on all sides are big sacks of shit. this will just devolve into the philosophy of humanity

Use this site to get a copy of said movie:
btdb.in

>no see we're all bad!
That isn't even the issue we're debating. But okay. Go find a thread more to your liking I guess. It's not this one.

>thats what everyone should want
>why stop that?

This is not what everyone want's

We want to be on mars...To have colonies on the moon.

The only issue with Hydro is that there's only so many geographies or pieces of land where it would be favorable to Nuclear power. 95% of BC's power comes from the various scattered hydro dams, just because the lake-rich mountain valleys here are very well suited to building them everywhere, and that alone is the only reason to avoid Nuclear power in BC.

call me crazy, but i say its fine, as long as it helps me get muh free energy. this hardly makes me a crook compared to the shit humans do/have done

What's this? Facts, reason, and citations all in one pic?!

Never forget

>studies show that natural phenomenon that causes global weather patterns was the cause of global weather patterns

>If it's "man-made", i.e. human caused emissions are the largest or most significant factor, we're fucked anyways.

About the "97% of scientists agree about global warming hoax." Here's the truth:

The IPCC pulled together 11,944 peer-reviewed papers about climate change. Of those, 66.4% of them had NO OPINION on anthropogenic or "man-made" global warming whatsoever. That's 7,930 of them. Again, they neither support or denounce AGW (anthropogenic global warming) they simply don't acknowledge it at all.

That leaves 4,014 papers that DO have an opinion on AGW. This is where the IPCC gets tricky. They claim 97% of the remaining studies support AGW. Note that they do not claim to what degree. They simple acknowledge that man-made climate change on "some" scale that is not 0 exists and has some effect. This is no more than acknowledging that standing outside and spraying aerosol cans at the sky all day is probably bad for the environment.

What matters is, of those "97%" how much did they say it actually affects the environment. And here's where everyone was misled. Only 64 papers suggest that AGW is the leading cause of climate change. That is 1.5% of the papers that even discuss AGW, and 0.5% of all global warming research.

What does that mean? 98.5% of all peer-reviewed scientific studies suggest man-made global warming is NOT a major factor in climate change.

i have a question for you nerds, have you been keeping up with lord Monckton, the climate change denier, hes saying some interesting shit about how we need to get more c02 in the atnosphere otherwise our plants will starve

So New York won"t be flooded? Crap.

I'm very utilitarian when it comes to utilities.

Obviously the most efficient solution should be implemented.

Solar and wind are the opposite of efficient.

Yes?

nuclear power= best power

I watched a bit of his recent interview with Stefan Molyjew. Seems they're putting up a conference soon where they'll release irrefutable evidence that "global warming" is based on a calculation error.

No just NASAs data

they can actually measure that from the ice in the arctic or something. looking at it layer wise, like how you can tell how old a tree is

climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

But the global temperature is increasing

>false dilemma
>implying manmade and natural factors are mutually exclusive

Go to bed you silly little christian.

kek

Wow, Ted Cruz destroyed that guy.

>Wallonia

How does it feel being subhuman frog?

Yeah..He is making the point that we are in a mild warming of an ice age.

Shit is about to hit the fan in the next 5 years

Wow what if two different things can both affect the same thing simultaneously. hmmmmm

>implying taking a strong opinion on a controversial topic is not a good way to start a thread that gets replies and incites discussion

Since the beginning of the earth, the climate has been variable a.f.

Libtards think they can make it conform by eating maggots and promoting diversity of energy generation methods

I laughed too hard at this for some reason

>be libyard
>unironically oppose he cleanest form of energy production

Why haven't we purged these fucks yet remind me again?

>perform an experiment with 2-3 parameters
>upscale the results to global scale, ignoring that your amount of parameters increased by several orders of magnitude
>"we are all going to die!"

They do that every one or two decades. Before global warming it was overpopulation and global cooling.
I wonder what will come next when they get tired of global warming.

Sun without sunspots? Also, why five years?

Hahaha just as this was released yesterday
nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html

Why are smart people falling for this shit, such a waste.

So winter-chan worked, it just took us longer than we thought?

>global warming
didn't happen, had to come up with a new term to scare people
>climate change
no one is falling for it other than libfags, what's next?
>really hot or really cold....be afraid!!!

I'm all for till free farming to conserve water and farmland, but GWB fucked us over big time by paying farmers to put corn into vehicles because muh emissions are causing global warming

Has it not occurred to you that both sides have exactly the same idiots?
see

I would say "the predominate" but sure.

>The El Niño Southern Oscillation is an internal phenomenon where heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and ocean and cannot explain an overall buildup of global ocean heat. This points to an energy imbalance responsible for the long term trend (Wong 2005).

>thinking mankind has any significant impact on the global temp
>not the gigantic fusion reactor 1AU away

wtf im am now a #cruismetchange

>Not understanding how fresh water raises the freezing point of salt water.

Fuck. I can't believe there's a president and entire Congress that relies on logic like OP.

>G - L - O - B - A - L Warming
>B-b-b-b-but MUH CANADA

Meanwhile, in Brazil, my town which should be hot as fucking hell is cold as fuck and I'm even sleeping under blankets.

Neither my data or yours prove anything related to a GLOBAL average. And even if it did, it doesn't imply humans are the one affecting it.

Stop being a liberal pussy.