Maggie's Farm

over 1600 temperature records were set in the U.S. this summer and about 100 of them were for record highs. The rest were for record lows.

In fact it is true that the so-called global warming ended in 1997 and the average temperature today is cooler then it was in 1997.

during the 50's 60's and 70's were experienced global cooling. So much so that scientists were scare mongering a new ice age. During that period CO2 was rising at the same rate it had before and since. Go figure.

The South pole has set new records for total ice and the North pole so far this year is far ahead of normal in forming the winter ice pack.

The biggest problem the warmies have was the massive release of the emails they sent between each other conspiring to hype global warming. Why (you say)? Obviously for money. Since the hyped global warming scare mongering literally billions has been spent on studies. And who benefits from the studies? Why the very same warmies who have been scare mongering us all these years.

The bottom line is this is a natural and cyclical warming period not all the different from the medieval warming period in the 11th century, The primary difference this one is quite mild while the medieval warming was more robust and I might add beneficial. Warming periods are alwasy more beneficial to humans, plants and other animals while global coolings tend to create massive dieoffs. Beware the coming maunder...

"The U.S. is just a small portion of the Earth's surface" so we cannot use the massive number of record cold readings to draw conclusions BUT somehow we can use a single storm or a event to hype global warming???

If you cherry pick the graph you may be able to convince someone that the average temperature has increased 0.05 C. But the fact remains it is false.

AGW is a "theory" not a fact. There is no evidence to support it and a lot of evidence to refute it. The theory is based on computer models that cannot even predict past weather when the raw data is entered into them. This is because the models are intentionally weighted to create a global warming scenario or hocky stick result. According to the models in 1997 it should be between 0.5-1.0 C warmer today then it is. The reality is stunning... unless you are a committed warmie and are willing to lie and distort the facts. The models have always been wrong and will continue to be wrong as long as the researchers get funded by scare mongering. They have no incentive to even try to improve the computer models because accuracy would be devastating to their bottom line.

What makes all of this worse is the entire AGW "industry" has been co-opted by Marxist/Socialism. Governments are eager to tax us based on fear, uncertainty and doubt. The carbon tax is a socialists wet dream. Our own socialist-in-chief is foaming at the mouth with just the thought of a carbon tax.

Ironically solar cycles and Milankovitch cycles are not cooperating and in fact we may well be on the verge of a maunder minimum. No worries, the warmies saw this coming and changed the terminology from "global warming" to "climate change" It will be fun (well, except for the crushing carbon taxes and regulations) to watch the looney left change their tune in the middle of a warm stream to global cooling. I predict that some enterprising Warmie (would coolie be racist?) will theorize that in fact CO2 causes atmospheric cooling. But wait! But wait! I also predict that the warmies (or whatever they become) will also predict catastrophic falling ocean levels as a result of increasing ice at the poles. And, wait for it, politicians will step forward and offer new taxes to "fix" the problem. . .

I see what the problem is. You think "Theories are well-supported explanations of facts"!!! They are not. Theories are theories, period. Just like the theory that the world was flat many theories are proved wrong over time.

"A simple line of evidence is a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere, the signature of greenhouse warming".

Not true!! It is exactly what happened in the medieval warming period and the Roman warming period and neither of these was caused by humans. They are natural cycles caused by solar cycles of radiance and natural movements of the earths position to the sun. The intervening cooling cycles are also natural and caused by the same thing. You have carfully avoided saying that the "anthropogenic component of AGW has been proven. Why? Simple because it has not. We can all agree that we were/are in a warming period. It began about 1850 (long before SUVs) and it was expected and predicted by science. Science also predicts it will end and be followed by a cooling cycle (Maunder minimum). What is not known is how long or how severe either of these natural cycles will get. As warming cycles go this one is quite moderate and thus very beneficial to humans, animals and plants. Beware the Maunder, it is probably impossible to support 7 billion people or even half that many people in a severe cooling cycle.

Zach now it seems all your eggs are in the stratosphere vs troposphere basket. I'm not sure but that sounds to me like you are abandoning your claims that there is still warming to support your "theory" and are no forced to point to random anomolies as "proof". Kind of like pointing at melting glaciers while simultaneously ignoring those that are expanding. Or pointing to a Artic sea ice melt every summer and ignoring the fact that Antartic ice keeps growing and getting higher and deeper every year. My advice is keep searching. Surely somewhere there is some straw you can grasp at, some pointer pointing in the wrong direction. But don't wait too long, ponder the Maunder. No cooling in the last 14 years and more record cold temperatures. It's not a good sign for the warmies...

"it is just one line of evidence" now that all other lines of evidence have failed. But more importantly it is not a line of evidence proving AGW it is a line of evidence that is inconclusive. Perhaps every natural warming cycle had these same side effects. The pseudo-scientists you follow have no clue but they do know how to hype their money making theories. If you want truth remove the money from it. ZERO public dollars spent to stop or research global warming. Maybe then we will get real science instead of pseudo-science.

Not true!! However I will concede one point: If you carefully cherry pick where you start the chart for 1997 temperature and where you end it then indeed some of the spurious (vs average) readings can be interpreted by dishonest pseudo-scientists. If this is what you need to do to support your religious-like belief system then so be it.

I assume you read the most recent study by real scientist that the evidence shows it is local weather that is causing most glaciers to recede and the recession would take place even without this natural global warming cycle.

You missed the point completely. Your belief that somehow "why the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling" is is well supported science and proof of AGW and proof of greenhouse warming is pure wishful thinking on your part. It is simply a poorly understood side effect of the natural warming cycle and not the cause or even a pointer to the cause. BUT the point was: now that we have had no warming for 15 years and we had 3 decades of cooling in the 50's 60's and 70's while CO2 levels increased unabated and we had 10,000 emails released showing that the major scientists involved in the AGW scam were lying and hiding evidence, THAT NOW iti is necessary to fall back on some other so-called "evidence" of AGW. NOT that the divergence in trends between the troposphere and stratosphere doesn't exist or isn't recognized by science. BUT THAT WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT MEANS!!!

The point remains that while we have warming, much mildrer then previous cyclical warmings, there is ZERO evidence that it was caused by humans and a plethora of evidence that it is nothing more then a natural occurence. This is after all the 33 naturally occurring global warming since the last ice age and as these natural warming cycles go it is a very mild one. It follows the 32 naturally occurring global cooling event known as the little ice age and since that cooling was greater then most previous natural cooling cycles the natural warming cycle seemed warmer but in fact is less warm then the previous two warming cycles (the medival and the Roman warming cycles). The good news is this warming cycle was very beneficial to humans, plants and animals the bad news is we will soon enter the next global cooling cycle and it will be very detrimental to humans, plants and all other animals. Ponder the Maunder...

Interesting. Now it seems you are content to not address the AGW issue but instead just muddy the waters. Lets agree that "a greenhouse effect would result in an increased temperature differential". That still does not explain or prove that this is a result of this particular natural warming cycle or not. When the total solar radiance decreases due to a coincidence of diverse natural cycles (solar magnetic activity cycle and Milankovitch cycles) the natural and inevitable result is exactly this greenhouse effect within our atmosphere. It is predicted, it is expected, and it is happening consistent with this natural cycle of warming and then cooling. You see the tree but cannot see the forest. Ponder the Maunder...

I think the proof that your last statement is wrong is that our current natural warming cycle was indeed caused by "solar magnetic activity cycle and Milankovitch cycles". Just as the little ice age and the Medieval warming cycle were caused by solar magnetic activity cycle and Milankovitch cycles. And all the warming and cooling cycles before that as well. I think you are reading too much into all this. Hopefully your back is OK because you are bending over backwards to find some way that humans have caused this natural warming cycle.