Another farcical attempt to deny what a huge majority of climate scientists and the data have clearly shown : the last few decades have had a significant increase in land temperature, sea temperature, glacial melting etc. And sounding using the last seven years to attempt to convince readers that we are in a cooling period is propagandist lying. We have had this before when the deniers used a particular hot year, 1997, to attempt to show there was no global warming. Seven years ago was a hot year. A very hot year.
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Daily Mail Online

Take a look at the graph. Notice the trend. Take a look at 1997 and how it was an outlier which all the deniers used as a baseline to try to tell us that nothing was happening because the temperature dropped from 1997 to 2011. See how they could bloviate about global cooling over the last 14 years by cherry picking?

And here we have more of that. Just look at the bigger picture. Air temperature is just one of the indicators of global temperature change. It is the one we best understand. But increased heat is not just in the air, it is in the soil, it is also in the water surface and deep ocean, it is used to melt glaciers. When you melt ice the energy of melting does not change the temperature of the material It is 32 ice then it is 32 water. But lots of energy get used. The amount of energy to melt a unit of ice, with no temperature change, just a phase change is the same as required to then heat that unit of water from 32 degrees to 176 degrees. A huge amount of energy.

The glaciers in the national park that have been there for nearly 10000 years have shrunk in recent years. The glaciers in Greenland, Alaska, and Antarctica are melting. That is not a cooling trend.

yes it is a FACT that 2021 was cooler than seven years ago, a completely misleading fact the obfuscates the clear trend of higher temps, melting glaciers, sea level rise.

BELIEFS and CONSENSUS have NO value in science. Beliefs drive religion -- Consensus drives politics -- and DATA drives science.

Regarding your attached NOAA temperature graph ... what month(s) does it represent?

All 12 months for each year.

That is not correct. This time please display the data "criteria" which is shown to the upper-left of the diagram. The criteria that was used to create the diagram you provided were selected to maximize a "warming" graph. Thank you for showing data, but knowing what data is being used can make a difference.

Kerry Emanuel: A climate scientist and meteorologist in the eye of the storm | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Looks like this man would know what he is talking about.

And looks can be deceiving. Kerry has a history of creating data to fit his beliefs. 1. He likes to "model" hurricane projections -- and as we all know, those climate models have all failed for the past 35 years because they produce results way too hot and have never verified. 2. The article presented does not show any "historical" hurricane trend data -- and for good reason because it shows decreasing hurricane strength and frequency -- not to mention the dramatic decrease during the last 2 years. Here is data which Kerry, Al Gore, and the media refuse to show ... https://climatlas.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png

Ahh, but that is the only point that you could disparage, since I used your side of the argument's own source to present my opinion. The question has been asked many, many times on here; can you prove that mankind had anything to do with climate change. The answer has always been, the climate has changed and man exists, therefore man caused it. Sorry, but I don't buy it and no evidence has proven that man has caused climate changes. If that means that I am not an alarmist, so be it. Interesting discussion, but I still don't care to make sacrifices that will have no effect.

Quite a few surly someones around these here parts.

Not that far off base, in the minds of some anyway.

I heard a speaker at a seminar some time back, a self-styled "futurist", who opined that this continent can "sustainably" support only eleven million hunter-gatherers. He quoted some data to give credence to his point.

I have little doubt that there are probably quite a few people who believe such rot, and even scarier--that there are some who are trying to bring such a scenario about.

We used to call such folks "Tree huggers." They are more concerned about saving the trees than those that might need the wood for said tree to build shelter for their families. Progress has it's cost and man is at the top of the ecology food chain.

The best examples of man-made climate change are trash mountains -- you can see them, you can smell them, and they say they don't taste too good either. Plus the bigger they get the more they alter the local wind pattern -- and as they fester they create warming and release gases -- and eventually leach into the water supply. A great legacy for our kids.

Excellent points.

My opinion on just why this is the case corresponds with the rise and scope of the internet, and even more to the point, social media. Back in the day, if someone was doing research on any topic, it meant going to the local library, poring over books for hours on end, then crunching those numbers with (if you were lucky) a electrically-powered mechanical calculator. You then put your thoughts to paper, maybe several drafts on a manual typewriter (mine was an Underwood) before the finished result was ready for whatever it was being prepared for.

Today? Well, today a few mouse clicks can reveal "data" on just about any subject. Not a bad thing if used correctly, but unfortunately one can find "data" to "prove" any hypothesis they might have, no matter how off-the-wall it might be: settlements on the far side of the moon--the Holocaust never happened--the Earth is flat--there are data out there to support those three, plus a whole lot more. That is why this discussion as well as just about all discussions come down to dueling data: one side digs up some numbers to support a point while the other side digs up some more to support the opposite. And usually those duels involve people with little to no knowledge of the subject.

The complicating factor is that, more and more, it appears that all too many people aren't interested in INFORMATION at all, but in VALIDATION. They want to be right and will go through any length to "prove" that. When science becomes dogma--well, we are all in a lot of trouble. And unfortunately with social media, it is no problem to locate like-minded people who will validate your point of view, as well as the scoundrels who are experts at getting people to think what THEY want people to think.

As Mark Twain once stated, there are three kinds of untruths: "lies, damned lies, and statistics". And of the three, statistics are the worst, because they can be made to "prove" any lie or damned lie out there.

Sorry, You are not correct. Blueash provided the graph and your response was to me. My response was to me. My comment was based on information I just read on a NOAA article on climate.gov.

In that case, perhaps man should not build residential structures either since they will "alter the local wind pattern." Can anyone say "reaching?" Maybe someone is attempting to equate or confuse man caused climate change with simple POLLUTION. If you wish to discuss pollution, I could probably find many points where I agree with you. Still haven't proven man caused climate change. If you wish to suggest that man has changed his environment, I can agree with that.....through pollution.