Ice Age on the Way!

[newhaul]

It actually has nothing to do with helping the planet .
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threa...policy.210718/
‘Global warming’ is not about the science – UN Admits: ‘Climate change policy is about how we redistribute the world’s wealth’ | Climate Depot
https://www.theguardian.com/global-d...al-way-forward
And just for LE
https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...redistribution

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Check your exhaust system. You might be getting fumes in the cabin.

Umm....

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I don't think climate change deniers should get airtime either.

You prove my point....

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'd be more swayed by that argument if the people making it were actually doing more to solve those problems that really do exist, like clean water, childhood diarrhea, child poverty, affordable healthcare, overcrowded prisons, systemic voter disenfranchisement... that should keep you going til the end of the month, at least. Let us know how you do.

Ah, I see. So, because you're a self-identified progressive, and therefore inherently virtuous, you needn't care that your policies kill poor people because people you disagree with politically don't do enough to solve problems, in your opinion. Got it.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The sad fact is that all the "environmental" eggs have landed in the AGW basket, and by successfully stalling meaningful progress on that front, progress on many other significant environmental endeavours has also been affected.

Hardly. The only endeavors I object to are those that are ridiculously expensive, directed towards carbon reduction, and kill poor people by making energy more expensive than it needs to be.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

But that's what you wanted, right? So many people picking the rich-man's pockets...

Wow, a twofer. An ad hominem and a straw man, all in one sentence.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

"Scam" implies there's a beneficiary. So who benefits from trying to slow down the onset of more warming (cos stopping is no longer in the cards)?

MMGW is an industry. Billions have been wasted on private companies getting subsidies (think Solyndra) to accomplish political objectives related to the scam. Other beneficiaries would include those legions of scientists who feed at the public trough that pays for lousy research like the recent Nature paper. Take away the scam, and all those folks will have to get real jobs.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Bonus question - what industries benefit from stalling/stopping action on AGW?

I am sure there are many that would benefit if this scam met the same death other scientific dead ends have met. How that relates to the scientific merit of the MMGW premise eludes me, so I'll take it as another straw man argument in the making. In any case, as a scam denier reason will bounce off your chest like bullets off Superman, so I'll leave you to it. But do relax...it has been warming, albeit as a slower rate over the last few decades, since 1780 or so. It happens, and on balance, it's good for us. The IPCC keeps lowering their climate sensitivity values to the point where we don't have to do anything to see warming limited to 1.5 degrees by 2100, and it may be far less than that if it turns out the sun has something to do with how warm the planet is. So, nothing to see here....

[nelly]

Ahhhh. So these guys are a couple of millionaires with nothing better to do?

[newhaul]

Climate Crisis, Inc. has become a $1.5 trillion industry - CFACT
The article is several years old so I'm sure the price tag has gone up.

[nelly]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Climate Crisis, Inc. has become a $1.5 trillion industry - CFACT
The article is several years old so I'm sure the price tag has gone up.

Can you find a more garbage source?

Does this include things like creating solar panels? Jeeze.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by odonnellryan

Can you find a more garbage source?

Does this include things like creating solar panels? Jeeze.

follow the money I'm not doing your homework for you

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by newhaul

https://youtu.be/M_yqIj38UmY
this was the recent talk by Dr Zharkova it is just over 90 minutes long.
There are a couple slides that are intentionally blurred due to them still undergoing a far reaching peer review as we type .

Thanks for the link.

I watched this....................... well... mostly.

The most telling point I thought was that the ice on other planets has receded in parallel to ours. Is that fact ? If so, as she says by far the most likely cause is our sun.

Her model is something that fits my sense of logic and it goes to the test very soon. The model looks to be a better match than others such as Co2.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Thanks for the link.

I watched this....................... well... mostly.

The most telling point I thought was that the ice on other planets has receded in parallel to ours. Is that fact ? If so, as she says by far the most likely cause is our sun.

Her model is something that fits my sense of logic and it goes to the test very soon. The model looks to be a better match than others such as Co2.

here is an interview that some friends did with valintena a while back .
https://youtu.be/_wB46mgJrzI

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Thanks for the link.

I watched this....................... well... mostly.

The most telling point I thought was that the ice on other planets has receded in parallel to ours. Is that fact ? If so, as she says by far the most likely cause is our sun.

Her model is something that fits my sense of logic and it goes to the test very soon. The model looks to be a better match than others such as Co2.

she is a fomost astrophysicist

[StuM]

Originally Posted by odonnellryan

More sociological here: can anyone answer me how you benefit as a person from denying climate change?

Can you tell us who, apart from Mann & Co with their hockey stick graph, denies that climate changes?

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Okay. Take a moment and have a bit of a think about it, the irony is that certain elements of society want to throw the baby out with the bathwater in an attempt to keep the planet in the grip of an ice age. And ice age conditions are not the norm of this planet we call home.


It always amazes me that the alarmist element always seem to insist that past climatic conditions used as a base line are somehow static and unwavering and somehow irreproachably representative of what should be considered, for all time, the absolute yardstick for comparison. This belief is what appears to lead them to panic if last year's ice extent in the Arctic is less than the previous, or the jet stream dips, or the gulf stream meanders or Earth's average temperature changes by fractions of a degree over the course of decades. And of course, should a powerful cyclone form or a drought strike a region or a flood occur somewhere or basically any weather event that can be categorised as a natural disaster they applaud themselves with accompanied finger pointing and proclamations of "we told you so!"

The irony is that people want literally to ignore the fact that AGW is real and it's effects are being felt now, and want to retain the bathwater of
their comfortable, bloated lifestyles and throw out the baby of their children's future.

There is no problem keeping the planet from being "in the grip of an ice age". The problem is in keeping the planet from getting too hot for humans to inhabit in the areas they do now, and dealing with what happens when it does get too hot.

What amazes me is that the 'denier element' fail to see their own actions mirroring those they accuse 'warmists' of committing.

Like opening a thread called "Ice Age on the Way!" because it snows in the middle of November at 45N...

Originally Posted by newhaul

that is if you are in the co2 is the driver camp.
Personally I prefer to look at the real driver of all things earth. The sun . Just look at the a mount of blue on a chart of the Atlantic ocean these days
First is the anomaly from average .
Second is the actual temperatures.

CO2 and other GHGs are the driver, there is no 'camp' for scientific fact.
For anyone else who reads this, since I know from experience your mind is closed on this, just looking at the 4 rocky inner planets, their position relative to the sun, their atmospheric compositions, and their temperatures will confirm this

Just another example of trying to fit the data to your imaginary reality.

What you've posted from tropical tidbits is a screenshot of an area that you'd like us to think supports your cooling assertion. What it actually is is a 7 day change anomaly. This is what the actual anomaly looks like from CDAS


I prefer to use the NCEP data which show the entire surface, has better resolution, and have a lot prettier colors.

Anomaly



Actual temp

Originally Posted by newhaul

This just crossed my feeds
https://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...nasa-space/amp

This is exactly the same information with which Ken started the thread...

Originally Posted by Exile

"Martin Mlynczak of NASA's Langley Research Center told CBN: 'We see a cooling trend.'"

For those who may have dozed off & missed all the excitement, this is the same NASA scientist who had the nerve to be cited in a publication which wasn't approved by the intelligentsia ahead of time.

"The Sun was not expected to head into a solar minimum until around 2020, and if it is heading in early, it will mean a prolonged cold snap."

Just think what that will do to all those graphs & their pretty lines.

"The last time there was a prolonged solar minimum, it led to a ‘mini ice-age’, scientifically known as the Maunder minimum - which lasted for 70 years."

Ken is going to have to go out and buy a fur coat after all. Faux-fur, of course.

"The Maunder minimum, which saw seven decades of freezing weather, began in 1645 and lasted through to 1715, and happened when sunspots were exceedingly rare.

During this period, temperatures dropped globally by 1.3 degrees celsius leading to shorter seasons and ultimately food shortages."

Isn't 1.3ºC about what climatologists have been telling us we shouldn't exceed . . . OR ELSE. Looks like we might be well under that for possibly decades, and all due to natural forces. NASA said this was predicted, albeit not until 2020. Was this factored into the models? And now, thanks to this predicted cooling period, we could go from record food surpluses to food shortages. Maybe instead of spending all this time & money on never-ending research & divisive politics, we should instead do what humans have always done, namely adapt with the help of ever-increasing technology. Hey, hasn't this idea been mentioned before??

This is exactly the same information with which Ken started the thread...

And you've added parts of the sensationalist "article" that were obviously not from Mlynczak or NASA, a tactic that NASA is well aware of and is likely some of the reason a lot of the public are underinformed. Good Job!

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Some posters criticized the wedsite source where I found the article, so here’s a different source. Looks like the word is getting around:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ist-warns.html

This is exactly the same information with which you started the thread...

More of the same, get a quote from someone with credentials, cut up to fit some crazy agenda or profit motive, and inject it into the news-sphere. Yellow journalism at its best...

Originally Posted by Delfin

I think we may have a reading comprehension problem here. From your reference you offer to prove your point"

"The scientific consensus is that solar variety variations do not seem to play a major role in determining present-day observed climate change, but have played a major role in palaeoclimatic changes. For example, the climate cooling during the Maunder minimum “from year1645 until 1710”, and Dalton minimum “from year 1797 until 1825” might be due to the solar activities collapse. We note that in the last 40 year there are no good correlations between temperature change and solar variability due to CO2 increasing"

Again, this is a classic of the gobblydegook warmists like to produce. From this, the authors say that warming since 1960 (the trend of which has been declining since then, by the way) has nothing to do with solar activity. However, they go on to say that solar activity has played a major role in what they misleadingly refer to as "paleolithic" time periods, like 1645 to 1710 and 1797 to 1825. Problem is, the use of the term paleolithic is clearly wrong, since those dates aren't "geologic periods" as the term means, but recent history so can't be simply dismissed as the authors would wish to do. By being disingenuous, the authors appear to be offering those who have trouble reading and understanding with a conclusion the reader might find convivial, but is inherently b.s. The final sentence is complete nonsense. I think what they are saying is that they "note", which I guess means they have data to note although that data is not offered, to conclude that CO2 increases have had no effect on the relationship between temperature and solar activity. Say what? I'd love to see the data that shows that earth atmosphere CO2 has an effect, or any parallel reality could have an effect on solar activity. Or are they simply unable to put an English sentence together? Or are they just making it up and no such data exists? One wonders, but whatever the answer, can you take seriously people who make such statements?

Finally, the appeal to a "scientific consensus" on this topic is absurd and a logical fallacy (the appeal to authority) since it has been debunked more than once, even if true has no more scientific meaning than the consensus in 1950 that lobotomies were the cure for schizophrenia, and is generally offered in preface to some very lame reasoning, as this quote most certainly demonstrates.

Conchair, can you see why folks like me find this entire meme so risible, given what supporters of it offer up as proof?

Yes I think we may, but it's not with Conachair but with you. Paleoclimate means old or ancient climate. Paleolithic means old stone age, or from about 2.5 million years ago to the start of the agriculture revolution. There is no mention of 'paleolithic' in the article which, if you had read it with comprehension, you'd know.

I assume you can see why I find the denier crowd so perversely amusing...

Originally Posted by Dave_S

If it is true that we have altered the natural cycle of global warming and cooling to the extent that we are now warm when we should be part way down the downward slope heading for an ice age. Haven't we saved ourselves from massive world wars, starvation, displacement rapidly receding oceans, extinction of animal and plant species.

Which is worse ? Are we better off for it ?

If we manage to control it, a bigger ask I think than we are capable of, but if we do manage it and we set the worlds thermostats to "Just right" what will we have stuffed up that relys on the cycles. Maybe the cycles are beneficial like the tides ?

How is the human race going to agree on what "Just right" is. We can't agree on the setting in a house.

What's 'just right' is precisely the period in which we developed 'civilization' (if one wants to call it that) and the massive human population and that is now, unless consumption is reigned in, forcing the climate to leave; the 'Goldilocks range', which is what cooler and saner heads fear.

Originally Posted by Group9

I wish I could find the person who has convinced the CO2 climate church parisioners that explaing to us infidels that we are just too dumb to see the truth they see is the winning argument.

The 'person' is science and mathematics. Anyone can follow the reasoning and conclusions, the numbers are all out there, but as can be seen in this thread, there is an active element involved in obfuscation, so one has to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff, and it can be a lot of work.

If you're really interested in finding out the truth, cut out the middleman of popular media and go right to the scientific papers and websites.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

On the other hand, the person that convinced rightwingers and other assorted gummint-haterz that climate change is a "church" and the science is suspect is a friggin genius. It's been a wildly successful strategy.

No genius, just very very rich...

Originally Posted by odonnellryan

So what if climate change is as bad as the consensus tells us? Where do I find the deniers when we're starving, facing mass immigration, and so on?

I'm sure they will give me a little extra of their share of their food for being wrong. Right?

Don't bet on it.

Originally Posted by newhaul

you can find me on my boat enjoying a sunset and whatever fish I caught that day for dinner.
Btw I'm not a denier .
The climate is a dynamic thing it is always changing I just feel that it is 99% natural .
Man has done little if anything to change that.

Well man is natural, so it has to be 100%

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That IS, essentially, climate-change denial. Sorry.

Yep

Originally Posted by newhaul

that is the problem then.
Because I don't bow at the alter of AGW .
Just reinforces my statements of the MMGWC being a religion .

You're an AGW denier because you think "Man has done little if anything to change that.", which is demonstrably untrue.

Originally Posted by OzePete

Saw this opinion regards Global Warming and its derivatives!.....

QUOTE:
Like many scams, this issue is based on a modicum of truth, then massaged and manipulated into something designed to frighten the crap out of the populace, empower politicians and of course make a lot of money for its promoters, governments, ‘the science’ and those on side.

The real question is not if climate change is occurring or if mankind is causing global warming because climate change is real and has been happening for billions of years and of course we are warming the planet. You can't create so much heat etc., without causing some temperature rise. (Go piddle in the ocean and the ocean will be warmer, but not much!)

The questions are:
( A ) By how much has mankind contributed to climate change or warming?.... No one seems to have any indisputable answer. Interestingly the carbon dioxide levels (now about 400ppm) have been much higher in the past, pre SUV days!!

( B ) What are the pros and cons of any temperature change.... Most science agree that warmer is far less harmful than cooling.

( C ) Can we do anything about it.... Very little.

( D ) And if so what is the cost.... Huge and guess who the big beneficiaries are, starting with Al.

( E ) Is it all worth trying to change the climate and creating all this fear about it. Definitely not, unless you're a 'Climate scientist on the receiving end' I mean, pop into the barbers shop and ask him if you need a haircut.. odds are he will say YES!

( F ) Who will suffer the most with efforts to reduce carbon dioxide? Again it will be the poor specially in developing countries.

Some things to consider:
You can cherry pick articles and links to justify any way you need to go on this subject but at the end of the day best to forget that and use some common sense and logic: (Rare as it is these days!)

Remember that the science was solid behind the following:

* The ‘discovery’ of a massive hole in the Ozone layer. Great cost to humanity trying to overcome that until it is proven that the holes are normal, always were there and naturally expand and contract seasonally. (Whoops, no money here let’s look for something else)

* In 1976 the scare was the start of global cooling! ( A few years later...Damn it, the joints getting warmer again, better drop that one...

* The millennium bug. Remember this little pearler. Planes will drop out of the sky, hospitals will shut down, riots in the streets, yada yada yada... What happed.. 4/5ths of bugger all except that an estimated $600 BILLION was scammed with this one.
And who got those dollars? Not me or you Gunga Din! (How many 100’s of hospitals, millions kids vaccinated / fed, etc with the billions these thieving scamming bastards got away with?)

* About the same time the grand daddy of them all was hatched, AGW. Global warming. This was going to be easy cos the temperature had been on a slight increase over the past few decades (ironically similar to rises earlier in the century but don't mention those!) A lot of predictions were made (most since proven wrong in time), governments throwing billions at 'the science' and carbon schemes.

Yes they were going to save the planet, just keep the money flowing and we will tell you what you want to hear. But bugger me that damned temperature increase stopped so an adjustment is needed, a new theme.. climate change is born. (Or should we say born-again cos after all this whole crap has become a religion!)

The point of all this?
Yes there is slight global warming but nothing like the promoters claim, (with virtually none of the science’s predicted rise over the past 20 years) and the climate has been changing since before our time so get over it.

And why won't any of the big shot promoters like Al Gore debate Lord Monckton? Because they know he will make them and their theories look stupid and they don’t want to bugger up their bottom line.

Wake up folks, this is one giant beat up. While based on a modicum of truth, it is powered along by the need for more power and much more money! A very clever scam!

Basically, whoever you got this from just put together a list of all the most common memes circulating the 'pseudo-sceptic universe'; since you're new to the party, all of these have been brought up on all these global warming threads on CF, and all have been debunked here and everywhere else.

I will say this though, Gore wouldn't waste his time debating Christopher Monkton because he has no credibility whatsoever. Hell, he's not even a Lord last I checked.

Originally Posted by newhaul

actually a weak solar output allows the jet stream to wander causing the abnormal weather events .
During a solar maximum the solar winds are much higher and therefore stabilize the terrestrial jet streams. Has nothing to do with global temperatures .
Which by the way have been coming down for the last several years.

Hmm, like to hear the mechanism for the solar wind affecting the jet stream. If I remember correctly virtually all of it is deflected by the magnetosphere, except in very rare instances of extreme CMEs.

Originally Posted by newhaul

https://youtu.be/M_yqIj38UmY
this was the recent talk by Dr Zharkova it is just over 90 minutes long.
There are a couple slides that are intentionally blurred due to them still undergoing a far reaching peer review as we type .

More bunkum from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a fossil-fuel funded 'think tank' bent on distorting whatever scientific skills Zharkova has into their own twisted mold.

Most of the talk is about her theories on magnetic fields within the sun, and she apparently has some expertise there, but when she gets into her 'opinions' about geophysics and the climate, she is clearly out of her depth, and her struggles at the Q and A would be amusing if they weren't so sad.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

The irony is that people want literally to ignore the fact that AGW is real and it's effects are being felt now, and want to retain the bathwater of
their comfortable, bloated lifestyles and throw out the baby of their children's future.

There is no problem keeping the planet from being "in the grip of an ice age". The problem is in keeping the planet from getting too hot for humans to inhabit in the areas they do now, and dealing with what happens when it does get too hot.

What amazes me is that the 'denier element' fail to see their own actions mirroring those they accuse 'warmists' of committing.

Like opening a thread called "Ice Age on the Way!" because it snows in the middle of November at 45N...



CO2 and other GHGs are the driver, there is no 'camp' for scientific fact.
For anyone else who reads this, since I know from experience your mind is closed on this, just looking at the 4 rocky inner planets, their position relative to the sun, their atmospheric compositions, and their temperatures will confirm this

Just another example of trying to fit the data to your imaginary reality.

What you've posted from tropical tidbits is a screenshot of an area that you'd like us to think supports your cooling assertion. What it actually is is a 7 day change anomaly. This is what the actual anomaly looks like from CDAS


I prefer to use the NCEP data which show the entire surface, has better resolution, and have a lot prettier colors.

Anomaly



Actual temp









This is exactly the same information with which Ken started the thread...



This is exactly the same information with which Ken started the thread...

And you've added parts of the sensationalist "article" that were obviously not from Mlynczak or NASA, a tactic that NASA is well aware of and is likely some of the reason a lot of the public are underinformed. Good Job!



This is exactly the same information with which you started the thread...

More of the same, get a quote from someone with credentials, cut up to fit some crazy agenda or profit motive, and inject it into the news-sphere. Yellow journalism at its best...




Yes I think we may, but it's not with Conachair but with you. Paleoclimate means old or ancient climate. Paleolithic means old stone age, or from about 2.5 million years ago to the start of the agriculture revolution. There is no mention of 'paleolithic' in the article which, if you had read it with comprehension, you'd know.

I assume you can see why I find the denier crowd so perversely amusing...





What's 'just right' is precisely the period in which we developed 'civilization' (if one wants to call it that) and the massive human population and that is now, unless consumption is reigned in, forcing the climate to leave; the 'Goldilocks range', which is what cooler and saner heads fear.



The 'person' is science and mathematics. Anyone can follow the reasoning and conclusions, the numbers are all out there, but as can be seen in this thread, there is an active element involved in obfuscation, so one has to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff, and it can be a lot of work.

If you're really interested in finding out the truth, cut out the middleman of popular media and go right to the scientific papers and websites.



No genius, just very very rich...




Don't bet on it.



Well man is natural, so it has to be 100%

Yep



You're an AGW denier because you think "Man has done little if anything to change that.", which is demonstrably untrue.



Basically, whoever you got this from just put together a list of all the most common memes circulating the 'pseudo-sceptic universe'; since you're new to the party, all of these have been brought up on all these global warming threads on CF, and all have been debunked here and everywhere else.

I will say this though, Gore wouldn't waste his time debating Christopher Monkton because he has no credibility whatsoever. Hell, he's not even a Lord last I checked.



Hmm, like to hear the mechanism for the solar wind affecting the jet stream. If I remember correctly virtually all of it is deflected by the magnetosphere, except in very rare instances of extreme CMEs.




More bunkum from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a fossil-fuel funded 'think tank' bent on distorting whatever scientific skills Zharkova has into their own twisted mold.

Most of the talk is about her theories on magnetic fields within the sun, and she apparently has some expertise there, but when she gets into her 'opinions' about geophysics and the climate, she is clearly out of her depth, and her struggles at the Q and A would be amusing if they weren't so sad.

I will stick with my record of being right .
It is all inter related.
Sorry you just can't see it.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Delfin

... So, is the thermosphere cooling or not? If it is, what does that mean?

Apparently, as climate models predicted, as greenhouse gasses accumulate and temperature rises in the troposphere (where weather & climate occur and we live), temperature falls* in the thermosphere. Apparently, the temp. has fallen more than expected.
It doesn't mean anything** appreciable to our climate.

* Interestingly, the thermosphere remains relatively "hot", although it wouldn't feel so, due to the scarcity of molecules (to transfer that heat) up there.
** It does/will affect the orbital decay of objects up there, due to a further "thinning" of that part of the atmosphere.

See also, StuM's #192.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

you needn't care that your policies kill poor people because people you disagree with politically don't do enough to solve problems, in your opinion. Got it.

My opinion? But you just said that responding to AGW would take away money that would solve other more immediate problems. Fella if you don't care about those problems now, you're not gonna care about them later either. You're not fooling us.

The only endeavors I object to are those that are ridiculously expensive, directed towards carbon reduction, and kill poor people by making energy more expensive than it needs to be.

The poors... see above.

I always find it slightly repulsive when people use them as cannon-fodder, especially in an argument that's as weak and selfish as yours.
And now more Denial 101, courtesy of Delfin

MMGW is an industry. Billions have been wasted on private companies getting subsidies (think Solyndra)

Solyndra was corporate fraud. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that the DOE program under which Solyndra got loan guarantees turned a profit for the US people - even including losses like Solyndra. What a scam.

Installed solar is getting close to the cost per watt of natural gas, even without subsidies. What a scam.

Solar installation has been one of the best performing job creaters. What a scam.

I could go on...

Other beneficiaries would include those legions of scientists who feed at the public trough that pays for lousy research like the recent Nature paper. Take away the scam, and all those folks will have to get real jobs.

There it is! Card-carrying science hater! No concept of how science works, or how and why people get into it. 15 minutes looking around the staff parking lot of any university would settle most peoples' minds about how lucrative science is... but not yours, I'm certain.

You're not even willing to seek out halfway plausible rationales for your position. Sad.

[Gene Neill]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I don't think climate change deniers should get airtime

That mindset is precisely why I am so skeptical of your religion.