Scientists Get Buried In Snow At Davos While Lecturing On Global Warming

C. This is normal.

There are trees and lakes and plants and other things buried under miles of Antarctic ice. This means that at one point in time, there was no ice there and the temperatures were mild enough for plant life to flourish. It got to that point without man, and it was covered in ice without man. It will again one day be uncovered without man. It's too bad we'll all be long gone by then because I'd LOVE to see what kind of wildlife and plant life flourished there before the Ice Age.

 

One from Bali...

 

The "side" of science and facts has decades of data that has not failed nor been refuted.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

The other side barely exists.

This is the original sentence I addressed, and that I originally quoted,

This claim has not been backed up, after 9 pages. One must show a significant majority of studies on this matter are false.

 

False. Al Gore made it up the 2013 year. He claimed to have gotten it from Maslowski. Maslowski made no such prediction. You can read his paper. It's freely available on the internet. Masklowski was also mortified that Gore referred to him and immediately repudiated Gore.

Ugg...that's not what that blogger (who has a history of misinterpreting things to begin with) is saying. Arctic sea ice refreezes in the winter. That freeze rate is higher than normal right now. But, fat-lot-a-good that's doing because it's STILL on pace to break a record for the lowest wintertime maximum extent. Arctic sea ice is declining. By the way, it's declining at a rate faster than computer models predicted.

 

Without a time machine, we'll never know. All we know is that the Earth has been much hotter than this and got that way before machines were introduced.

 

I am unaware of how "data that has not failed" is something that could be evaluated. As if data were animated or had the ability to succeed or fail on it's own. As for "refuted" I don't think your standard can be "refuted". The data themselves, are not things to be refuted. They are either accurate, or they are not. Conclusions can be refuted. Assertions can be refuted, but so far, I haven't seen you advance anything that to date has not already been challenged.

The observation is that the modeling that produces the temp estimates are themselves data estimates, not actual temperature data collected in the field. The model then extrapolates data as temperatures which then populates the model. As these are inference based data, they are at best notional. Because the data elements themselves are just numbers, there are zero ways in which they could fail. The can, however, be inaccurate. And inaccurate data can clearly make assumptions based off of the model outputs can clearly be challenged for their accuracy.

What can be refuted, though, is the attribution of "science" to the speculations being advanced by so many of the climatologists that make them. And every day, those models are being challenged for the inability to create specific or repeatable calculations that can be evaluated for their veracity.

Data doesn't "fail". People do. Perhaps you have a mirror.

 

Surely you have recent peer-revewed counter-studies disproving the vast amounts of data,

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

And not just baseless forum posts with speculation?

 

Funny. Every model that predicted the extent in the last decade indicated that we would have ice free conditions there by now.

 

Maybe. But, for example, we do know that the Sun goes through long brightening and dimming cycles and these cycles are correlated with the global mean temperature. The Sun has been dimming for the last 60 years and yet the Earth continues to warm. Why is that?

 

I do, and I have posted such. I continue to post for those who seem unwilling to actually read them, like your response to my last post. My expectation is that even when I do post them, folks like you won't ever actually read them. So, asserting some position of authority over continuing to post your meaningless references isn't helping you.

 

The climate changes frequently on this planet and other planets because of proximity to the Sun.

 

Alright, then feel free to quote things from that federal study and paste them here. Under that quote find a recent peer reviewed study directly disproving the statements.

 

So the global mean temperature is modulated and dominated by the Sun?

 

Yes it does, this is the natural order of planetary and solar system weather patterns. Nothing takes place in a vacuum; it is all based upon the reality of Cause and Effect / action and Reaction. There is nothing magic and supernatural about existence, including life.

 

So why is the Earth is warming instead of cooling right now?

 

http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1972
https://judithcurry.com/2017/09/26/are-climate-models-overstating-warming/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50562/full

You can start with those. They will take some time, so I don't expect that you have a response for quite a while....

 

Quick... turn the sun off and see what happens....

 

Two things, 1) why shouldn't it be? Give some examples of why you believe this would be the case after a naturally occurring rebound from the last mini ice age, and 2) Why does it matter if it is, or not? If we are only say 70% sure that the warming is real, why worry, or bother at all?

 

What is wrong with you? The warming cycles in the colder months always takes place because of solar flares. Said solar activity causes warming cycles during winter months, it is cyclical.

 

You didn't quote any portion of the report I linked, nor did you provide a peer reviewed study debunking any of the statements in said report.

As I asked you to do. I didn't expect you to, so I guess it's okay.

I guess you concede. Until that Federal Study is debunked, nothing really directly refutes A/GW.

 

What are you trying to suggest?

 

What global warming phenomenon are you speaking of? Can these warming cycles be correlated with solar flares? But, most importantly how can sporadic solar flares cause the temperature of Earth to increase over the long haul but not decrease?

The Sun has been dimming for 60 years now. And both AGW skeptics and believers agree that we are entering another grand minimum. Why are we not descending into another little ice age?

It matters because the Sun is huge component of Earth's energy budget. In fact, it represents nearly 100% of the ingress side of the budge equation. So even small changes in the Sun's output could have an effect. That's obvious because of the diurnal, seasonal, and short solar cycle responses that are evident in the data.

 

Because you said "Localized" when it's clearly not If the link didn't prove that look at the east coast storm last few weeks, clearly your localization theory move around the nation A LOT

 

Exactly. People adapt to their surroundings. You couldn't just throw us into a climate like that and expect us to survive no more than you could throw them into our climate and expect survival. BUT.....over the course of thousands and millions of years, if the planet were to warm up like that, humans would certainly adapt and it would be normal for them.

I don't think I could trek hundreds of miles by Arctic sea or on foot through subzero temps and snow in a bearskin coat and handmade boots with nothing else, but the Norsemen could do it with no problem 3+ centuries ago.

 

You cannot be serious! The sun is 2, 679, 785 miles in circumference with a diameter of 853, 000 miles. The temperature on the surface of the Sun is 14, 072 degrees Fahrenheit. The earth is 93, 000, 000 miles away, so of course the Sun when it emits a solar flare is going to impact the temperature on the surface of the Earth. At times when the Sun emits a Solar flare, the flare goes out as far as Venus.