mini ice age could be on the way and it’s going to get very, very cold

That's deflection and you know it. I'm responding to the claim that the Resplandy publication had an error for years and that the peer review process doesn't work. On the contrary, this Resplandy mistake is prime example of how well it does work. Afterall, the mistake was identified, acknowledged, and corrected all within 7 days after it was presented to the scientific community. Mistakes are common place in science. What's unusual here is just how fast the process worked in this particular case.

 

Funny. But to put a super fine point on it, so far, you're the one here suggesting that solar influence doesn't have any effect. Just sayin....That seems super problematic given that solar radiation is the only source of energy. But who knows, maybe a comet comprised of pure CO2 will crash and keep us warm....

 

There is some truth here. Let me explain. There is an inertial lag between the temperature of the hydrosphere and troposphere due to the fact that the ocean's absorb 90% of the excess heat and because water has a huge specific heat capacity and because the oceans are so massive. So even if solar radiation were to decline the troposphere would continue to warm for 30-50 years as the oceans and atmosphere equilibriate.

However, there HUGE caveats here.

1. As the heat gets transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere the atmosphere will warm at the expense of the cooling ocean. This is the conservation of energy at play. What we observe today is that BOTH the troposphere and hydrosphere are warming.

2. The rate at which the troposphere and hydrosphere are warming is actually increasing. In other words, the Earth is accumulating heat at an ever faster pace. Any downward perturbation in solar radiation will at the very least result in a slowdown of the warming rate. We observe the exact opposite. Solar radiation is decreasing and the rate at which it is decreasing is itself accelerating. At the same the time the Earth continues to warming and the rate at which it warms is itself accelerating.

The correlation between the solar radiation and heat uptake began diverging around WWII and is now wildly divergent from expectations. This is how we now the Sun can't be the only factor in global warming.

 

Since no one asserted it, I find it hard to understand why you spend the time trying to argue about it. Resplandy is a symptom. Her error isn't the only one, nor will it be the only one. We know that we have significant deviations just trying to replicate study results between different computer operating systems, let alone software. No one, to date for example, has ever been able to replicate the Mann hockey stick, and yet you cling to it in every conversation. We know there is significant mathematical error in most all of the study work out there. We know it. And yet, somehow, it's just her study, last month that you want to drone on about? Laughable.

And frankly, it's endemic in the industry of climate change. The errors drive the conversational hyperbole, and nothing more. They don't add to the scientific body or the work to understand, they simply induce fear. And hasn't that always been the point?

 

Seriously? You want to lecture me about faith?

After I just posted what Mlynczak actually said and what his research actually shows by even providing links to his research you still think I'm the one that needs to be lectured on faith.

After I just posted 30,000 lines of evidence for my claim (in response to you in another thread) you still think I'm the one that needs to be lectured on faith.

And yet you remain silent in regards to posting facts.

Sorry, but that's the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black considering you haven't demonstrated anything except blind faith about your convictions.

 

I have never claimed that nor do I believe it. In fact, I go to great lengths to explain my position on this.

I feel like I'm talking to children when I explain stuff here. Yet even my elementary child understands the concept that one property of a system can be modulated by many different factors and that those individual factors ebb and flow over time.

It's the same with climate. We just happen to find ourselves in an era where the greenhouse gas factor is dwarfing the solar factor. That in no way means the Sun isn't a factor. I've explained this multiple times already.

And yet here you are trying to insinuate that the Sun is the only factor in global temperatures because it is the only source of energy.

 

Post #24 and #27. If you can't keep up then just politely bow out of the conversation. It's not like you're not going to be penalized for not commenting.

No. It isn't the only mistake and it won't be the last. But, note that her mistake had nothing to do with the established consensus regarding ocean warming. Review post #28 for more information.

Completely false. Again, you are making sh** up as you go along hoping nobody will call you out for it. There having actually many reconstructions of the preindustrial global temperature using tree ring analysis. Some of these studies were even commissioned specifically to refute Mann and yet they overwhelmingly support Mann's conclusion. That is the warming after 1850 is much higher than it any point in the last 1000 years. See below. And note that this is only a small subset of the tree ring datasets. We have ice cores, oxygen isotope proxies, hydrogen isotope proxies, and many other completely different lines of evidence that all come to the same basic conclusion. Stop making stuff up!

Then lay your cards on the table show what errors were made, what the correct answer is, and enumerate each and every study you think has this error. I'm calling your bluff here. I think you're making sh** up again.

The only one making mistakes is you. At least when it happens in science they are found (sometimes quickly) and they acknowledged and fixed.

 

Actually an ice age was predicted due to man's C02 output before they changed it to warming.

 

The emotional investment really becomes apparent when trying to have rational discussion with these people. Folks like you and I can discuss and debate without the associated anger that seems to ooze out of these warmer types when you question their beliefs. What's odd about this as many of them say there is nothing we can do about it and they don't live their lives any different than us but the fact that we don't "believe" just enrages them. It's a funny world.

 

Pretty much yeah. You have a group of people heavily invested in the hypothesis both emotionally and financially judging papers written by their peers that validate what they already firmly believe and what you get is in essence a huge world wide circle jerk.

 

I think that's the pot calling the kettle black. It's the warmers that seem to disregard all other factors and consider man's C02 to be fully in charge of climate. Us non believers look at the whole picture and recognize all known factors such as the sun and also recognize that there are things that influence climate that we are as yet totally unaware of. There's a tendency with humanity to think modern man has it all figured out and then a hundred years later the new modern man shakes his head and laughs at his predecessors arcan beliefs but at the same time thinks now they are the ones that have it all figured out. Trick is to keep an open and humble mind and not fall into this cycle.

 

Truly. Ask, what have you done, and likely the answer is nothing. Ask what should we do, and there is no answer. Only endless angst. Hand wringing. and then nothing. Folks who believe seem to also believe that somehow their belief absolves them from either the cures, or the limitations of the proposed cures. Somehow, the cult seem to live in the protected sphere approach that allows them to endlessly abuse the environment but not feel responsible for it. I watch when their marchers descend on a city spewing smoke bombs, throwing burning bottles at buildings, and leaving behind mountains of trash in their wake. All in the name of "voicing" their anger and concern. Sweet, and the tons of plastic bottles and wasted paper and all the energy it took to get them ther in the first place, simply ignored. "worth the waste" as it were.

I think climate changes. I have never disagreed with this. I simply find the evidence presented by the cult that ascribes the ownership of it to be constantly challenged by those who belong to the cult's behavior. Can they not see the dissonance of their own actions as an obvious demonstration of just how little they actually believe in their own cause?

Think about it. If we are, truly hurtling towards the cliff of environmental incompatibility, at some point, wouldn't you expect that they of all folks would be desperately trying to reshape the way they live their lives? And since they don't, what reason do the rest of us have to forgo the quality of life benefits the rest of us enjoy? It isn't like they are giving anything up. And that seems to set the stage for how they at least want to deal with climate change. As in, make everyone else suffer, but them. Because somehow, they all seem to believe that they are chosen to not have to suffer because they believed... And that's frightening.

The most compelling fact about climate is that the environment, all by itself, produces more than 20X the amount of CO2 naturally than the best efforts of man. Not that we don't have a contribution, but nature, all by itself is responsible for 20Xs our output. However will alarmists keep that from happening? As moderation from the last ice age takes hold, all of those locked up gasses are leaking back into the atmosphere. That isn't Man doing this, it's nature. However will cultists take nature on with any expectation that they will be successful? And frankly, why should they?

 

Makes you wonder but again I really hope new mini ice age predictions are wrong!

Bitterly Cold Thanksgiving, Black Friday Will Be Among the Coldest on Record in Parts of the Northeast
https://weather.com/forecast/regional/news/2018-11-18-thanksgiving-day-record-cold-northeast/

"Thanksgiving Day is going to be frigid, with wind chills in the Northeast below zero and in the teens from Washington, D.C., to Pittsburgh to Philadelphia.

Record lows are expected throughout the region, with daytime temperatures forecast to be 20 to 35 degrees below normal"

http://sandhillsexpress.com/abc_nat...before-recordcold-thanksgiving-abcid36131389/

 

Winter is not an Ice Age.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/07/world/australia/heat-wave.html

 

You're making stuff again. Climate scientists incorporate all physical processes in their analysis. They do not focus on CO2 as being the only thing that modulates the climate. We've gone over this dozens of times. I have to be honest, I don't even think you know what the modern theory of climate change even is.

And if you're trying to tell me there is some mysterious force that not only can't be identified, but doesn't even have a name that you think is responsible for the warming then that is faith. You are believing in something for which there is no evidence of it's existence. That is the very definition of faith.

 

News flash. Cold spells still happen. And they will continue to happen in the future even in a regime of rising global temperatures due to quasi resonant amplification of the jet stream.

 

Note that nature was emitting AND absorbing equally amounts of CO2. The net flux was zero. That's why CO2 concentrations have been relatively stable over the holocene. Then man came along and we started pumping into the atmosphere by the gigaton. Nature tries to correct the imbalance on its own, but is only 50% successful. It is our CO2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere that is the cause for the rise from 280 ppm to 400 ppm today.

I realize your questions are rhetorical, but the fact that you're even asking them to begin with tells me that you really think man should stop focusing on our contribution to the problem and instead try to solve it by changing nature. I know your type. It's always someone else's fault. You think it's not our fault that the concentration increased, but natures fault because she couldn't keep with all that carbon we pumped into the atmosphere.

Oh, and moderation from the last glacial period took hold more than 10,000 years ago. The opposite of moderation is happening right now. We are warming faster than at anytime during the holocene.

 

Wrong again. You're making stuff up.

First, global cooling was never a prediction of the consensus. For the last 120+ years global warming has been the consensus prediction.

Second, the global cooling prediction was largely the result of a single person...Reid Bryson. His "human volcano" theory, which was overwhelmingly rejected by his peers immediately, said the cooling effect of aerosols (not CO2) would overwhelm the warming effect of greenhouse gases (CO2 included).

If you're going to continue to mention debunked myths then at least be true to the myth.

 

Laughable. The only way this works is as a function of closed system mechanics. Of course, unless there is availability form outside of our closed system, ie, asteroids, or meteors, etc, the amount of C and O are finite. Of course then, the net is always zero. But, that doesn't then account for the variation that the historic record demonstrates to us. does it? So, we see fluctuations in the historic record. If the net is always zero, how could this then be? Because you're applying a rule to a problem it doesn't address. So, you're being disingenuous here.

And, as has happened in the past, carbon sequestration may still also happen. But to try to apply a limit to what is obviously not a balanced process is just flat out pant on fire at this point. And you assume it, no less. Because if you don't, your pet cultism evaporates around you faster than dry ice.

 

Making stuff up isn't rational. Being wrong isn't rational. And telling others to believe in a mysterious unidentified force without even a name to explain the warming is not rational.

 

And summer is not global warming

 

AGW is based on the premise that man is the primary driver of climate at this time. I don't even think you know what the modern theory of climate change even is.

 

CO2 concentrations have been relatively stable for 11,000 years. The net flux has therefore been very close to zero. Think about it. If +2 ppm/yr were normal then our concentration should have been 11000yr * 2ppm/yr = 22000ppm. Yet, it's not. It was only 280 ppm prior to the industrial revolution. Prior to that it hovered between 260 and 280 ppm for 11,000 years.

Don't hear what I didn't say. I never said the CO2 concentration is stable during the glacial/interglacial cycles. I'm only saying that the net flux is close to zero during the holocene and the lead up to the industrial revolution. CO2 concentrations do swing wildly during the glacial/interglacial cycles. In fact, the large fluxes are a huge piece of the puzzle that explains the glacial/interglacial cycles.

 

Yet record heat events somehow prove the AGW hypothesis

 

I never used the word concensus and I only reported what is fact. When I was growing up all I heard was that an ice age was coming.