Oh, We Have Another Global Warming Prediction That Got Busted...And Glacier National Park Was Forced

there are scientific options, but some are risky, it's like teraforming another planet, but the one we live on, would of been better to do it naturally

 

From what I have heard many climate scientists say, there is nothing which works at the moment on a scale which would undo the damage and there is as near to zero chance this would be achieved in the small time left. They strongly think this is just false hope and another excuse for not doing the necessary work.

 

Well, shows what you (don't) know. Since you have not versed in climate science at all I will excuse your total ignorance of the subject.

 

You think the earth reacts suddenly to a change in solar output? Really? The sun has been spotless now for 33 days straight and cosmic rays are much stronger now. It has been proven in CERN that cosmic rays do affect cloud formation, something the true believers will still deny (science deniers). Low solar activity is followed by cooling, the past history shows this. It is why the solar scientists are predicting coming cooling but then, that is science, not the dogma you believe in based on the least likely computer model RCP8.5.

Yes, the 'global temperature' has to be run through a model. that is why it changes the past temperatures every iteration.

Listening to the poor ignorant saps in the media and the hysterical one would think every weather event is caused by global warming even though this is all supposed to happen sometime in the future and the IPCC has low confidence any weather event is caused by global warming, but hey, the useful idiots eat it up.

In the past, these same people would be the ones sacrificing virgins to the weather god.

 

there is some ideas out there, but all of them contain risks and the problem is, say the USA does something and it harms other countries, also risks of war too

 

Hmmmmm I do not know what you are talking about!!!!!! Sounds interesting though. Any chance of a link to this. Generally speaking, work towards climate rescue would help us all.

 

this is one of the better ones, Vegans wont like it though

 

Show me the one that does. I see no mention of long-term solar variation in the IPCC's summary of climate research.

 

Actually, if you look as the sources they only consider TSI, not solar activity. Solar activity has proven to be long term cycles with short term cycles. The 12 year cycle is an example of a short term cycle. The waxing and waning of sunspots signifies another longer term cycle. The last time earth saw such inactivity the earth cooled and why solar scientists are claiming coming cooling. But that is inconvenient science so is ignored.

 

Well, no. What gave you such a crazy idea? After all, I didn't say or imply any such thing.

It's been that way for many years. The cosmic ray theory says that should cause cooling. Instead, the strong warming continues unabated. If reality contradicts your theory, your theory is wrong. Reality contradicts your theory.

Nobody is denying that cosmic rays can create nucleation particles. That wasn't a surprise. However, there's no evidence that has any effect on cloud formation, because there's no shortage of other nucleation particles in the atmosphere.

All other factors staying constant, yes. All other factors aren't staying constant now, so now we see fast warming during low solar activity.

And the warming continues, so that one solar scientist looks kind of kooky.

You don't seem to know what a model is. If I know my oven runs a little low or high, and I correct the temp, that's an adjustment, not a model. Basically, models require a series of time steps. Temperature corrections don't use time steps.

I agree that our nutty conservative mainstream media doesn't report climate news well. Thus, you should stop relying on it for your "science".

 

You're essentially admitting you haven't looked at it. After all, it's hard to miss. This summary has a section on solar forcing effects, the full document does as well, and it lists a zillion references.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

The reason the bar chart of forcings shows a slight positive forcing from solar effects is that the baseline is year 1750. While that's after the Maunder Minimum, it's still a period of low solar activity.

 

Glad to see you keep showing what you are unaware of.

 

Wrong twice. I have read it, and it is EASY to miss because it is dismissed as being microscopically small:

And that low solar activity is, absurdly and dishonestly, dismissed as having a microscopically tiny effect:

See? What an idiotic load of nonscience.

 

Please show us the evidence behind that bizarre claim. As it is, it just looks like a conspiracy theory on your part.

Solar activity has been dropping since 1970, yet the strong warming continues. If the solar effect was as strong as you say, we should already be seeing cooling. Reality is not treating your beliefs kindly.

 

Huh?? YOUR OWN GRAPH shows it as being so tiny it is barely recordable.

Despicable. Look at YOUR OWN GRAPH.

But was still higher than historical averages until ~15ya.

GARBAGE. The planet has been cooling since at least 2016. Arctic sea ice bottomed in 2012. Only gross, often retroactive falsification of temperature data maintains the fiction that the earth is warming.

We are definitely seeing cooling, of everything but the falsified data. In fact, man-made global warming is real, and we know exactly who is doing it: the liars who doctor the instrument record to make it look like the earth is warming when it is actually cooling.

 

Well yes, that's the point. The good science says that.

I asked you to provide evidence that the good science was done 'absurdly and dishonestly', as you claimed. In reply, you had another meltdown and refused to answer. I get it. You can't back up any of your crazy cult beliefs, and you get very upset when non-cultists laugh at them.

I will give you another chance. What evidence to you have that the science stating solar effects are small is absurd and dishonest?

Under your idiot theory, ocean temperatures would have to be decreasing now. As ocean temperatures are increasing rapidly and the increase isn't slowing down, your theory is proven to be garbage.

A hilariously stupid claim, one that could only be made by someone who is totally ignorant of statistics. I mean, you can't even understand the concept of noise on a decreasing mean. It's not tough, yet you still fail at it.

Given how badly you fail at the basics here, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups with your childish prattle. I think the problem is that no one has told you that before. You've spent your life being told you're a special snowflake, so you've come to believe it.

And now you're back to the flat-earther type conspiracy theories. You always end up back there eventually, as you need to explain why reality keeps contradicting you.

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ....

It's never pretty when cults start to die.

 

No, absurd liars say that.

The evidence was in your own graph: dismissing solar variation as making effectively zero contribution is self-evidently bad science.

The fact that they dismiss variation in the sole source of the earth's warmth as not capable of causing variation in the earth's warmth.

Ocean temperatures are not increasing rapidly, only the retroactive alteration of historical ocean temperature records is.

<yawn> Let me know when the AGW prediction of an ice-free Arctic Ocean happens. It was supposed to have happened about five times to date, but still hasn't come close.

So, no matter how blatant the conspiracy, no one is allowed to identify it as such because that's a conspiracy theory?? Is that what you say about the Gulf of Tonkin conspiracy?

Reality isn't contradicting me. Only falsified temperature records are. The last three winters have been the coldest ever recorded where I live, and they have been unusually cold all over North America. Last summer was cooler than normal, and this summer has been, too. Arctic sea ice bottomed out seven years ago, and is increasing.

Remember that when it is clear your cult is the one that is dying.

 

I understand. The science contradicted what you _feel_, so therefore you _feel_ the science must be wrong.

No, they do no such thing. You just made that up.

They dismiss _small fluctuations_ as being capable of that, which is an entirely different thing.

I understand. The hard data disagrees with your religion, therefore it must all be fraudulent.

There has been no consensus prediction about that. You're pretending some individual's predictions was the consensus. Very dishonest.

On the contrary. Being how all the evidence shows you're part of conspiracy to lie and falsify data, we correctly identify you as being part of a conspiracy cult.

The standard "but I was cold for a few days, so the world is cooling!" fallacy. People who have no data to back up their loopy cult claims have to resort to such fallacies.

June 2019 was, globally, the hottest June ever recorded. You have a remarkable talent here for being as wrong as it's possible to be.

This is the fallacy that you keep repeating, over and over, even after your error is pointed out. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, yet you fail at it.

 

What we see above is the dishonest claim that climate changes can be represented by showing data from the last 35 years when it is well known that cyclical climate events operate on a larger time scale. Arctic sea ice is a prime example.

Mammoth would understand this if he availed himself of the total amount of research available and summarized in the free pdf available to him and everyone else.

https://www.academia.edu/35571845/D...h_the_most_extensive_peer_reviewed_references

 

Hysterical anti-fossil-fuel ropaganda isn't science. It's nonscience.

They most certainly and indisputably do.

No. The biggest sustained high in solar activity in several thousand years, which occurred in the last 3/4 of the 20th century, is not a small fluctuation. But they nevertheless dismissed it as not capable of affecting the earth's climate.

"Hard" data? The hardest data is the rock-hard sea ice that just refuses to melt at the command of anti-fossil-fuel propagandists.

False. Hysterical anti-fossil-fuel propaganda is UNANIMOUS that CO2 will cause complete melting of Arctic sea ice Real Soon Now.

What's really dishonest is to pretend that surface-based observations of Arctic sea ice in the centuries before the peak that coincided with the start of satellite observations were never made.

You've provided no such evidence, nor will you ever be doing so.

Three years is not a few days.

After the historical records for the previous hottest Junes were all retroactively adjusted downward....

Look outside. Is it really hotter than the 1930s? Ask someone in their 90s who actually remembers the 1930s.

No, the real fallacy is cherry-picking the beginning of the Arctic sea ice record to coincide with a peak, and ignoring surface-based observations made for centuries before that.

 

That's like saying scientists are bad for dismissing the idea that 2+2=5. Dismissing a claim which is contradicted by hard evidence is good science. Your cult dogma is contradicted by the evidence, so it is correctly dismissed.

You do know that Arctic sea ice levels are running close to the record low of 2012, right? Oh wait, you didn't know. Your cult didn't tell you that, so how could you know?

Boring. Can you please get more creative than just lying outright?

Again, the opposite of reality. Older ice observations show much more ice than there was in 1979. Please don't humiliate yourself by cherrypicking a historical anecdote now. I can show you the old DMI maps that map the entire whole Arctic. They show much more ice. Back in the 1930s, sea ice use to reach the north shore of Iceland. It never even comes close now. Sea ice would remain in Baffin Bay through each summer. It never does that now. And so on.

Yes, in your mind, all data that contradicts cult scripture must be fraudulent. Your beliefs are unfalsifiable, which make them entirely religious in nature.

Yes, obviously. Even in the USA, it's a little hotter than it was in the 1930s. In the rest of the world, it's much hotter.

I think the lack of any air conditioning might influence memories, don't you?

According to your voices, who did that? I just ask because that loopy conspiracy theory bears no relation at all to the real world. 1979 was just another point on the downslope, and not any kind of peak.

 

Arctic sea Ice at record low in 2012 ??

https://www.academia.edu/35571845/D...h_the_most_extensive_peer_reviewed_references

 

Why does the graph start at 1980 ??

 

Huh? No. The sun is the first, second, and third place any genuine climate scientist would look for a cause of global temperature variation.

There is no such evidence. Only massaged data.

Wrong. It is dismissed by falsifying the data.

No closer than the 1930s.

"We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

Only in the LIA. Not in the 1930s.

Look who's talking!

No. What the DMI maps actually show is that sea ice increased after the ~1920-1950 warming period.

It is explicitly fraudulent.

No, it is anti-fossil-fuel hysteria that is unfalsifiable.

No it isn't.

No it isn't.

No. It's the same where people don't have AC now.

Or maybe you mean the way the AGW frauds had the AC turned off in Congress during the Hansen climate hearing in 1988:

Despicable.

The historical record clearly shows sea ice increasing in the decades after the 1920-1950 warming phase.

 

Your cognitive bias is overwhelming? You can only imagine one cause. JUst try to understand that others are not as intellectually blinded as you.

Your raging cognitive bias is one reason to ignore you. The second reason is your habit of auto-declaring that anything contradicting cult scripture is faked.

Remember, I know the actual science, so I know with 100% certainty that you're peddling a big ol' lie there. You can't fool honest and informed people with your fakery. You can only fool other cultists

For non-cultists, here's the longer term sea ice record. 1979 is just another point on the downslope.

Data from Meier, W. N., Stroeve, J., Barrett, A., and Fetterer, F.: "A simple approach to providing a more consistent Arctic sea ice extent time series from the 1950s to present," The Cryosphere, 6, 1359-1368, doi:10.5194/tc-6-1359-2012, 2012
https://www.the-cryosphere.net/6/1359/2012/tc-6-1359-2012.html


If you don't like that, we can take data from HadISST.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/

September 1929


September 2015. The Mark I eyeball says "Hey, that's way, way less sea ice."