a winter for the ages?
- Thread starter ram_man
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Guessing that was cut with a blower?
Yeah, that's Newfoundland. They get a LOT of snow.
Guessing that was cut with a blower?
Yeah, that's Newfoundland. They get a LOT of snow.
Originally Posted By: Miller88
The ice is coming back at alarming rates now.
Global warming caused by people is a farce for people like Al Gore to make money on carbon credit trading, etc.
Climate change is real, though. I mean ... when the Dinosaurs were around the climate was different. That change was not the fault of SUVs, though. Nor is what we are seeing now.
I have also heard we are going to be returning to a traditional winter.
The fact is that we are increasing atmospheric concentrations of green house gases, carbon dioxide(burning fossil fuels), and methane.
That is not debatable.
Global average temperature is also rising since 1900, that isn't debatable either.
There may or may not be a causal relationship, but most people who are experts(regular scientists with no direct financial benefit one way or another) in the subject think there is a causal relationship.
They could be wrong, as modeling the global energy balance isn't a simple task. Or they could be right and we are shooting ourselves in the foot over decades.
Right now it seems the big money players, want the status quo to continue as they know they can make money with heavy fossil fuel usage. And if climate change does occur with severe consequences, they will have the capital to profit from that too.
The ice is coming back at alarming rates now.
Global warming caused by people is a farce for people like Al Gore to make money on carbon credit trading, etc.
Climate change is real, though. I mean ... when the Dinosaurs were around the climate was different. That change was not the fault of SUVs, though. Nor is what we are seeing now.
I have also heard we are going to be returning to a traditional winter.
The fact is that we are increasing atmospheric concentrations of green house gases, carbon dioxide(burning fossil fuels), and methane.
That is not debatable.
Global average temperature is also rising since 1900, that isn't debatable either.
There may or may not be a causal relationship, but most people who are experts(regular scientists with no direct financial benefit one way or another) in the subject think there is a causal relationship.
They could be wrong, as modeling the global energy balance isn't a simple task. Or they could be right and we are shooting ourselves in the foot over decades.
Right now it seems the big money players, want the status quo to continue as they know they can make money with heavy fossil fuel usage. And if climate change does occur with severe consequences, they will have the capital to profit from that too.
[/quote]
The fact is that we are increasing atmospheric concentrations of green house gases, carbon dioxide(burning fossil fuels), and methane.
That is not debatable.
Global average temperature is also rising since 1900, that isn't debatable either. [/quote]
It is debatable ..dogmatic one. Apparently the warming has stopped for 17 years. The believers call this a pause. It could be the end. No hurricanes and cold Winters.
A very interesting article was how some now believe that California has ended a wet period. Yes going back to it's historical dry state. Which would mean 100 years of dry weather.
The fact is that we are increasing atmospheric concentrations of green house gases, carbon dioxide(burning fossil fuels), and methane.
That is not debatable.
Global average temperature is also rising since 1900, that isn't debatable either. [/quote]
It is debatable ..dogmatic one. Apparently the warming has stopped for 17 years. The believers call this a pause. It could be the end. No hurricanes and cold Winters.
A very interesting article was how some now believe that California has ended a wet period. Yes going back to it's historical dry state. Which would mean 100 years of dry weather.
The CO2 in the atmosphere has been dropping. As have the concentration of greenhouse gasses.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/09/st...ill-no-warming/
In spite of higher levels of CO2.
Didn't you hear? The deep oceans are now holding all the extra heat somewhere!!!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/09/st...ill-no-warming/
In spite of higher levels of CO2.
Didn't you hear? The deep oceans are now holding all the extra heat somewhere!!!
Nick1994
$100 site donor 2024
Originally Posted By: daves87rs
I still thought the sticker was funny....
Lol I know, I can't believe anybody would take it seriously on this car...
I still thought the sticker was funny....
Lol I know, I can't believe anybody would take it seriously on this car...
These predictions always crack me up! They can't even accurately predict what next week's weather will be, let alone predicting the entire winter...not saying they won't be right. They do, afterall, have a 50/50 chance of being right...then again, so do I...
Last edited:
The whole global warming/climate change political-science-religion completely jumped the shark when they claimed the sun had NO impact on global temperatures. That's beyond ludicrous.
Their explanations for the failure of their model have only gotten more ridiculous since. The latest is all the missing heat sank to the bottom of the sea. That's right, heat no longer rises in their world.
Then there was Climategate. That is hardly scientific method.
Meanwhile, an increasing consensus of solar physicists are tracking and projecting a developing Grand Minima. Cycle 24 has been the weakest in over a century, and Cycle 25 is projected by many to fall below Penn and Livingston's Gauss threshold for sunspot formation. Whether it's going to be a Daulton or Maunder minimum remains uncertain. The historical statistical data is robust, and strongly correlates solar minima to colder global temperatures. During the Maunder Minimum, there were virtually no sunspots for the better part of a century, and frost fairs with people skating on the Thames. Penn and Livingston have been proven right, and Russian solar physicists have similarly projected a global cool down from declining solar conditions for over a decade. This cool down is projected to extend for decades.
The Twentieth Century is noted for unusually strong solar cycles and has been considered a maxima of sorts. Interestingly, temperatures were historically slightly warmer during that same period.
Climate science vs. Solar physics. I know which one is the real science here, and who the deniers seem to be.
Their explanations for the failure of their model have only gotten more ridiculous since. The latest is all the missing heat sank to the bottom of the sea. That's right, heat no longer rises in their world.
Then there was Climategate. That is hardly scientific method.
Meanwhile, an increasing consensus of solar physicists are tracking and projecting a developing Grand Minima. Cycle 24 has been the weakest in over a century, and Cycle 25 is projected by many to fall below Penn and Livingston's Gauss threshold for sunspot formation. Whether it's going to be a Daulton or Maunder minimum remains uncertain. The historical statistical data is robust, and strongly correlates solar minima to colder global temperatures. During the Maunder Minimum, there were virtually no sunspots for the better part of a century, and frost fairs with people skating on the Thames. Penn and Livingston have been proven right, and Russian solar physicists have similarly projected a global cool down from declining solar conditions for over a decade. This cool down is projected to extend for decades.
The Twentieth Century is noted for unusually strong solar cycles and has been considered a maxima of sorts. Interestingly, temperatures were historically slightly warmer during that same period.
Climate science vs. Solar physics. I know which one is the real science here, and who the deniers seem to be.
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Meanwhile, an increasing consensus of solar physicists are tracking and projecting a developing Grand Minima. Cycle 24 has been the weakest in over a century, and Cycle 25 is projected by many to fall below Penn and Livingston's Gauss threshold for sunspot formation. Whether it's going to be a Daulton or Maunder minimum remains uncertain. The historical statistical data is robust, and strongly correlates solar minima to colder global temperatures. During the Maunder Minimum, there were virtually no sunspots for the better part of a century, and frost fairs with people skating on the Thames. Penn and Livingston have been proven right, and Russian solar physicists have similarly projected a global cool down from declining solar conditions for over a decade. This cool down is projected to extend for decades.
The Twentieth Century is noted for unusually strong solar cycles and has been considered a maxima of sorts. Interestingly, temperatures were historically slightly warmer during that same period.
i have no idea what you just wrote
Meanwhile, an increasing consensus of solar physicists are tracking and projecting a developing Grand Minima. Cycle 24 has been the weakest in over a century, and Cycle 25 is projected by many to fall below Penn and Livingston's Gauss threshold for sunspot formation. Whether it's going to be a Daulton or Maunder minimum remains uncertain. The historical statistical data is robust, and strongly correlates solar minima to colder global temperatures. During the Maunder Minimum, there were virtually no sunspots for the better part of a century, and frost fairs with people skating on the Thames. Penn and Livingston have been proven right, and Russian solar physicists have similarly projected a global cool down from declining solar conditions for over a decade. This cool down is projected to extend for decades.
The Twentieth Century is noted for unusually strong solar cycles and has been considered a maxima of sorts. Interestingly, temperatures were historically slightly warmer during that same period.
i have no idea what you just wrote
To all the skeptics pulling individual bits of data, do you not wonder why 97% of scientists disagree with you?
Do you not think that they may have looked at this more closely than you? With better scientific reasoning?
For one thing, many of you are talking about weather and snow. Not about measurable CO2, CO2 in oceans, ice measurements, atmospheric changes, ocean levels.
Even the Chinese are taking action on this.
Being convinced by simplistic arguments in line with your biases is not the same thing as healthy skepticism.
Do you not think that they may have looked at this more closely than you? With better scientific reasoning?
For one thing, many of you are talking about weather and snow. Not about measurable CO2, CO2 in oceans, ice measurements, atmospheric changes, ocean levels.
Even the Chinese are taking action on this.
Being convinced by simplistic arguments in line with your biases is not the same thing as healthy skepticism.
^^^Sunspots affect Earth weather.
That's the short version...
That's the short version...
Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
i have no idea what you just wrote
http://www.noao.edu/staff/mpenn/PennLivingston_preprint.pdf
You can Google the rest.
CNN and Drudge won't help anyone's understanding, as this involves actual science.
i have no idea what you just wrote
http://www.noao.edu/staff/mpenn/PennLivingston_preprint.pdf
You can Google the rest.
CNN and Drudge won't help anyone's understanding, as this involves actual science.
Originally Posted By: Apollo14
. . . 97% of scientists disagree with you?
Which 97% is that? The 97% of pro-AGW climate scientists invited to the survey?
Now that the data has thoroughly disproved their model, they're resorting to "modifying" historical and contemporaneous data points.
This has become such a joke that even the IPCC is finally backing off of it.
Most Americans have figured it out. But I've learned that there is no convincing the "converted" on this.
BTW, the Chinese don't give a rat's backside about AGW They're dropping in new coal-fired facilities every day. They're finally dealing with basic air pollution problems, as they've been completely unregulated for decades.
. . . 97% of scientists disagree with you?
Which 97% is that? The 97% of pro-AGW climate scientists invited to the survey?
Now that the data has thoroughly disproved their model, they're resorting to "modifying" historical and contemporaneous data points.
This has become such a joke that even the IPCC is finally backing off of it.
Most Americans have figured it out. But I've learned that there is no convincing the "converted" on this.
BTW, the Chinese don't give a rat's backside about AGW They're dropping in new coal-fired facilities every day. They're finally dealing with basic air pollution problems, as they've been completely unregulated for decades.
Originally Posted By: Apollo14
Nice and simple. I'm sure all those scientists overlooked that variable.
The AGW climate scientists didn't overlook it. They ignored it, along with other contrary data and factors, as those don't fit their model agenda.
Nice and simple. I'm sure all those scientists overlooked that variable.
The AGW climate scientists didn't overlook it. They ignored it, along with other contrary data and factors, as those don't fit their model agenda.
So what do you think of the examples here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow/top-10-places-already-affected-by-climate-change/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow/top-10-places-already-affected-by-climate-change/
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
^^^Sunspots affect Earth weather.
That's the short version...
It's not quite that simple. But for the layperson, it suffices.
The sunspot is only a visual indicator of magnetic field strength as expressed by temperature variances at the solar surface. The sun's magnetic strength is weakening, together with changes in some other solar elements, such as the "conveyor belt" (look it up if you don't know).
The reducing sunspots are an indicator of declining magnetic field strength. THAT'S the short version.
Solar magnetic fields are increasingly considered the driving force for the sun's corona - its atmosphere - which has temperatures in excess of 1M degrees F. Solar magnetic fields are extremely important to Earth.
Declining solar magnetic strength, on top of its own direct consequences, also allow increased cosmic ray levels on Earth, which may be inducing high altitude atmospheric changes filtering radiant levels.
That's only the tip of the discussion. But again, it suffices on a site like this for now.
^^^Sunspots affect Earth weather.
That's the short version...
It's not quite that simple. But for the layperson, it suffices.
The sunspot is only a visual indicator of magnetic field strength as expressed by temperature variances at the solar surface. The sun's magnetic strength is weakening, together with changes in some other solar elements, such as the "conveyor belt" (look it up if you don't know).
The reducing sunspots are an indicator of declining magnetic field strength. THAT'S the short version.
Solar magnetic fields are increasingly considered the driving force for the sun's corona - its atmosphere - which has temperatures in excess of 1M degrees F. Solar magnetic fields are extremely important to Earth.
Declining solar magnetic strength, on top of its own direct consequences, also allow increased cosmic ray levels on Earth, which may be inducing high altitude atmospheric changes filtering radiant levels.
That's only the tip of the discussion. But again, it suffices on a site like this for now.
- Status
Similar threads
