Fire up those CO2 emitting utilities Trump ...we're in for LONG extremely COLD winters..

[healthmyths]

AND NOT GLOBAL WARMING!!!


CHICAGO — Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day, the real danger facing humanity is not global warming, but more likely the coming of a new Ice Age.

What we live in now is known as an interglacial, a relatively brief period between long ice ages. Unfortunately for us, most interglacial periods last only about ten thousand years, and that is how long it has been since the last Ice Age ended.

CHICAGO — Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day, the real danger facing humanity is not global warming, but more likely the coming of a new Ice Age.

What we live in now is known as an interglacial, a relatively brief period between long ice ages. Unfortunately for us, most interglacial periods last only about ten thousand years, and that is how long it has been since the last Ice Age ended.
The Coming of a New Ice Age

ICE AGE BRITAIN: River Thames will FREEZE OVER on 'this date' – and could kill millions
A GLOBAL cool down will “march in with vengeance” to usher in a 100-year mini-ice age that could freeze over the River Thames, climate scientists told Daily Star Online.
ICE AGE BRITAIN: River Thames will FREEZE OVER on 'this date' – and could kill millions

 

[Cellblock2429]

AND NOT GLOBAL WARMING!!!


CHICAGO — Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day, the real danger facing humanity is not global warming, but more likely the coming of a new Ice Age.

What we live in now is known as an interglacial, a relatively brief period between long ice ages. Unfortunately for us, most interglacial periods last only about ten thousand years, and that is how long it has been since the last Ice Age ended.

CHICAGO — Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day, the real danger facing humanity is not global warming, but more likely the coming of a new Ice Age.

What we live in now is known as an interglacial, a relatively brief period between long ice ages. Unfortunately for us, most interglacial periods last only about ten thousand years, and that is how long it has been since the last Ice Age ended.
The Coming of a New Ice Age

ICE AGE BRITAIN: River Thames will FREEZE OVER on 'this date' – and could kill millions
A GLOBAL cool down will “march in with vengeance” to usher in a 100-year mini-ice age that could freeze over the River Thames, climate scientists told Daily Star Online.
ICE AGE BRITAIN: River Thames will FREEZE OVER on 'this date' – and could kill millions

/---- That's what they said in 1978. Didn't happen then either.

 

[2aguy]

I would bet on cooling over warming...and neither of them was created by human activity.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The sun is going into minima. When the sun went into Maunder's Minima, the Thames froze and people were ice skating on the river.

 

[2aguy]

The sun is going into minima. When the sun went into Maunder's Minima, the Thames froze and people were ice skating on the river.

It will be funny, but deadly, when the left tries to explain away deeper and colder winters if they happen....

 

[konradv]

If CO2 keeps going up, warming is inevitable.

 

[toomuchtime_]

If CO2 keeps going up, warming is inevitable.

Prove it. But if you can't prove it, why do you believe it?

 

[blastoff]

Wow, good news!

Just called for a meeting of our top R & D and sales and marketing personnel so we're sure to get ahead of this thing. We'll start by just brainstorming ideas for various useless products/services we can sucker the lefty idiots into buying to protect themselves from the many evils of the coming new Ice Age. What a sales and profit boom this is gonna be.

 

[BlindBoo]

"Unfortunately for us, most interglacial periods last only about ten thousand years, and that is how long it has been since the last Ice Age ended.

No scientist knows how long the current intergalacial period will last.

"Glacial inception involves a sequence of events that still needs to be better documented for most interglacials prior to the last one. There is not yet a clear understanding of what controls the length of each interglacial, and there is no perfect analog for the present interglacial. However, inception at preindustrial greenhouse gas concentrations seems unlikely without a strong precession cycle, suggesting a long interglacial ahead of us. Anthropogenic additions to these gases further increase the likelihood of a long interglacial.

Within this paper we have identified a number of key concepts, which also give rise to some key questions that remain to be solved. We summarize these......"

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015RG000482/ful

 

[Flash]

The sun is going into minima. When the sun went into Maunder's Minima, the Thames froze and people were ice skating on the river.

These Moon Bats are so stupid. They believe the climate of the earth is controlled by people driving around in SUVs, not the heat output of the sun.

 

[BlindBoo]

The sun is going into minima. When the sun went into Maunder's Minima, the Thames froze and people were ice skating on the river.

Sunspots certainly are on a downward trajectory, but no one knows what Cycle 25 will bring, when or if the trend starts rising again.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/images/u33/What Happened to Those Sunspots.pdf

 

[BlindBoo]

The sun is going into minima. When the sun went into Maunder's Minima, the Thames froze and people were ice skating on the river.

These Moon Bats are so stupid. They believe the climate of the earth is controlled by people driving around in SUVs, not the heat output of the sun.

What is the difference between control and influence? Do you think that increasing the level of CO2 concentration by 40% has had no effect on temperature?

 

[Flash]

The sun is going into minima. When the sun went into Maunder's Minima, the Thames froze and people were ice skating on the river.

These Moon Bats are so stupid. They believe the climate of the earth is controlled by people driving around in SUVs, not the heat output of the sun.

What is the difference between control and influence? Do you think that increasing the level of CO2 concentration by 40% has had no effect on temperature?

Nope..

The historical models have CO2 emissions lagging temperature increases.

There have been times in our past when CO2 level were much higher and the earth cooler. There are times when the CO2 levels were lower and the temperature higher.

It is only a theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In reality the chemistry is more complex than the computer models predict. That is why the Environmental wackos have to adjust data in order to prove the correlation.

Besides, humans have little effect on the CO2 balance of the earth.

 

[BlindBoo]

The sun is going into minima. When the sun went into Maunder's Minima, the Thames froze and people were ice skating on the river.

These Moon Bats are so stupid. They believe the climate of the earth is controlled by people driving around in SUVs, not the heat output of the sun.

What is the difference between control and influence? Do you think that increasing the level of CO2 concentration by 40% has had no effect on temperature?

Nope..

The historical models have CO2 emissions lagging temperature increases.

There have been times in our past when CO2 level were much higher and the earth cooler. There are times when the CO2 levels were lower and the temperature higher.

It is only a theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In reality the chemistry is more complex than the computer models predict. That is why the Environmental wackos have to adjust data in order to prove the correlation.

Besides, humans have little effect on the CO2 balance of the earth.

View attachment 125538

That it a greenhouse gas is not a theory.

The carbon dioxide greenhouse - is it effective?: a lab ICT test

Humans have cause the increase.

What is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2?...

Bonus link.

First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect

 

[Flash]

The sun is going into minima. When the sun went into Maunder's Minima, the Thames froze and people were ice skating on the river.

These Moon Bats are so stupid. They believe the climate of the earth is controlled by people driving around in SUVs, not the heat output of the sun.

What is the difference between control and influence? Do you think that increasing the level of CO2 concentration by 40% has had no effect on temperature?

Nope..

The historical models have CO2 emissions lagging temperature increases.

There have been times in our past when CO2 level were much higher and the earth cooler. There are times when the CO2 levels were lower and the temperature higher.

It is only a theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In reality the chemistry is more complex than the computer models predict. That is why the Environmental wackos have to adjust data in order to prove the correlation.

Besides, humans have little effect on the CO2 balance of the earth.

View attachment 125538

That it a greenhouse gas is not a theory.

The carbon dioxide greenhouse - is it effective?: a lab ICT test

Humans have cause the increase.

What is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2?...

Bonus link.

First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect

The reason why the principle scientist had to lie about actual data that was exposed in Climategate I & II is because the actual temperatures did not correspond with the predicted computer models and the chemistry theories. The same thing for the UN Committee making up data and NOAA and NASA caught fabricating data under the Obama Administration.

The science is simply not there. The atmosphere as a whole does act as a greenhouse but the effect that CO2 has in the amounts that humans put out has not been really quantified yet.

Historical data has proven that in reality there is not real correlation between CO2 and temperature in the minute amounts we see in the atmosphere. The oceans act as tremendous CO2 buffer. CO2 quickly dissipates in the atmosphere and really doesn't exhibit significant greenhouse effects.

The heat output of the sun has a tremendous amount more to do with the climate of the earth than when I fill up the gas tank of my gas guzzling Tundra truck with fossil fuel.

The Environmental Wackos have made a great business out out selling fake AGW science. Too bad the Moon Bats have been gullible enough to believe that horseshit, even after all the revelations about false data and the historical record that proves CO2 increases lags temperature increases. Stupidity like that boggles the mind.

Here is just one article about the false science. I could post several more if you want.

. Three Fatal Flaws in Greenhouse Gas Climate Science

Three Fatal Flaws in Greenhouse Gas Climate Science



By the way, this chart tells you everything you need to know about climate change. Notice that the earth was warmer when the CO2 levels were lower than hey are today. Kinds of blows a big hole in the AGW scam, doesn't it?

 

[Old Rocks]

If CO2 keeps going up, warming is inevitable.

Prove it. But if you can't prove it, why do you believe it?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

That is a website of the American Institute of Physics, the single biggest scientific society in the world. It was recognized in the 1820's by Joseph Fourier that there was something in the atmosphere that was absorbing heat. In 1859, John Tyndall measured the IR absorption of the various GHG's in the atmosphere. In 1896, Svante Arrhenius calculated the effect of doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere. Since then, there have been many, many scientific studies concerning the affects of increasing the level of GHG's in the atmosphere. All show that it leads to warming.

When we look back at the geologic history of the Earth, we see that times of high GHG levels were very warm times for the Earth, and that the times when there was rapid changes in the GHG's were times of extinction.

 

[Old Rocks]

The sun is going into minima. When the sun went into Maunder's Minima, the Thames froze and people were ice skating on the river.

These Moon Bats are so stupid. They believe the climate of the earth is controlled by people driving around in SUVs, not the heat output of the sun.

No, Flash, old boy, you are the stupid one. Stupid and willfully ignorant, because you have the best research tool ever invented sitting right in front of you, and you do not use it.

Since every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University states that AGW is a fact, and that it present a clear and present danger, what makes you think you know more than most of the scientists in the world?

 

[Old Rocks]

The sun is going into minima. When the sun went into Maunder's Minima, the Thames froze and people were ice skating on the river.

These Moon Bats are so stupid. They believe the climate of the earth is controlled by people driving around in SUVs, not the heat output of the sun.

What is the difference between control and influence? Do you think that increasing the level of CO2 concentration by 40% has had no effect on temperature?

Nope..

The historical models have CO2 emissions lagging temperature increases.

There have been times in our past when CO2 level were much higher and the earth cooler. There are times when the CO2 levels were lower and the temperature higher.

It is only a theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In reality the chemistry is more complex than the computer models predict. That is why the Environmental wackos have to adjust data in order to prove the correlation.

Besides, humans have little effect on the CO2 balance of the earth.

View attachment 125538

That it a greenhouse gas is not a theory.

The carbon dioxide greenhouse - is it effective?: a lab ICT test

Humans have cause the increase.

What is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2?...

Bonus link.

First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect

The reason why the principle scientist had to lie about actual data that was exposed in Climategate I & II is because the actual temperatures did not correspond with the predicted computer models and the chemistry theories. The same thing for the UN Committee making up data and NOAA and NASA caught fabricating data under the Obama Administration.

The science is simply not there. The atmosphere as a whole does act as a greenhouse but the effect that CO2 has in the amounts that humans put out has not been really quantified yet.

Historical data has proven that in reality there is not real correlation between CO2 and temperature in the minute amounts we see in the atmosphere. The oceans act as tremendous CO2 buffer. CO2 quickly dissipates in the atmosphere and really doesn't exhibit significant greenhouse effects.

The heat output of the sun has a tremendous amount more to do with the climate of the earth than when I fill up the gas tank of my gas guzzling Tundra truck with fossil fuel.

The Environmental Wackos have made a great business out out selling fake AGW science. Too bad the Moon Bats have been gullible enough to believe that horseshit, even after all the revelations about false data and the historical record that proves CO2 increases lags temperature increases. Stupidity like that boggles the mind.

Here is just one article about the false science. I could post several more if you want.

. Three Fatal Flaws in Greenhouse Gas Climate Science

Three Fatal Flaws in Greenhouse Gas Climate Science



By the way, this chart tells you everything you need to know about climate change. Notice that the earth was warmer when the CO2 levels were lower than hey are today. Kinds of blows a big hole in the AGW scam, doesn't it?

View attachment 125546

Hardly a credible site.

The Bogus Law and Journalism Credentials of John O'Sullivan

A liar, fraud, and charlatan.

 

[Old Rocks]

The sun is going into minima. When the sun went into Maunder's Minima, the Thames froze and people were ice skating on the river.

These Moon Bats are so stupid. They believe the climate of the earth is controlled by people driving around in SUVs, not the heat output of the sun.

What is the difference between control and influence? Do you think that increasing the level of CO2 concentration by 40% has had no effect on temperature?

Nope..

The historical models have CO2 emissions lagging temperature increases.

There have been times in our past when CO2 level were much higher and the earth cooler. There are times when the CO2 levels were lower and the temperature higher.

It is only a theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In reality the chemistry is more complex than the computer models predict. That is why the Environmental wackos have to adjust data in order to prove the correlation.

Besides, humans have little effect on the CO2 balance of the earth.

View attachment 125538

Like hell. And there are many times in the Earth's history where both occurred simultaneously. In the southern hemisphere, CO2 lagged, in the northern hemisphere, temperature lagged.

 

[Old Rocks]

The sun is going into minima. When the sun went into Maunder's Minima, the Thames froze and people were ice skating on the river.

These Moon Bats are so stupid. They believe the climate of the earth is controlled by people driving around in SUVs, not the heat output of the sun.

What is the difference between control and influence? Do you think that increasing the level of CO2 concentration by 40% has had no effect on temperature?

Nope..

The historical models have CO2 emissions lagging temperature increases.

There have been times in our past when CO2 level were much higher and the earth cooler. There are times when the CO2 levels were lower and the temperature higher.

It is only a theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In reality the chemistry is more complex than the computer models predict. That is why the Environmental wackos have to adjust data in order to prove the correlation.

Besides, humans have little effect on the CO2 balance of the earth.

View attachment 125538

Damn, another dumb fuck. The CO2 cycle on Earth remained in balance for most of the interglacial, with very little variance. Yes, that is a lot of natural emission, and it was balanced by natural absorption. It was not until we started burning fossil fuels that we saw the increase in atmospheric CO2 and CH4. We have gone from 280 ppm of CO2 to 410 ppm, and increase of 130 ppm. The difference between a glacial period, 180 ppm, and and the present interglacial, 280 ppm, is 120 ppm. So, how the hell do you come up with the stupidity that adding 130 ppm is not going to make a difference?

Also, we moved the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere from about 750 ppb to over 1800 ppb. On a decadal scale, CH4 is about 100 times as effective GHG as CO2. And when it oxidizes in the atmosphere, the products are H20 and CO2, both GHGs.