Global Cooling Theory picks up Steam

[Billy_Bob]

Same old same old. None of the deniers are willing to name a single thing that could disprove their religious beliefs. We've been asking for years, and they never respond.

In direct contrast, we on the rational side have named many things, over and over, that would disprove global warming theory. It's real science, so it can be disproved. Unlike the wheeled and motorized goalposts of the deniers, ours are set in concrete.

That's why the world correctly defines denialism as a pseudoscience cult. If deniers don't mind being the butt of the world's jokes, they should keep acting like they do. And I can see the twisted logic of it, from the denier POV. If your goals are getting emotional warm fuzzies from your fellow cultists, getting reasons to hate the dirty liberals who beat you up on the playground and stole your girl, and having reasons to proclaim yourself to be brilliant even though you just brainlessly parrot kook blogs, then denialism allows you to achieve all that.

Facts show you a liar...

Its that simple. You then call others "deniers", a derogatory term, in order to somehow claim the high road. epic fail.

The only one with denialism issues are the ones who yell the debate is settled. They deny science, that science is never settled. Its the nature of true science. Your attempt to stifle debate is noted and thrown out.. We will talk about the cooling world coming and how your side has intentionally stifled the debate for your control agenda.

The world is now cooling despite your lies and the deceptions you hold so dear.

Its going to be enjoyable to see the alarmist squirm when the northern hemisphere catches up with the southern hemisphere in snow and ice..

 

[mamooth]

The boundary layers don't need to conduct heat down. Visible and UV light does that. The boundary layers, by heating up, inhibit heat conduction up into the atmosphere, and thus cause more heat to remain in the ocean.

If Visible and UV are your primary conductors of heat into deeper layers, Then the Ocean Didn't Eat your Warming.

That was senseless. On multiple levels.

You'll have to translate your denier logic there into earth logic, as our mere earth logic can't explain the senselessness of that statement. Why would the statement of fact that Visible and UV penetrate deeply contradict the fact that ocean absorption of heat goes up during a La Nina period?

By the way, could you tone down the hysteria? You're the only one here screaming that the ocean ate someone's warming (besides Frank). If you're not capable of addressing the actual science, just admit it. It's not like your parade of strawmen has been successful at covering up your ineptitude at the logic and science, or at making your evasions any less obvious.

 

[flacaltenn]

Typical lackwitted OP failed to read beyond the headline!

The Met Office have been at pains to add this return of a solar minimum is not going to halt global warming, although it would slow it a little. The study, published in Nature Communications, found overall cooling of the Earth of 0.1C, but the Northern Hemisphere could expect much harsher winters.

Temperatures in Britain, northern Europe and North America could drop by up to 0.8C.

That’s still enough for a Met Office spokesman to warn the amount of light and warmth emitted by the Sun would drop to levels “not seen for centuries”.

At the very least, northern regions could expect more frosty days between 2050 and 2099. In the same period, climate change is expected to see temperatures running up to 6.6C higher of carbon emissions are not slowed.​

Read more: Our cooling sun could deliver another Little Ice Age like the time in the 17th Century when the Thames froze over Business Insider

Yeah -- That's their claim. But their evidence is from the same models that have been consistently underestimating natural cycles and variations like the sun for a couple decades now.. I wouldn't bet the farm on their "evidence" for that.


BTW -- that 6.6degC higher by 2050 to 2099 ? It's largely hysteria and stretching the claims of what the LATEST estimates actually are... No surprise there.

Funny you should mention this.. Christopher Monckton has posted an essay on the making of the climate sensitivity number. It is really revealing how their own numbers show them frauds when you do the math..
View attachment 43349

His math is correct and this would lower the sensitivity to below 0.3 deg C per doubling of CO2.. Its just wild that someone hasn't exposed the math errors of the IPCC and all of the works out there on climate sensitivity.

If you sit down and do the math, you find that all of the IPCC claims are lies...

Source

Need some context here. Don't know who's "math" is what here.. Who is M and B? If it's Monckton himself -- I'd check the math again..

 

[flacaltenn]

The boundary layers don't need to conduct heat down. Visible and UV light does that. The boundary layers, by heating up, inhibit heat conduction up into the atmosphere, and thus cause more heat to remain in the ocean.

If Visible and UV are your primary conductors of heat into deeper layers, Then the Ocean Didn't Eat your Warming.

That was senseless. On multiple levels.

You'll have to translate your denier logic there into earth logic, as our mere earth logic can't explain the senselessness of that statement. Why would the statement of fact that Visible and UV penetrate deeply contradict the fact that ocean absorption of heat goes up during a La Nina period?

By the way, could you tone down the hysteria? You're the only one here screaming that the ocean ate someone's warming (besides Frank). If you're not capable of addressing the actual science, just admit it. It's not like your parade of strawmen has been successful at covering up your ineptitude at the logic and science, or at making your evasions any less obvious.

 

[mamooth]

Funny you should mention this.. Christopher Monckton has posted an essay

And the crowd explodes in laughter.

The only one with denialism issues are the ones who yell the debate is settled.

Darn those scientists who say gravity is settled!

The point is that it's a logical fallacy to claim that statement is improper. Some science really is settled.

They deny science, that science is never settled. Its the nature of true science

So Billy says gravity isn't settled, and therefore we can't be sure gravity exists.

Gravity is settled _enough_ for us to conclusively say many things about it. Climate science is settled _enough_ for us to conclusively say many things about it. Not having every last detail doesn't change that.

Your attempt to stifle debate is noted and thrown out.. We will talk about the cooling world coming and how your side has intentionally stifled the debate for your control agenda.

The flat earthers, creationists, birthers, 9/11 Truthers, antivaxxers and homeopaths also dishonestly equate being laughed at with being censored.

The world is now cooling despite your lies and the deceptions you hold so dear.

And the crowd explodes in laughter again.

Its going to be enjoyable to see the alarmist squirm when the northern hemisphere catches up with the southern hemisphere in snow and ice..

And when that prediction fails, just as every single prediction you've made here has failed, you'll simply pretend you never made it, and move on to some new totally stupid predictions.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Funny you should mention this.. Christopher Monckton has posted an essay

And the crowd explodes in laughter.

The only one with denialism issues are the ones who yell the debate is settled.

Darn those scientists who say gravity is settled!

The point is that it's amazingly stupid to rave about that statement. Some science really is settled.

They deny science, that science is never settled. Its the nature of true science

So Billy says gravity isn't settled, and therefore we can't be sure gravity exists.

Gravity is settled _enough_ for us to conclusively say many things about it. Climate science is settled _enough_ for us to conclusively say many things about it. Not having every last detail doesn't change that.

Your attempt to stifle debate is noted and thrown out.. We will talk about the cooling world coming and how your side has intentionally stifled the debate for your control agenda.

The flat earthers, creationists, birthers, 9/11 Truthers, antivaxxers and homeopaths also dishonestly equate being laughed at with being censored.

The world is now cooling despite your lies and the deceptions you hold so dear.

And the crowd explodes in laughter again.

Its going to be enjoyable to see the alarmist squirm when the northern hemisphere catches up with the southern hemisphere in snow and ice..

And when that prediction fails, just as every single prediction you've made here has failed, you'll simply pretend you never made it, and move on to some new totally stupid predictions.

Every single one of these theory's have changed in the last forty years. Quantum Mechanical Theory has changed them all. But you keep that head impacted.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Typical lackwitted OP failed to read beyond the headline!

The Met Office have been at pains to add this return of a solar minimum is not going to halt global warming, although it would slow it a little. The study, published in Nature Communications, found overall cooling of the Earth of 0.1C, but the Northern Hemisphere could expect much harsher winters.

Temperatures in Britain, northern Europe and North America could drop by up to 0.8C.

That’s still enough for a Met Office spokesman to warn the amount of light and warmth emitted by the Sun would drop to levels “not seen for centuries”.

At the very least, northern regions could expect more frosty days between 2050 and 2099. In the same period, climate change is expected to see temperatures running up to 6.6C higher of carbon emissions are not slowed.​

Read more: Our cooling sun could deliver another Little Ice Age like the time in the 17th Century when the Thames froze over Business Insider

Yeah -- That's their claim. But their evidence is from the same models that have been consistently underestimating natural cycles and variations like the sun for a couple decades now.. I wouldn't bet the farm on their "evidence" for that.


BTW -- that 6.6degC higher by 2050 to 2099 ? It's largely hysteria and stretching the claims of what the LATEST estimates actually are... No surprise there.

Funny you should mention this.. Christopher Monckton has posted an essay on the making of the climate sensitivity number. It is really revealing how their own numbers show them frauds when you do the math..
View attachment 43349

His math is correct and this would lower the sensitivity to below 0.3 deg C per doubling of CO2.. Its just wild that someone hasn't exposed the math errors of the IPCC and all of the works out there on climate sensitivity.

If you sit down and do the math, you find that all of the IPCC claims are lies...

Source

Need some context here. Don't know who's "math" is what here.. Who is M and B? If it's Monckton himself -- I'd check the math again..

Below the article many of his assertions have been challenged and proven correct. Explanations of why and where the sensitivity measurements should be derived (300 Km or at surface).

Ive done five of the calculations so far and he has been right on the money.

 

[Crick]

Funny you should mention this.. Christopher Monckton has posted an essay on the making of the climate sensitivity number. It is really revealing how their own numbers show them frauds when you do the math..

His math is correct and this would lower the sensitivity to below 0.3 deg C per doubling of CO2.. Its just wild that someone hasn't exposed the math errors of the IPCC and all of the works out there on climate sensitivity.

If you sit down and do the math, you find that all of the IPCC claims are lies...

That IS just wild! And pretty amazing that out of all the thousands and thousands of people who've looked over AR5 - including the hundreds of PhDs directly responsible for its production, it took Lord Monckton and his baccalaureate in journalism to catch a simple math error. Wild. Yeah... really wild.

 

[flacaltenn]

Typical lackwitted OP failed to read beyond the headline!

The Met Office have been at pains to add this return of a solar minimum is not going to halt global warming, although it would slow it a little. The study, published in Nature Communications, found overall cooling of the Earth of 0.1C, but the Northern Hemisphere could expect much harsher winters.

Temperatures in Britain, northern Europe and North America could drop by up to 0.8C.

That’s still enough for a Met Office spokesman to warn the amount of light and warmth emitted by the Sun would drop to levels “not seen for centuries”.

At the very least, northern regions could expect more frosty days between 2050 and 2099. In the same period, climate change is expected to see temperatures running up to 6.6C higher of carbon emissions are not slowed.​

Read more: Our cooling sun could deliver another Little Ice Age like the time in the 17th Century when the Thames froze over Business Insider

Yeah -- That's their claim. But their evidence is from the same models that have been consistently underestimating natural cycles and variations like the sun for a couple decades now.. I wouldn't bet the farm on their "evidence" for that.


BTW -- that 6.6degC higher by 2050 to 2099 ? It's largely hysteria and stretching the claims of what the LATEST estimates actually are... No surprise there.

Funny you should mention this.. Christopher Monckton has posted an essay on the making of the climate sensitivity number. It is really revealing how their own numbers show them frauds when you do the math..
View attachment 43349

His math is correct and this would lower the sensitivity to below 0.3 deg C per doubling of CO2.. Its just wild that someone hasn't exposed the math errors of the IPCC and all of the works out there on climate sensitivity.

If you sit down and do the math, you find that all of the IPCC claims are lies...

Source

Need some context here. Don't know who's "math" is what here.. Who is M and B? If it's Monckton himself -- I'd check the math again..

Below the article many of his assertions have been challenged and proven correct. Explanations of why and where the sensitivity measurements should be derived (300 Km or at surface).

Ive done five of the calculations so far and he has been right on the money.

What "article" are you talking about?

 

[flacaltenn]

Funny you should mention this.. Christopher Monckton has posted an essay on the making of the climate sensitivity number. It is really revealing how their own numbers show them frauds when you do the math..

His math is correct and this would lower the sensitivity to below 0.3 deg C per doubling of CO2.. Its just wild that someone hasn't exposed the math errors of the IPCC and all of the works out there on climate sensitivity.

If you sit down and do the math, you find that all of the IPCC claims are lies...

That IS just wild! And pretty amazing that out of all the thousands and thousands of people who've looked over AR5 - including the hundreds of PhDs directly responsible for its production, it took Lord Monckton and his baccalaureate in journalism to catch a simple math error. Wild. Yeah... really wild.

ALL estimates of climate sensitivity are being revised downward. That's why you there haven't been as many fear-mongering predictions of the surface temp. in 2050.. But you know that. Because Ian posted a graph of all the estimates just a couple days ago.. Guess you filtered out on that as usual..

 

[jon_berzerk]

Heat Capacity; Thermal Conductivity; Thermal Inertia


A primary objective of temperature measurements and related thermal responses is to infer something about the nature of the composition and other physical attributes of materials at the Earth's surface and, in its atmosphere. For any material, certain internal properties play important roles in governing the temperature of a body at equilibrium with its surroundings.


These properties include:

• Heat Capacity (C): The measure of the increase in thermal energy content (Q) per degree of temperature rise. It denotes the capacity of a material to store heat, and we give it cgs units of calories per cubic cm. per degree Centigrade (recall from physics that a calorie [cal] is the quantity of heat needed to raise one gram of water by one degree Centigrade). We calculate heat capacity as the ratio of the amount of heat energy, in calories, required to raise a given volume of a material by one degree Centigrade (at a standard temperature of 15° Centigrade) to the amount needed to raise the same volume of water by one degree Centigrade. A related quantity, specific heat (c), is defined as C = c/ρ (units are calories per gram per degree Centigrade) where ρ (rho) = density. This property associates Heat Capacity to the thermal energy required to raise a mass of one gram of water by one degree Centigrade.
• Thermal Conductivity (K): The rate at which heat passes through a specific thickness of a substance, measured as the calories delivered in one second across a one centimeter square area through a thickness of one cm at a temperature gradient of one degree Centigrade (units: calories per centimeter per second per degree Centigrade)
• Thermal Inertia (P): The resistance of a material to temperature change, indicated by the time dependent variations in temperature during a full heating/cooling cycle (a 24-hour day for Earth); defined as P = (Kcρ )1/2 = cρ (k)1/2. (The term k, related to conductivity K, is known as thermal diffusivity, and has units of centimeters squared per second; this parameter governs the rate of temperature change within a material; it is a measure of a substance's ability to transfer heat in and out of that portion that received solar heating during the day and cools at night). P is a measure of the heat transfer rate across a boundary between two materials. e.g., air/soil. Because materials with high P possess a strong inertial resistance to temperature fluctuations at a surface boundary, they show less temperature variation per heating/cooling cycle than those with lower thermal inertia.

• (source)

The amount of heat required to raise water temps is 700 times the energy needed to raise air temperature. The air temperature would have to be very high to defeat the boundary of water.

When you do the math and recognize the thermal properties of All items involved even if that 0.1 deg C is hiding in the oceans it wouldn't mean squat when it is released as water vapor in a cooling world..
`

If it takes 700 times the energy then would the energy used to raise ocean temps .1 degree have raised air temps 70 degrees?

--LOL

 

[Crick]

Your comment has no relevance to Monckton supposedly catching a math error that eluded several thousand PhDs who, unlike Monckton, actually have some training in mathematics.

 

[IanC]

Typical lackwitted OP failed to read beyond the headline!

The Met Office have been at pains to add this return of a solar minimum is not going to halt global warming, although it would slow it a little. The study, published in Nature Communications, found overall cooling of the Earth of 0.1C, but the Northern Hemisphere could expect much harsher winters.

Temperatures in Britain, northern Europe and North America could drop by up to 0.8C.

That’s still enough for a Met Office spokesman to warn the amount of light and warmth emitted by the Sun would drop to levels “not seen for centuries”.

At the very least, northern regions could expect more frosty days between 2050 and 2099. In the same period, climate change is expected to see temperatures running up to 6.6C higher of carbon emissions are not slowed.​

Read more: Our cooling sun could deliver another Little Ice Age like the time in the 17th Century when the Thames froze over Business Insider

Yeah -- That's their claim. But their evidence is from the same models that have been consistently underestimating natural cycles and variations like the sun for a couple decades now.. I wouldn't bet the farm on their "evidence" for that.


BTW -- that 6.6degC higher by 2050 to 2099 ? It's largely hysteria and stretching the claims of what the LATEST estimates actually are... No surprise there.

Funny you should mention this.. Christopher Monckton has posted an essay on the making of the climate sensitivity number. It is really revealing how their own numbers show them frauds when you do the math..
View attachment 43349

His math is correct and this would lower the sensitivity to below 0.3 deg C per doubling of CO2.. Its just wild that someone hasn't exposed the math errors of the IPCC and all of the works out there on climate sensitivity.

If you sit down and do the math, you find that all of the IPCC claims are lies...

Source

Need some context here. Don't know who's "math" is what here.. Who is M and B? If it's Monckton himself -- I'd check the math again..

Below the article many of his assertions have been challenged and proven correct. Explanations of why and where the sensitivity measurements should be derived (300 Km or at surface).

Ive done five of the calculations so far and he has been right on the money.

What "article" are you talking about?

this one. I only ask because I want to know Watts Up With That

actually it is more about how to frame the climate sensitivity question. Trenberth's cartoon makes an appearance.

 

[IanC]

Your comment has no relevance to Monckton supposedly catching a math error that eluded several thousand PhDs who, unlike Monckton, actually have some training in mathematics.

I believe that is Ad Hominem, second from the bottom. why dont you address the issue?

 

[Crick]

Which issue is that? Monckton's supposed discovery of a math error (verified by Billy Bob) or the "global cooling theory" picking up steam?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Which issue is that? Monckton's supposed discovery of a math error (verified by Billy Bob) or the "global cooling theory" picking up steam?

You really are ignorant. Monckton framed the question and did the math using the IPCC's own numbers. He found that climate sensitivity was so severely exaggerated that it was worth an essay on it. I questioned his math as did others here, so I replicated (did the math) to see if Monckton was correct. He is.

Now you can adhom bomb me if you like but science is about replicating hypothesis's and theroys. Questioning the status quo. This is why the science is never settled and true scientists never used the term.

The essay by Monckton shows why the models fail to reproduce anything near reality and fail with 100% certainty.

A simple concept that alarmists will never grasp and why you so desperately try to hide the cooling that is occurring.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah -- That's their claim. But their evidence is from the same models that have been consistently underestimating natural cycles and variations like the sun for a couple decades now.. I wouldn't bet the farm on their "evidence" for that.


BTW -- that 6.6degC higher by 2050 to 2099 ? It's largely hysteria and stretching the claims of what the LATEST estimates actually are... No surprise there.

Funny you should mention this.. Christopher Monckton has posted an essay on the making of the climate sensitivity number. It is really revealing how their own numbers show them frauds when you do the math..
View attachment 43349

His math is correct and this would lower the sensitivity to below 0.3 deg C per doubling of CO2.. Its just wild that someone hasn't exposed the math errors of the IPCC and all of the works out there on climate sensitivity.

If you sit down and do the math, you find that all of the IPCC claims are lies...

Source

Need some context here. Don't know who's "math" is what here.. Who is M and B? If it's Monckton himself -- I'd check the math again..

Below the article many of his assertions have been challenged and proven correct. Explanations of why and where the sensitivity measurements should be derived (300 Km or at surface).

Ive done five of the calculations so far and he has been right on the money.

What "article" are you talking about?

this one. I only ask because I want to know Watts Up With That

actually it is more about how to frame the climate sensitivity question. Trenberth's cartoon makes an appearance.

Well thanks Ian -- now I know why the posted chart was based on 50% increase in CO2 and not a doubling.
Written like a good tutorial.. Only negative I could find is that leap to concluding that existing CO2 atmos loading has done ALL the damage that it's capable of doing. That's sloppy and opinionated. And discounts the LONGER term feedbacks.. As for the approximations, it is what it is. If the IPCC thinks this describes the earth's response to a forcing, and the math is that simple --- you REALLY should get it right.

 

[skookerasbil]

Well in the northeast, the global cooling theory is definitely more popular than the global warming theory unless you are a k00k. Its July and cant walk out of your house these days without a sweatshirt. Who the fuck ever heard of it? And this is going on 3 years now..........and of course, anybody over 30 will recall that most summers in the northeast, temps always in the upper 80's with 2 or 3 7-10 day spells of temps in the 90's and always.......a few days with 100's. Not anymore......... Its a goof. Feels like October 1st today here. Stoopid.

 

[mamooth]

Here's Britain entering that "ice age" ...

UK swelters in heatwave as hottest July day recorded UK news The Guardian

Remember the rule of thumb. If a denier predicts it, it's almost certain the exact opposite will happen.

 

[Crick]

Which issue is that? Monckton's supposed discovery of a math error (verified by Billy Bob) or the "global cooling theory" picking up steam?

You really are ignorant. Monckton framed the question and did the math using the IPCC's own numbers. He found that climate sensitivity was so severely exaggerated that it was worth an essay on it. I questioned his math as did others here, so I replicated (did the math) to see if Monckton was correct. He is.

Now you can adhom bomb me if you like but science is about replicating hypothesis's and theroys. Questioning the status quo. This is why the science is never settled and true scientists never used the term.

The essay by Monckton shows why the models fail to reproduce anything near reality and fail with 100% certainty.

A simple concept that alarmists will never grasp and why you so desperately try to hide the cooling that is occurring.

Sorry, no. For Monckton and you, no.

Let me be clear about this: I utterly reject the suggestion that Monckton (BS in Journalism) did any of that math, that you (retired cop) checked him on any of that math or that this math catches errors committed and missed in review by multiple PhDs.