Solar scientists say the "Grand Minimum" will cause a mini ice age next few years..

[HenryBHough]

Where I sit we're having mid-October weather in mid-September. But that's just weather. Unless it's same next year. Summer was atypically cool and wet. But, shit, that's just weather.....right?

 

[SSDD]

Where I sit we're having mid-October weather in mid-September. But that's just weather. Unless it's same next year. Summer was atypically cool and wet. But, shit, that's just weather.....right?

Unless it is unusually warm, it is just weather. You have a firm grasp of the situation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Haha... oh my. Maybe, oh just maybe, if you scream this loudly enough at yourself in the mirror enough times, it might become true!

So lets see it hot rod....a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence demonstrating that additional CO2 in the atmosphere will cause warming...If such evidence exists, you should have no problem finding it.

I predict, however, that no such evidence will be forthcoming from you or anyone else as it does not exist....prove me wrong.

No, I don't waste my time being a dancing monkey for deniers. If you had any desire to see this evidence, you would look it up yourself. of course, you will just call it "not evidence", which is equivalent to calling the global scientific community "all liars". This is so incredibly absurd... how do you not realize how embarrassing your behavior is... as if some know-nothing with zero education or experience in this field has managed to outsmart the entire, global scientific community with noting but a HS diploma and google...


Good luck, find another caretaker to soothe you, I'm not your guy.

Not even a good dodge. You did exactly what I predicted...and do you know why? Because you could do nothing else...exept perhaps cut and run which should be the response that will be coming up shortly. I mean how long can you pretend that such evidence exists but you just "don't feel like" posting it?

"You did exactly what I predicted"

you didn't predict anything. I said, quite clearly, that I would not be spoonfeeding decades of scientific research to blog-educated deniers. And you seem very confused about something: your opinions of me, a non-scientist, have zero bearing on the science. your incessant, ignorant whining has zero bearing on accepted theories. No, you are presenting no actual challenge to accepted theories. All you can possibly hope to accomplish is to alter political policy by squawking the loudest. learn your lot in life, son.

 

[SSDD]

you didn't predict anything

Not very good at reading huh...in my first post to you I said...and I quote
"I predict, however, that no such evidence will be forthcoming from you or anyone else as it does not exist....prove me wrong.[/quote]

As I predicted no such evidence was forthcoming....and I predict that you will A) continue to talk ad nauseum while never posting a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability or B) you will cut and run.

I said, quite clearly, that I would not be spoonfeeding decades of scientific research to blog-educated deniers.

I didn't ask for decades of scientific research...I asked for a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability and you can't manage even that.

And you seem very confused about something: your opinions of me, a non-scientist, have zero bearing on the science.{/quote]

If you were even fractionally as smart as you think you are, the fact that you can't even produce a single piece of evidence of the sort I asked for should cause you to have serious doubts about the "science" you so obviously believe in...the fact that it doesn't speaks volumes.

your incessant, ignorant whining has zero bearing on accepted theories.

You think that the fact that no observed, measured, quantified data exists that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability has no bearing on the AGW hypothesis? Wow...you know even less about science than I would have guessed.

So once again, I predict that you won't provide even one piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...because it simply does not exist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

you didn't predict anything

Not very good at reading huh...in my first post to you I said...and I quote
"I predict, however, that no such evidence will be forthcoming from you or anyone else as it does not exist....prove me wrong.

As I predicted no such evidence was forthcoming....and I predict that you will A) continue to talk ad nauseum while never posting a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability or B) you will cut and run.

I said, quite clearly, that I would not be spoonfeeding decades of scientific research to blog-educated deniers.

I didn't ask for decades of scientific research...I asked for a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability and you can't manage even that.

And you seem very confused about something: your opinions of me, a non-scientist, have zero bearing on the science.{/quote]

If you were even fractionally as smart as you think you are, the fact that you can't even produce a single piece of evidence of the sort I asked for should cause you to have serious doubts about the "science" you so obviously believe in...the fact that it doesn't speaks volumes.

your incessant, ignorant whining has zero bearing on accepted theories.

You think that the fact that no observed, measured, quantified data exists that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability has no bearing on the AGW hypothesis? Wow...you know even less about science than I would have guessed.

So once again, I predict that you won't provide even one piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...because it simply does not exist.

[/QUOTE]
Correct, I will not be spoonfeeding you any evidence. Of course, you are an idiot to say "that's because it does not exist". As if a know-nothing like you has outsmarted the scientific community.... as if the scientific community is all laboring under the ignorance of their own discoveries, and needs a blog-educated denier to help them iout... you are an absurd caricature. Now, go on, do your little victory dance.... unfortunately, not many will see it, as you goofball deniers are relegated to free internet forums and fossil fuel-funnded blogs.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

you didn't predict anything

Not very good at reading huh...in my first post to you I said...and I quote
"I predict, however, that no such evidence will be forthcoming from you or anyone else as it does not exist....prove me wrong.

As I predicted no such evidence was forthcoming....and I predict that you will A) continue to talk ad nauseum while never posting a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability or B) you will cut and run.

I said, quite clearly, that I would not be spoonfeeding decades of scientific research to blog-educated deniers.

I didn't ask for decades of scientific research...I asked for a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability and you can't manage even that.

And you seem very confused about something: your opinions of me, a non-scientist, have zero bearing on the science.{/quote]

If you were even fractionally as smart as you think you are, the fact that you can't even produce a single piece of evidence of the sort I asked for should cause you to have serious doubts about the "science" you so obviously believe in...the fact that it doesn't speaks volumes.

your incessant, ignorant whining has zero bearing on accepted theories.

You think that the fact that no observed, measured, quantified data exists that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability has no bearing on the AGW hypothesis? Wow...you know even less about science than I would have guessed.

So once again, I predict that you won't provide even one piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...because it simply does not exist.

[/QUOTE]
"and you can't manage even that."

Of course I can . Any 4th grader could find a shred of the evidence of a robust, accepted theory by using Google. you sound absolutely stupid. Your prancing and dancing just makes it even more embarrassing.

 

[Old Rocks]

Where I sit we're having mid-October weather in mid-September. But that's just weather. Unless it's same next year. Summer was atypically cool and wet. But, shit, that's just weather.....right?

Well now, if that were true for the whole world, maybe you would have a point. So, let us look at the whole world;

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2017_v6.jpg

Well now, look at that. August was warmer than any month prior to 1998. Perhaps you are a bit retarded and think that your backyard represents the whole world? I would hate to think that you are of normal intellect and have strayed that far from reality.

 

[Old Rocks]

you didn't predict anything

Not very good at reading huh...in my first post to you I said...and I quote
"I predict, however, that no such evidence will be forthcoming from you or anyone else as it does not exist....prove me wrong.

As I predicted no such evidence was forthcoming....and I predict that you will A) continue to talk ad nauseum while never posting a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability or B) you will cut and run.

I said, quite clearly, that I would not be spoonfeeding decades of scientific research to blog-educated deniers.

I didn't ask for decades of scientific research...I asked for a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability and you can't manage even that.

And you seem very confused about something: your opinions of me, a non-scientist, have zero bearing on the science.{/quote]

If you were even fractionally as smart as you think you are, the fact that you can't even produce a single piece of evidence of the sort I asked for should cause you to have serious doubts about the "science" you so obviously believe in...the fact that it doesn't speaks volumes.

your incessant, ignorant whining has zero bearing on accepted theories.

You think that the fact that no observed, measured, quantified data exists that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability has no bearing on the AGW hypothesis? Wow...you know even less about science than I would have guessed.

So once again, I predict that you won't provide even one piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...because it simply does not exist.

[/QUOTE]
You lying fuck, you have been given that repeatedly. Established in 1859 by John Tyndall. The absorption spectra of the GHGs.

 

[skookerasbil]

lol.......only the climate k00ks think the sun has no influence on our climate.

The leaders of western nations obviously disagree!!


EIA Outlook: Fossil Fuels Continue to Dominate World Energy Supply - IER

"ol.......only the climate k00ks think the sun has no influence on our climate."

Nobody said it had no influence. When you have to invent absurd lies to have a point, you don't actually have a point. Think of how absurd you sound... solar scientists are the first to admit that a great solar minimum will not be nearly enough to offset global warming. But they are all crazy or lying, because some blog-educated cackler on a message board said so. ooookay!

Hey what can I say.........you're one of those guys from the science club convinced its all CO2 all the time. Ghey.........nobody really knows dick about what causes any warming we see. Much still needs to be studied.......anyway, in the real world, nobody has embraced the whole CO2 theory in terms of energy policy and that's the only thing I care about. You climate bozo's are like the football team down 49-0 intercepting the ball and getting a score and having a wild celebration while nobody else is giving a shit!!

 

[skookerasbil]

And this is precisely why they changed the name from global warming to climate change.

LIAR!
It was climate change BEFORE it was global warming!!!!

When??? It's been global warming before an inconvenient truth...

And if that wasn't the case...where did the very popular term of global warming from the inconvenient truth to 5 years ago come from??? That was the buzzword, why did they CLEARLY backtrack?

Well, let me pin you lying scum deniers down first. What year do you liars say Global Warming got changed to Climate Change?

Shit s0n..........you've obviously missed a few memo's.........

 

[SSDD]

You lying fuck, you have been given that repeatedly. Established in 1859 by John Tyndall. The absorption spectra of the GHGs.

Poor old rocks...always willing to drag what little intellect you may possess through the sewer in an attempt to defend your crackpot religion...

So here, in the 21st century, the best you can manage is quaint 19th century pseudoscience by Tyndall...good old Tyndal who did the best he could with technology being what it was..good old Tyndal who used artificial sources for his IR...good old Tyndal whose photometric measuring equipment consisted of metal tubes as gas vessels and Leslie cubes as radiation sources...and after all this time, climate science has not improved on his experiments as by now, they know exactly what the result would be and that would be no good for the narrative.

That quaint old 19th century science was based exclusively on light measuring methodology...thermal measurements were never, and to date have never been made except by pyrogeometers looking at the whole spectrum...or instruments cooled to temperatures far below the temperature of the emitters...here in the 21st century, no direct coherence between IR absorption and warming effects in the atmosphere have ever been detected.

So no, old rocks...no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability has ever been posted because it simply doesn't exist...it is vastly entertaining, however, to see what passes for such evidence in the minds of believers...thanks as always for the chuckle...

 

[SSDD]

Of course I can . Any 4th grader could find a shred of the evidence of a robust, accepted theory by using Google. you sound absolutely stupid. Your prancing and dancing just makes it even more embarrassing.

Of course you can't because it doesn't exist...and most 4th graders have reached the level of intellectual development that with a bit of study, they also could determine that the evidence just doesn't exist...

Keep on talking, or run away...those are your only two options...actually providing that single piece of observed, measured, quantified data that supports AGW over natural variability is not an option because no such evidence exists.

 

[Crick]

Delusional. Completely delusional

 

[SSDD]

Delusional. Completely delusional

So lets see a measurement of back radiation made at ambient temperature skid mark....you won't bring one because none exist...it is all models all the time with you wackos...

 

[Old Rocks]

You lying fuck, you have been given that repeatedly. Established in 1859 by John Tyndall. The absorption spectra of the GHGs.

Poor old rocks...always willing to drag what little intellect you may possess through the sewer in an attempt to defend your crackpot religion...

So here, in the 21st century, the best you can manage is quaint 19th century pseudoscience by Tyndall...good old Tyndal who did the best he could with technology being what it was..good old Tyndal who used artificial sources for his IR...good old Tyndal whose photometric measuring equipment consisted of metal tubes as gas vessels and Leslie cubes as radiation sources...and after all this time, climate science has not improved on his experiments as by now, they know exactly what the result would be and that would be no good for the narrative.

That quaint old 19th century science was based exclusively on light measuring methodology...thermal measurements were never, and to date have never been made except by pyrogeometers looking at the whole spectrum...or instruments cooled to temperatures far below the temperature of the emitters...here in the 21st century, no direct coherence between IR absorption and warming effects in the atmosphere have ever been detected.

So no, old rocks...no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability has ever been posted because it simply doesn't exist...it is vastly entertaining, however, to see what passes for such evidence in the minds of believers...thanks as always for the chuckle...

by Steve Graham • October 8, 1999

John Tyndall was a man of science—draftsman, surveyor, physics professor, mathematician, geologist, atmospheric scientist, public lecturer, and mountaineer. Throughout the course of his Irish and later, English life, he was able to express his thoughts in a manner none had seen or heard before. His ability to paint mental pictures for his audience enabled him to disseminate a popular knowledge of physical science that had not previously existed. Tyndall's original research on the radiative properties of gases as well as his work with other top scientists of his era opened up new fields of science and laid the groundwork for future scientific enterprises.

In January 1859, Tyndall began studying the radiative properties of various gases. Part of his experimentation included the construction of the first ratio spectrophotometer, which he used to measure the absorptive powers of gases such as water vapor, "carbonic acid" (now known as carbon dioxide), ozone, and hydrocarbons. Among his most important discoveries were the vast differences in the abilities of "perfectly colorless and invisible gases and vapors" to absorb and transmit radiant heat. He noted that oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen are almost transparent to radiant heat while other gases are quite opaque.

Tyndall's experiments also showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation, and that even in small quantities, these gases absorb much more strongly than the atmosphere itself. He concluded that among the constituents of the atmosphere, water vapor is the strongest absorber of radiant heat and is therefore the most important gas controlling Earth's surface temperature. He said, without water vapor, the Earth's surface would be "held fast in the iron grip of frost." He later speculated on how fluctuations in water vapor and carbon dioxide could be related to climate change.

The above graphs show the percentage of radiation that gases found in the Earth's atmosphere absorb. Methane (CH4,) carbon dioxide (CO2,) and water vapor (H2O,) absorb strongly in the thermal infrared (4–100 µm.) (Figure from Valley, 1965)

John Tyndall : Feature Articles

Odd, the scientists at NASA seem to have a much different opinion of John Tyndall than you do. Now who should we believe, the purveyor of smart photons or the real scientists at NASA.

 

[SSDD]

Odd, the scientists at NASA seem to have a much different opinion of John Tyndall than you do. Now who should we believe, the purveyor of smart photons or the real scientists at NASA.

Absorption and emission do not equal warming...and isn't it odd that NASA established the standard atmosphere which predicts the temperature just fine without even mentioning a greenhouse effect?

And as I pointed out...even today, there has yet to be a measured coherent relationship between IR absorption and warming in the atmosphere...you are relying on models based on incomplete and quite quaint 19th century science...but hey, you believe what you believe...but should recognize that your belief is not rooted in actual science but upon your politics.

And by the way...smart photons are your invention...not mine. You are the one who believes that inanimate objects must be smart in order to obey the laws of physics.

 

[edthecynic]

And this is precisely why they changed the name from global warming to climate change.

LIAR!
It was climate change BEFORE it was global warming!!!!

When??? It's been global warming before an inconvenient truth...

And if that wasn't the case...where did the very popular term of global warming from the inconvenient truth to 5 years ago come from??? That was the buzzword, why did they CLEARLY backtrack?

Well, let me pin you lying scum deniers down first. What year do you liars say Global Warming got changed to Climate Change?

Shit s0n..........you've obviously missed a few memo's.........

Gee what a surprise, n0t!
Neither of these two lying scum bags will pin their lie down with a specific year.
How about a decade then?

 

[xband]

[Was watching Science Channel regarding the solar eclipse and a very interesting point was made.
Over the years sunspots have a cycle when there are years when there are many sunspots and years where there are very few if any.
It is called the "Grand Minimum".
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” published on 31 January 2012
From a comment on the Ice Age Now Post:
From what I see on this page it sounds like the researchers are not aware of what causes the increased volcanic activity and earthquakes in the first place. Namely a very weak solar cycle is directly linked to a substantial increase in volcanic activity. The “experts” are still having a hard time connecting the dots.
The Next Grand Minimum
View attachment 145286
Notice the period from 1400 to 1800 known as the "little Ice Age"...
Here are some pictures from that time that the Thames river froze over.
When has the Thames froze over?
In the 200 years that have elapsed since, the Thames has never frozen solid enough for such hedonism to be repeated. But between 1309 and 1814, the Thames froze at least 23 times and on five of these occasions -1683-4, 1716, 1739-40, 1789 and 1814 - the ice was thick enough to hold a fair.Jan 28, 2014
View attachment 145288

The Maunder Minimum is overdue and cyclic on an approximately 300 year schedule. Stand by for the new little ice age.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL Promises, promises, promises.