Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Your argument are ridiculous, your "evidence" misrepresented, and you are spreading lies. You cherry pick data to create a general argument about theories supported my more data than you cherry pick by a factor of millions. You imply the absurd claim that climate scientists labor under the ignorance of their own discoveries. You completely ignore the work of the community dedicating their lives to science, while parroting the talking points of bloggers paid to lie to you. No, the "grand minimum" will not offset global warming. Yes, you are wrong.
So, I ask you (and all the other man-made climate change/global warming proponents) this same, very simple question.....
How can you have a benchmark for what the global temp is when geo-engineering is not figured into the equation and why is it that we have "global dimming" where up to 20 percent less sunlight is reaching the surface of the earth?
Unless you figure in all the factors? Why should I buy what you are selling?????? And if you don't know about geo-engineering? Then you are simply spewing U.N talking points given to them by the IPCC that works at the leisure of the U.N???
"How can you have a benchmark for what the global temp is when geo-engineering is not figured into the equation and why is it that we have "global dimming" where up to 20 percent less sunlight is reaching the surface of the earth?
Well, first off, we know this is not an honest , truth-seeking question on your part, or you would have already gone elsewhere to find the answer.
Second, the solar scientists who taught you any and every fact you know about the solar input are the ones saying that the next solar "grand minimum" will not offset the global warming of the climate caused by man. Are you implying that they are all ignorant of their own discoveries, and need YOU to remind them of them?
Your argument are ridiculous, your "evidence" misrepresented, and you are spreading lies. You cherry pick data to create a general argument about theories supported my more data than you cherry pick by a factor of millions. You imply the absurd claim that climate scientists labor under the ignorance of their own discoveries. You completely ignore the work of the community dedicating their lives to science, while parroting the talking points of bloggers paid to lie to you. No, the "grand minimum" will not offset global warming. Yes, you are wrong.
So, I ask you (and all the other man-made climate change/global warming proponents) this same, very simple question.....
How can you have a benchmark for what the global temp is when geo-engineering is not figured into the equation and why is it that we have "global dimming" where up to 20 percent less sunlight is reaching the surface of the earth?
Unless you figure in all the factors? Why should I buy what you are selling?????? And if you don't know about geo-engineering? Then you are simply spewing U.N talking points given to them by the IPCC that works at the leisure of the U.N???
"How can you have a benchmark for what the global temp is when geo-engineering is not figured into the equation and why is it that we have "global dimming" where up to 20 percent less sunlight is reaching the surface of the earth?
Well, first off, we know this is not an honest , truth-seeking question on your part, or you would have already gone elsewhere to find the answer.
Second, the solar scientists who taught you any and every fact you know about the solar input are the ones saying that the next solar "grand minimum" will not offset the global warming of the climate caused by man. Are you implying that they are all ignorant of their own discoveries, and need YOU to remind them of them?
I already know the answer. You, on the other hand, seem to have no knowledge of this SRM program of aerosol injection spraying and thus my point. Have you ever read the Iron Mountain Report, how the Club of Rome was formed and why and where "sustainable development" and Agenda 21 came from?
Seems you have some homework to do.........
Your argument are ridiculous, your "evidence" misrepresented, and you are spreading lies. You cherry pick data to create a general argument about theories supported my more data than you cherry pick by a factor of millions. You imply the absurd claim that climate scientists labor under the ignorance of their own discoveries. You completely ignore the work of the community dedicating their lives to science, while parroting the talking points of bloggers paid to lie to you. No, the "grand minimum" will not offset global warming. Yes, you are wrong.
So, I ask you (and all the other man-made climate change/global warming proponents) this same, very simple question.....
How can you have a benchmark for what the global temp is when geo-engineering is not figured into the equation and why is it that we have "global dimming" where up to 20 percent less sunlight is reaching the surface of the earth?
Unless you figure in all the factors? Why should I buy what you are selling?????? And if you don't know about geo-engineering? Then you are simply spewing U.N talking points given to them by the IPCC that works at the leisure of the U.N???
"How can you have a benchmark for what the global temp is when geo-engineering is not figured into the equation and why is it that we have "global dimming" where up to 20 percent less sunlight is reaching the surface of the earth?
Well, first off, we know this is not an honest , truth-seeking question on your part, or you would have already gone elsewhere to find the answer.
Second, the solar scientists who taught you any and every fact you know about the solar input are the ones saying that the next solar "grand minimum" will not offset the global warming of the climate caused by man. Are you implying that they are all ignorant of their own discoveries, and need YOU to remind them of them?
I already know the answer. You, on the other hand, seem to have no knowledge of this SRM program of aerosol injection spraying and thus my point. Have you ever read the Iron Mountain Report, how the Club of Rome was formed and why and where "sustainable development" and Agenda 21 came from?
Seems you have some homework to do.........
Me? It seems the entire scientific community has some homework to do! Imagine how embarrassed they will be when they discover that some guy with Google just undermined their lives' work!
Your argument are ridiculous, your "evidence" misrepresented, and you are spreading lies. You cherry pick data to create a general argument about theories supported my more data than you cherry pick by a factor of millions. You imply the absurd claim that climate scientists labor under the ignorance of their own discoveries. You completely ignore the work of the community dedicating their lives to science, while parroting the talking points of bloggers paid to lie to you. No, the "grand minimum" will not offset global warming. Yes, you are wrong.
So, I ask you (and all the other man-made climate change/global warming proponents) this same, very simple question.....
How can you have a benchmark for what the global temp is when geo-engineering is not figured into the equation and why is it that we have "global dimming" where up to 20 percent less sunlight is reaching the surface of the earth?
Unless you figure in all the factors? Why should I buy what you are selling?????? And if you don't know about geo-engineering? Then you are simply spewing U.N talking points given to them by the IPCC that works at the leisure of the U.N???
"How can you have a benchmark for what the global temp is when geo-engineering is not figured into the equation and why is it that we have "global dimming" where up to 20 percent less sunlight is reaching the surface of the earth?
Well, first off, we know this is not an honest , truth-seeking question on your part, or you would have already gone elsewhere to find the answer.
Second, the solar scientists who taught you any and every fact you know about the solar input are the ones saying that the next solar "grand minimum" will not offset the global warming of the climate caused by man. Are you implying that they are all ignorant of their own discoveries, and need YOU to remind them of them?
I already know the answer. You, on the other hand, seem to have no knowledge of this SRM program of aerosol injection spraying and thus my point. Have you ever read the Iron Mountain Report, how the Club of Rome was formed and why and where "sustainable development" and Agenda 21 came from?
Seems you have some homework to do.........
Me? It seems the entire scientific community has some homework to do! Imagine how embarrassed they will be when they discover that some guy with Google just undermined their lives' work!
Being that the IPCC (that works at the behest of the U.N) gets their grant money from the very ones pushing this while leaving out important parts of the equation? I have to laugh at your ascertains. I noticed that you avoided answering the questions I asked.....cognitive dissonance? Don't want to consider things that might upset your world view and believe in "science"??? I believe in science....I believe in the water and soil samples that show dangerous and unnatural levels of aluminum, barium and strontium.
A mind is much like a parachute....it only works if it is open.
So, I ask you (and all the other man-made climate change/global warming proponents) this same, very simple question.....
How can you have a benchmark for what the global temp is when geo-engineering is not figured into the equation and why is it that we have "global dimming" where up to 20 percent less sunlight is reaching the surface of the earth?
Unless you figure in all the factors? Why should I buy what you are selling?????? And if you don't know about geo-engineering? Then you are simply spewing U.N talking points given to them by the IPCC that works at the leisure of the U.N???
"How can you have a benchmark for what the global temp is when geo-engineering is not figured into the equation and why is it that we have "global dimming" where up to 20 percent less sunlight is reaching the surface of the earth?
Well, first off, we know this is not an honest , truth-seeking question on your part, or you would have already gone elsewhere to find the answer.
Second, the solar scientists who taught you any and every fact you know about the solar input are the ones saying that the next solar "grand minimum" will not offset the global warming of the climate caused by man. Are you implying that they are all ignorant of their own discoveries, and need YOU to remind them of them?
I already know the answer. You, on the other hand, seem to have no knowledge of this SRM program of aerosol injection spraying and thus my point. Have you ever read the Iron Mountain Report, how the Club of Rome was formed and why and where "sustainable development" and Agenda 21 came from?
Seems you have some homework to do.........
Me? It seems the entire scientific community has some homework to do! Imagine how embarrassed they will be when they discover that some guy with Google just undermined their lives' work!
Being that the IPCC (that works at the behest of the U.N) gets their grant money from the very ones pushing this while leaving out important parts of the equation? I have to laugh at your ascertains. I noticed that you avoided answering the questions I asked.....cognitive dissonance? Don't want to consider things that might upset your world view and believe in "science"??? I believe in science....I believe in the water and soil samples that show dangerous and unnatural levels of aluminum, barium and strontium.
A mind is much like a parachute....it only works if it is open.
Ah, so when the global community of scientists doesn't verify your knowledge on a topic (is your knowledge of earth sciences vast?), then they are all lying. I want you to consider the absurdity of what you are saying. I mean that. You are embarrassing yourself.
"How can you have a benchmark for what the global temp is when geo-engineering is not figured into the equation and why is it that we have "global dimming" where up to 20 percent less sunlight is reaching the surface of the earth?
Well, first off, we know this is not an honest , truth-seeking question on your part, or you would have already gone elsewhere to find the answer.
Second, the solar scientists who taught you any and every fact you know about the solar input are the ones saying that the next solar "grand minimum" will not offset the global warming of the climate caused by man. Are you implying that they are all ignorant of their own discoveries, and need YOU to remind them of them?
I already know the answer. You, on the other hand, seem to have no knowledge of this SRM program of aerosol injection spraying and thus my point. Have you ever read the Iron Mountain Report, how the Club of Rome was formed and why and where "sustainable development" and Agenda 21 came from?
Seems you have some homework to do.........
Me? It seems the entire scientific community has some homework to do! Imagine how embarrassed they will be when they discover that some guy with Google just undermined their lives' work!
Being that the IPCC (that works at the behest of the U.N) gets their grant money from the very ones pushing this while leaving out important parts of the equation? I have to laugh at your ascertains. I noticed that you avoided answering the questions I asked.....cognitive dissonance? Don't want to consider things that might upset your world view and believe in "science"??? I believe in science....I believe in the water and soil samples that show dangerous and unnatural levels of aluminum, barium and strontium.
A mind is much like a parachute....it only works if it is open.
Ah, so when the global community of scientists doesn't verify your knowledge on a topic (is your knowledge of earth sciences vast?), then they are all lying. I want you to consider the absurdity of what you are saying. I mean that. You are embarrassing yourself.
There is a vast community of "scientists" that disagree with the contention that the use of petroleum has something to do with climate change/ global warming. Oil is an abiotic fluid and second most prevalent on earth. I also know that 80 percent of all gasoline is wasted and is emitted but yet the technology to use 100 percent of this fuel has been rebuffed by the powers that be because the world's economy runs on petroleum and the petro dollar....they simply want to double dip by charging a carbon tax that the banking oligarchs (that also own the very oil you demonize) will collect. How will that "cool the planet" exactly? Free energy and the ability to be free of petroleum has been around since the days of Nikola Tesla. The 139 deep underground military bases do not use an electrical grid and they run their high speed trains on magnetic energy.
So, to sum it up? You are merely a useful idiot spewing U.N/ leftard talking points and you can't win this debate against me. I know more than you....infinitely more.
See SSDD's graph from "Blaauw 2017" there? That was published in an open-access journal that accepts just about anything, with Blaauw himself having no other papers of any sort published. That's the kind of 'science' that SSDD pulls from.
Hs other stuff? Some of the same vanity journal crap, and the rest ripped screaming out of context.
If TSI was controlling global warming, then we would have been cooling since 2000, but 14 of the 15 warmest years have been since 2000.
If TSI was controlling global warming, then we would have been cooling since 2000, but 14 of the 15 warmest years have been since 2000.
We investigate the global mean and regional change of sea surface and land surface temperature over 2003–2013, using a large number of different data sets, and compare with changes observed over the past few decades (starting in 1950). … While confirming cooling of eastern tropical Pacific during the last decade as reported in several recent studies, our results show that the reduced rate of change of the 2003–2013 time span is a global phenomenon. GMST short-term trends since 1950 computed over successive 11-year windows with 1-year overlap show important decadal variability that highly correlates with 11-year trends of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation index. The GMST 11-year trend distribution is well fitted by a Gaussian function, confirming an unforced origin related to internal climate variability.
The subpolar North Atlantic (SPNA) is subject to strong decadal variability, with implications for surface climate and its predictability. In 2004–2005, SPNA decadal upper ocean and sea-surface temperature trends reversed from warming during 1994–2004 to cooling over 2005–2015. … Over the last two decades, the SPNA has undergone a pronounced climate shift. Decadal OHC and SST trends reversed sign around 2004–2005, with a strong warming seen during 1994–2004 and marked cooling observed over 2005–2015. These trend reversals were pronounced (> 0.1 °C yr−1 in magnitude) in the northeastern North Atlantic (south and west of Iceland) and in the Labrador Sea. … To identify basic processes controlling SPNA thermal variations, we diagnose the SPNA heat budget using ECCOv4. Changes in the heat content of an oceanic control volume can be caused by convergences and divergences of advective, diffusive, and surface heat fluxes within the control volume. [Advective heat convergence] explains 87% of the total [ocean heat content] variance, the former [warming] showing similar decadal behavior to the latter [cooling], increasing over 1994–2004, and decreasing over 2005–2015. … These results demonstrate that the recent SPNA decadal trend reversal was mostly owing to advective convergences by ocean circulation … decadal variability during 1993–2015 is in largest part related to advection by horizontal gyres.
[W]hile the late twentieth century Atlantic was dominated by NAO-driven THC [thermohaline circulation] variability, other mechanisms may dominate in other time periods. … More recently, the SPNA [sub polar North Atlantic] upper ocean has again been cooling, which is also thought to be related to a slowdown in the THC. A continued near-term cooling of the SPNA has been forecast by a number of prediction systems, with implications for pan-Atlantic climate.
The Southern Ocean featured some remarkable changes during the recent decades. For example, large parts of the Southern Ocean, despite rapidly rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, depicted a surface cooling since the 1970s, whereas most of the planet has warmed considerably. In contrast, climate models generally simulate Southern Ocean surface warming when driven with observed historical radiative forcing. The mechanisms behind the surface cooling and other prominent changes in the Southern Ocean sector climate during the recent decades, such as expanding sea ice extent, abyssal warming, and CO2 uptake, are still under debate. Observational coverage is sparse, and records are short but rapidly growing, making the Southern Ocean climate system one of the least explored. It is thus difficult to separate current trends from underlying decadal to centennial scale variability.
Occupying about 14% of the world’s surface, the Southern Ocean plays a fundamental role in ocean and atmosphere circulation, carbon cycling and Antarctic ice-sheet dynamics. … As a result of anomalies in the overlying wind, the surrounding waters are strongly influenced by variations in northward Ekman transport of cold fresh subantarctic surface water and anomalous fluxes of sensible and latent heat at the atmosphere–ocean interface. This has produced a cooling trend since 1979.
The Antarctic sea ice extent has been slowly increasing contrary to expected trends due to global warming and results from coupled climate models. After a record high extent in 2012 the extent was even higher in 2014 when the magnitude exceeded 20 × 106 km2 for the first time during the satellite era. … [T]he trend in sea ice cover is strongly influenced by the trend in surface temperature [cooling]. … A case study comparing the record high in 2014 with a relatively low ice extent in 2015 also shows strong sensitivity to changes in surface temperature. The results suggest that the positive trend is a consequence of the spatial variability of global trends in surface temperature and that the ability of current climate models to forecast sea ice trend can be improved through better performance in reproducing observed surface temperatures in the Antarctic region.
Recent hiatus caused by varying heat sink and the salinity anomalies in the North Atlantic
In the Southern Ocean, the increasing trend of the total OHC slowed down and started to decrease from 1980, and it started to increase again after 1995. In the warming context over the whole period [1970-2009], the Pacific was losing heat, especially in the deep water below 1000 m and in the upper layer above 300 m, excluding the surface 20 m layer in which the OHC kept increasing through the time.
https://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/tc-2017-61/tc-2017-61.pdf
Ice rises are a useful resource to investigate evolution and past climate of the DML coastal region. We investigate Blåskimen Island ice rise, one of the larger isle-type ice rises at the calving front of the intersection of Fimbul and Jelbart Ice Shelves, using geophysical methods. … Using the Input-Output method for a range of parameters and column setups, we conclude that Blåskimen Island has been thickening over the past nine years [2005-2014]. Thickening rates cannot be determined precisely, but ensemble results show that thickening rate averaged over the ice rise varies between 0.07 m a−1 and 0.35 m a−1 [per year]. On longer timescales, we speculate that the summit of Blåskimen Island has been stable within several kilometers at least in the past ∼600 years but no longer than several millennia.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379116306679
Rather than reflecting major changes in ice flow path over time, the provenance changes are interpreted to indicate relative stability of the East Antarctic ice sheet.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/stor...g1&s=8ba3dc5efce30d2171e98683807ada43d6048da1
We investigate the mass balance of East Antarctica for 2003–2013 using a Bayesian statistical framework. … We apportion mass trends to SMB and ice dynamics for the EAIS, based on two different assumptions, different remote sensing data and two RCMs. In the first experiment, the model apportions about a third of the mass trend to ice dynamics, +17 Gt/yr, and two thirds, +40 Gt yr−1 to SMB, resulting in a total mass trend for the EAIS [East Antarctic Ice Sheet] of +57 ± 20 Gt yr−1.
https://www.the-cryosphere.net/11/531/2017/tc-11-531-2017.pdf
Previous geodetic estimates of mass changes in the Karakoram revealed balanced budgets or a possible slight mass gain since ∼ 2000. Indications of longer-term stability exist but only very few mass budget analyses are available before 2000. Here, based on 1973 Hexagon KH-9, ∼ 2009 ASTER and the SRTM DTM, we show that glaciers in the Hunza River basin (central Karakoram) were on average in balance or showed slight insignificant mass loss within the period ∼ 1973–2009.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15875
Statistical regression models show that a significant part of northern climate variability thus can be skillfully predicted up to a decade in advance based on the state of the ocean. Particularly, we predict that Norwegian air temperature will decrease over the coming years, although staying above the long-term (1981–2010) average. Winter Arctic sea ice extent will remain low but with a general increase towards 2020.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL073486/abstract
We suggest the Lambert-Amery glacial system will remain stable, or gain ice mass and mitigate a portion of potential future sea level rise over the next 500 years, with a range of +3.6 to -117.5 mm GMSL-equivalent.
So what? Your point is meaningless, unless you quantify it. The "extra particulate from man" (gibberish) is not enough to cause warming? Says who?Planet has warmed and cooled for eons
Mother Nature injects far more suspended particulate than mankind: roughly equivalent to 5 seats in a 40,000 seat stadium is mans contribution. 98% of the planet is water, forests, deserts, non inhabited mountains and other open spaces.
The only question is what are those 5 seats doing? 5 seats of beach sand-nothing
5 seats of anthrax-problem
So what? Your point is meaningless, unless you quantify it. The "extra particulate from man" (gibberish) is not enough to cause warming? Says who?Planet has warmed and cooled for eons
Mother Nature injects far more suspended particulate than mankind: roughly equivalent to 5 seats in a 40,000 seat stadium is mans contribution. 98% of the planet is water, forests, deserts, non inhabited mountains and other open spaces.
The only question is what are those 5 seats doing? 5 seats of beach sand-nothing
5 seats of anthrax-problem
Try understanding the situation before commenting on it. The "dusts" thrown into t the air by mankind is dwarfed by what Mother Nature injectsSo what? Your point is meaningless, unless you quantify it. The "extra particulate from man" (gibberish) is not enough to cause warming? Says who?Planet has warmed and cooled for eons
Mother Nature injects far more suspended particulate than mankind: roughly equivalent to 5 seats in a 40,000 seat stadium is mans contribution. 98% of the planet is water, forests, deserts, non inhabited mountains and other open spaces.
The only question is what are those 5 seats doing? 5 seats of beach sand-nothing
5 seats of anthrax-problem
I fail to acknowledge them because this topic is climate, not weather. Also becaise I am a rational adult not prone to believing hilarious nonsense. Thanks for asking!So what? Your point is meaningless, unless you quantify it. The "extra particulate from man" (gibberish) is not enough to cause warming? Says who?Planet has warmed and cooled for eons
Mother Nature injects far more suspended particulate than mankind: roughly equivalent to 5 seats in a 40,000 seat stadium is mans contribution. 98% of the planet is water, forests, deserts, non inhabited mountains and other open spaces.
The only question is what are those 5 seats doing? 5 seats of beach sand-nothing
5 seats of anthrax-problem
Why do you refuse to acknowledge geo-engineering and weather modification programs?
Hey Scoffers! Look Who OPENLY Admits to Controlling the Weather!
You have made no point. You have not managed to argue that the extra carbon being added to the cclimatic carbon cycle is not enough to cause rapid warming.Try understanding the situation before commenting on it. The "dusts" thrown into t the air by mankind is dwarfed by what Mother Nature injectsSo what? Your point is meaningless, unless you quantify it. The "extra particulate from man" (gibberish) is not enough to cause warming? Says who?Planet has warmed and cooled for eons
Mother Nature injects far more suspended particulate than mankind: roughly equivalent to 5 seats in a 40,000 seat stadium is mans contribution. 98% of the planet is water, forests, deserts, non inhabited mountains and other open spaces.
The only question is what are those 5 seats doing? 5 seats of beach sand-nothing
5 seats of anthrax-problem
I fail to acknowledge them because this topic is climate, not weather. Also becaise I am a rational adult not prone to believing hilarious nonsense. Thanks for asking!So what? Your point is meaningless, unless you quantify it. The "extra particulate from man" (gibberish) is not enough to cause warming? Says who?Planet has warmed and cooled for eons
Mother Nature injects far more suspended particulate than mankind: roughly equivalent to 5 seats in a 40,000 seat stadium is mans contribution. 98% of the planet is water, forests, deserts, non inhabited mountains and other open spaces.
The only question is what are those 5 seats doing? 5 seats of beach sand-nothing
5 seats of anthrax-problem
Why do you refuse to acknowledge geo-engineering and weather modification programs?
Hey Scoffers! Look Who OPENLY Admits to Controlling the Weather!
Correct, I ignored the goofy, tinfoil hat video. Mea culpa.I fail to acknowledge them because this topic is climate, not weather. Also becaise I am a rational adult not prone to believing hilarious nonsense. Thanks for asking!So what? Your point is meaningless, unless you quantify it. The "extra particulate from man" (gibberish) is not enough to cause warming? Says who?Planet has warmed and cooled for eons
Mother Nature injects far more suspended particulate than mankind: roughly equivalent to 5 seats in a 40,000 seat stadium is mans contribution. 98% of the planet is water, forests, deserts, non inhabited mountains and other open spaces.
The only question is what are those 5 seats doing? 5 seats of beach sand-nothing
5 seats of anthrax-problem
Why do you refuse to acknowledge geo-engineering and weather modification programs?
Hey Scoffers! Look Who OPENLY Admits to Controlling the Weather!
So you obvious didn't watch the video that produces government documents and the history of weather modification.
You are not rational because you belong to this "Global Warming...oops "Climate Change" U.N agenda cult where the IPCC (that works at the leisure of the U.N) produces data (by hook or crook) that claims that man is the enemy of nature.
Allow me to sum it all up, you are woefully uninformed with no knowledge of the history of this false flag "panic " agenda that was thought up by a think tank group in 1967. Your arguments are weak and you lack basic education while spewing U.N talking points. You have never bothered to address one point that I have so saliently made....and why is that? Because you only regurgitate shit that the fabian socialist leftists throw out there and that is a FACT.
