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

[edthecynic]

And by "Raw" buoy data, deniers mean data from buoys known to be defective!

A ClimateGate Denier defines defective as "Data that refuses to validate the Theory EnviroMarxistss are using to take control of the US Economy"

No, defective buoy data is a buoy giving inaccurate depth readings. Defective data is the only data that supports deniers, so they attack any correction of defective data, even when they demand it as with poorly sited temperature stations, as manipulation.

LOL

Your ignorant of how buoys are constructed and how well they are maintained. Funny how you dismiss instrumentation that is set up for ACCURATE measurements and precise depths and then embrace crap...

Do you know how stupid you appear?

Buoys can only give accurate data when they are functioning properly, which is why they are checked regularly. And those checks found that some floats contain an error in their internal software that causes them to associate temperature and salinity with pressure values that tend to be biased shallow, but not uniformly so over the entire profile. This error results in profiles that are spuriously cold, with the bias being largest around the depth of the thermocline. The bias affects approximately 14,000 float profiles (about 6 % of all Argo profiles)

The data from reliable buoys supports the NOAA record.

lol

No... it does not.. Too Funny; why didn't you post that this is a Karl Et Al graph? All I can do is laugh at the Goebbels method of creating an alternate reality..

It is a Zeke Hausfather of Berkeley Earth graph from when he CONFIRMED Karl et al using the archived data Bates said was not archived.

But what would you expect from deniers who create fake graphs when confronted with a REAL graph.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A ClimateGate Denier defines defective as "Data that refuses to validate the Theory EnviroMarxistss are using to take control of the US Economy"

No, defective buoy data is a buoy giving inaccurate depth readings. Defective data is the only data that supports deniers, so they attack any correction of defective data, even when they demand it as with poorly sited temperature stations, as manipulation.

LOL

Your ignorant of how buoys are constructed and how well they are maintained. Funny how you dismiss instrumentation that is set up for ACCURATE measurements and precise depths and then embrace crap...

Do you know how stupid you appear?

Buoys can only give accurate data when they are functioning properly, which is why they are checked regularly. And those checks found that some floats contain an error in their internal software that causes them to associate temperature and salinity with pressure values that tend to be biased shallow, but not uniformly so over the entire profile. This error results in profiles that are spuriously cold, with the bias being largest around the depth of the thermocline. The bias affects approximately 14,000 float profiles (about 6 % of all Argo profiles)

The data from reliable buoys supports the NOAA record.

lol

No... it does not.. Too Funny; why didn't you post that this is a Karl Et Al graph? All I can do is laugh at the Goebbels method of creating an alternate reality..

It is a Zeke Hausfather of Berkeley Earth graph from when he CONFIRMED Karl et al using the archived data Bates said was not archived.

But what would you expect from deniers who create fake graphs when confronted with a REAL graph.

We expect them to start threads with lies in the title, like this one.

 

[edthecynic]

The pause is real and now 20 years 4 months long and possibly a lot longer.

View attachment 149494

Gee the US graph goes from -2 to +1 and that makes the entire GLOBE in a pause.
You know the contiguous US is only 2% of the globe. No wait a minute, you are too STUPID to know that!!!!!

 

[PredFan]

what solar minimum?

And also sure, the solar output is down but where's the cooling? lol. Solar minimum my ass!

Further proof that you only believe the science that you want to.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

what solar minimum?

And also sure, the solar output is down but where's the cooling? lol. Solar minimum my ass!

Further proof that you only believe the science that you want to.

Apparently that goes for the global scientific community, too. Imagine their embarrassment when blog-educated deniers point out their error!

 

[SSDD]

So what? Your point is meaningless, unless you quantify it. The "extra particulate from man" (gibberish) is not enough to cause warming?

And neither you , nor anyone else has ever shown the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming...the supposed smoking gun that would prove that our CO2 was causing warming...the tropospheric hot spot....never showed up...and why? Because CO2 doesn't cause warming in the atmosphere.

 

[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

 

[sakinago]

[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

And this is precisely why they changed the name from global warming to climate change...it's like me saying I can predict the score of any football game plus or minus 100pts. I could say this game will be 0-0 and still be right, or I could say it's gonna be a tragedy blowout of 47-0 and still be right. They can say the climate is changing...and they'll be right, because that's what it does, that's what it always does. They never have been right about their predictions, nor will they ever be right, they don't give a specific timeline, with any degree of certainty, they just spout out headline grabbing click bait, show pictures of ice bergs melting (like they do every single season), and pictures of refineries blowing smoke, videos of wildfires and floods, and say see we told you...

Or take for instance more recent news, over the past 12 years we've seen a shocking unheard of drop in the amount of hurricanes that make landfall, which directly goes against what their models predicted...then we have 2 make landfall in the matter of a month...during hurricane season...No it's apparently not the law of averages, it's apparently climate change. You have to disregard everything else that disagrees with that claim and listen to them, even though they've been wrong for the past 12 years about hurricanes...ridiculous. Florida used to get a hurricane making landfall every other year, and get flooded from a tropical storm at least once a year when I was a kid. Which wasn't that long ago.

 

[healthmyths]

No, defective buoy data is a buoy giving inaccurate depth readings. Defective data is the only data that supports deniers, so they attack any correction of defective data, even when they demand it as with poorly sited temperature stations, as manipulation.

LOL

Your ignorant of how buoys are constructed and how well they are maintained. Funny how you dismiss instrumentation that is set up for ACCURATE measurements and precise depths and then embrace crap...

Do you know how stupid you appear?

Buoys can only give accurate data when they are functioning properly, which is why they are checked regularly. And those checks found that some floats contain an error in their internal software that causes them to associate temperature and salinity with pressure values that tend to be biased shallow, but not uniformly so over the entire profile. This error results in profiles that are spuriously cold, with the bias being largest around the depth of the thermocline. The bias affects approximately 14,000 float profiles (about 6 % of all Argo profiles)

The data from reliable buoys supports the NOAA record.

lol

No... it does not.. Too Funny; why didn't you post that this is a Karl Et Al graph? All I can do is laugh at the Goebbels method of creating an alternate reality..

It is a Zeke Hausfather of Berkeley Earth graph from when he CONFIRMED Karl et al using the archived data Bates said was not archived.

But what would you expect from deniers who create fake graphs when confronted with a REAL graph.

We expect them to start threads with lies in the title, like this one.

CORRECTION and an apology PLEASE!
The thread title clearly states:"Solar Scientists say the grand minimum will cause a mini ice age next few years"!
WHERE in that title that I wrote was there a LIE?
Was it what Solar Scientists said was a LIE? But I didn't write the LIE... I repeated.
You are calling me a LIAR for something that I CLEARLY never said! "Solar Scientists said grand minimum!
Furthermore who the f...k are you to call THEM LIARS?? YOU a gas station attendant that lives in your parents basement and believes everything you
read/hear from the MSM? Who the hell are you to call me and more so respected solar scientists LIARS??? Who are YOU?

 

[edthecynic]

But I didn't write the LIE... I repeated.

A liar is someone who tells a lie. You admit you repeated a lie, therefore you are a liar in the telling, whether you wrote the lie or not.

li·ar
ˈlī(ə)r/
noun

1. a person who tells lies.

 

[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!!!!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So what? Your point is meaningless, unless you quantify it. The "extra particulate from man" (gibberish) is not enough to cause warming?

And neither you , nor anyone else has ever shown the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming...the supposed smoking gun that would prove that our CO2 was causing warming...the tropospheric hot spot....never showed up...and why? Because CO2 doesn't cause warming in the atmosphere.

"And neither you , nor anyone else has ever shown the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming..."

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

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

LOL

Your ignorant of how buoys are constructed and how well they are maintained. Funny how you dismiss instrumentation that is set up for ACCURATE measurements and precise depths and then embrace crap...

Do you know how stupid you appear?

Buoys can only give accurate data when they are functioning properly, which is why they are checked regularly. And those checks found that some floats contain an error in their internal software that causes them to associate temperature and salinity with pressure values that tend to be biased shallow, but not uniformly so over the entire profile. This error results in profiles that are spuriously cold, with the bias being largest around the depth of the thermocline. The bias affects approximately 14,000 float profiles (about 6 % of all Argo profiles)

The data from reliable buoys supports the NOAA record.

lol

No... it does not.. Too Funny; why didn't you post that this is a Karl Et Al graph? All I can do is laugh at the Goebbels method of creating an alternate reality..

It is a Zeke Hausfather of Berkeley Earth graph from when he CONFIRMED Karl et al using the archived data Bates said was not archived.

But what would you expect from deniers who create fake graphs when confronted with a REAL graph.

We expect them to start threads with lies in the title, like this one.

CORRECTION and an apology PLEASE!
The thread title clearly states:"Solar Scientists say the grand minimum will cause a mini ice age next few years"!
WHERE in that title that I wrote was there a LIE?
Was it what Solar Scientists said was a LIE? But I didn't write the LIE... I repeated.
You are calling me a LIAR for something that I CLEARLY never said! "Solar Scientists said grand minimum!
Furthermore who the f...k are you to call THEM LIARS?? YOU a gas station attendant that lives in your parents basement and believes everything you
read/hear from the MSM? Who the hell are you to call me and more so respected solar scientists LIARS??? Who are YOU?

Your thread title is a lie, because it is unqualified. The vast majority of solar scientists say the solar minimum will not be nearly enough to offset global warming. An accurate thread title would have been, "Almost no solar scientists say...". yes, your title is a lie, in that it is the most weaselly of half-truths. That makes you a liar. simple.

 

[SSDD]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So you are an unethical believer and real science denier.. You like politicized and agenda directed lies..

The pause is real and now 20 years 4 months long and possibly a lot longer.

View attachment 149494

The pause is not real, nor does that graph lend a shred of support to what you are saying. you clearly have zero idea what that graph represents.

You Moron...

A Joule is the increment of 1 watt of energy for one second. (watt second) This allows us to calculate the the energy consumed by one square mm of water. 1000 watt seconds (or 100 calories) to warm 1 mm^2 of water by 1 deg C.

The fact that we have cooled a full 2 deg C in the 0-700 meter region of the earth shows we are losing massive amounts of ocean heat over the last 20 years..

You have no clue....

So now the guy at odds with the global scientific community is calling people who agree with them "morons". Adorable. When can we expect to read your 1000s of published research papers? Haha...give me a break. No, throwing tantrums isn't going to get you anywhere.

Appeal to authority devoid of facts... that's all you have? nice!

Right, that's all I have....just mountains of mutually supportive evidence and the consensus of the global scientiifc community. But I should ignore all that and listen to a guy who vomits a stream of lies about this topic and has no education or experience in the field. Seems legit.

Were you sleeping through Climate-gate and the exposure of all your scientific propaganda whores? Political statements made by a select few and the rank and file do not agree with or support. Do you know why the AGU refused to post up their vote count? It decimated the narrative..

There was no "Climate gate". That's a debunked myth. See, that's the problem with engaging irrational deniers like you.... people will take the trouble to show you why the things you say are false and ridiculous, and you just repeat them, anyway. But, of course, it's everyone else's fault you are relegated to the blogosphere and producing zero science. Everyone is lying! Everyone is engaged in a giant conspiracy , and only Americans living within 20 miles of a trailer park have figured it out! heh heh

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.

LOL..

I prepare and deliver forecasts for major agencies and businesses. Your misdirection and out right lies are rather stunning. Your so invested in the lies that you refuse to see the other points, which do not fit your political agenda.

There is a reason major scientific organizations are now strapped for funding as the rank and file members exit, due to the politicization and abandonment of real science. Those political groups you cite as being authorities are dying and it cant happen soon enough.

Enjoy your ignorance..

 

[sakinago]

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?

 

[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?

 

[SSDD]

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?