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.
Science isn't a popularity contest.excalibur
Yeah. Such "junk science" that about 98% of scientists from different fields of science say that global warming is a reality.
I am no expert, but it is my opinion you are wrong about that.
{...
An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Earth's climate alternates between ice ages and greenhouse periods, during which there are no glaciers on the planet. Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation.[1] Individual pulses of cold climate within an ice age are termed glacial periods (or, alternatively, glacials, glaciations, glacial stages, stadials, stades, or colloquially, ice ages), and intermittent warm periods within an ice age are called interglacials or interstadials.[2]
In glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.[3] By this definition, Earth is currently in an interglacial period—the Holocene. The amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere is predicted to prevent the next glacial period for the next 500,000 years, which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles after.[4][5][6]
...}
Ice age - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
From YOUR link you didn't read:
"Individual pulses of cold climate within an ice age are termed glacial periods (or, alternatively, glacials, glaciations, glacial stages, stadials, stades, or colloquially, ice ages), and intermittent warm periods within an ice age are called interglacials or interstadials.[2]"
You are wrong since we are CURRENTLY in an Ice Age that are divided by long GLACIATION periods with short periods of Interglacial time which we are near the end of.
Wrong.
What I linked and copied is the traditional climate swing that has been going on for over a million years.
At least 12 cold and warm cycles.
They have always been long cooling but with short warming.
That is because the cooling comes from the ubiquitous plants being continually successful and absorbing CO2, while the warming comes from their sudden frosty death and decay back to CO2.
That is what had been happening up until about 1800.
We were at the end of the normal warming, and it was supposed to start cooling, as plant growth used up too much CO2, allowing too much heat to escape into space.
But since 1800, the industrial revolution has artificially replaced the CO2 used up by plants, and initiated a whole new, additional warming cycle on top of the existing normal hot part of the natural cycle.
The current warming is NOT from decaying plants giving up their CO2.
It is from artificially dug up carbon that had been sequestered under ground, over hundreds of millions of years.
We are totally screwing up the normal cycle, with something that has never happened, ever before.
The result of which likely will be much hotter temperatures than the world has ever seen.
Plants usually have a death cycle every 60 thousand years from it getting too cold.
But the NEXT massive plant die off will be from it being too HOT instead of too COLD, so it will add positive feed back.
Instead of swing the cycle back and forth, the next plant death cycle from current global warming will produce POSITIVE FEEDBACK, that will start a race condition, making the planet much hotter than it has ever been.
Making life on the planet impossible, most likely.
Science isn't a popularity contest.
Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. We hope that the analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is ongoing.
ShieldSquare Captcha
Your link doesn't agree with you:
"Individual pulses of cold climate within an ice age are termed glacial periods (or, alternatively, glacials, glaciations, glacial stages, stadials, stades, or colloquially, ice ages), and intermittent warm periods within an ice age are called interglacials or interstadials.[2]"
The current Ice age we live in is nearly 3 million years long interspersed with long periods of Glaciation and short periods of Interglacial phases.
We are living in an Ice House phase of Earths Climate
View attachment 611977
LINK
Now I am wondering how many beers you drank this morning.
We're in an interglacial cyle. That's what happens during interglacials. And scientists have disagreed that man is causing the planet to warm.There really isn't anyone arguing against global warming reality.
Anyone can easily see it, as the Arctic ice cap that never opened up for at least tens of thousands of years, suddenly has easy summer and winter shipping lanes.
The only people who are skeptical about the need to do something about the global warming, are those who think it will not go into extreme, positive feedback, race condition, because there are natural negative freed back moderators.
Specifically, they think warming will increase atmospheric moisture, which will result in clouds that reflect out more sunlight, increasing the Earth's albedo.
I think the risk is way too high to pin our species survival on, and who wants to live on a planet with perpetual cloud cover? No more astronomy, no more stars in the night sky. No more astral navigation. Possibly perpetual fog, making air travel riskier.
There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.There really isn't anyone arguing against global warming reality.
You are using those terms incorrectly.Wrong.
What I am saying is EXACTLY what your link is saying.
We have had at least 12 icehouse to greenhouse cycles, the last natural one was the end of the greenhouse, and we are supposed to be now entering a icehouse phase.
So I have no idea what you are trying to say.
You are not adding any information.
Everyone knows all about the past 12 known iceage cycles.
Everyone also knows that with cold and warm parts together, the whole cycle is about 110,000 years long.
Everyone also knows that the current artificial additional warming is starting on top of a natural warming, and will then make it about twice as hot as it has been in hundreds of millions of years.
Explain yourself.
You keep saying we all have it wrong and only you have it right, but you have NOT at all said what you think we have wrong?
We're in an interglacial cyle. That's what happens during interglacials. And scientists have disagreed that man is causing the planet to warm.
Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.
Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.
Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha
Wrong.
What I am saying is EXACTLY what your link is saying.
We have had at least 12 icehouse to greenhouse cycles, the last natural one was the end of the greenhouse, and we are supposed to be now entering a icehouse phase.
So I have no idea what you are trying to say.
You are not adding any information.
Everyone knows all about the past 12 known iceage cycles.
Everyone also knows that with cold and warm parts together, the whole cycle is about 110,000 years long.
Everyone also knows that the current artificial additional warming is starting on top of a natural warming, and will then make it about twice as hot as it has been in hundreds of millions of years.
Explain yourself.
You keep saying we all have it wrong and only you have it right, but you have NOT at all said what you think we have wrong?
You must have missed the part where it all depends on which datasets are used, right? The IPCC is blaming the urban heat island effect on CO2 and they are using low variability solar output datasets instead of the high variability solar output datasets.That is wrong because it does not disagree with the fact we are causing global warming artificially.
No one can deny that.
All they are trying to do is claim there is so much constant noise that this current and unique trend may be not that significant.
And the reason that we know that approach is wrong is because we KNOW there are lots of positive feedback mechanism that greatly risk a race condition that could wipe out all life on the whole planet.
They include things like water vapor and methane that is currently frozen in tundra and ocean bottoms.
The natural warming/cooling cycles is over 1000 times slower than the current trend.
The current trend is NOT natural, is warming on top of the highest natural warming, and likely will result in a climate that has not existed in over 100 million years. It is true we may well survive, but we also may not. The whole concept of rolling the dice to find out, is ridiculously stupid. No one should want to risk going back to a climate of the Cambrian era, even if we could survive it. Things like perpetual fog and oceans 240' higher, are not positive things.
Again, the point is we have lots of buried land mines that could go off.
There are a billion years of sequestered carbon in frozen tundra, ocean bottoms, etc., that have NEVER been unfrozen.
If we do succeed in unfreezing them, it is possible the whole planet will never go back.
Yes. For no other reason than we think that science is harmed whenever anyone claims the science is settled. That's like saying pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. It's not good for science.So, checking in...
Have a bunch of uneducated slobs on a message board outsmarted the global scientific community yet?
No?
Ok, will check back later.
There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.
For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).
Again... You must have missed the part where it all depends on which datasets are used, right? The IPCC is attributing the urban heat island effect to CO2 and they are using low variability solar output datasets instead of the high variability solar output datasets.Sorry, but nonsense.
We specifically have satellites in order to measure solar variability, and we are absolutely, 100% positive, that current global warming over the last 100 years is NOT due to solar variability, in any way.
(For extrapolation from before satellites, we can use things like tree rings, ice cores, etc.)
This is not at all difficult.
We are adding over 50 trillion tons of carbon to the atmosphere every single year.
It accumulates because CO2 can not break down unless plants do it, and the plants can't keep up.
So the CO2 has already increased by over 40%.
And when there is more CO2 at the boundary to space, it prevents heat escape from radiating out, because CO2 converts radiant to vibratory heat, that can't leave the planet.
The science is totally incontrovertible.
All that can be argued with whether or not increasing cloud cover will neutralized the increase.
You didn't know the difference between an icehouse planet and a greenhouse planet, you were way off on the number of glacial and interglacial cycles that occurred and you have no underlying knowledge of what drives the planet's climate. All you can do is argue we should blindly accept what we are told. That is decidedly unscientific and ultimately harmful to science.Sorry, but nonsense.
We specifically have satellites in order to measure solar variability, and we are absolutely, 100% positive, that current global warming over the last 100 years is NOT due to solar variability, in any way.
(For extrapolation from before satellites, we can use things like tree rings, ice cores, etc.)
This is not at all difficult.
We are adding over 50 trillion tons of carbon to the atmosphere every single year.
It accumulates because CO2 can not break down unless plants do it, and the plants can't keep up.
So the CO2 has already increased by over 40%.
And when there is more CO2 at the boundary to space, it prevents heat escape from radiating out, because CO2 converts radiant to vibratory heat, that can't leave the planet.
The science is totally incontrovertible.
All that can be argued with whether or not increasing cloud cover will neutralized the increase.
You are using those terms incorrectly.
We transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet ~3 million years ago. Our planet is an icehouse planet now. There have been over 30 glacial and interglacial cycles since the transition to an icehouse began.
View attachment 611988
You must have missed the part where it all depends on which datasets are used, right? The IPCC is blaming the urban heat island effect on CO2 and they are using low variability solar output datasets instead of the high variability solar output datasets.
You didn't know the difference between an icehouse planet and a greenhouse planet, you were way off on the number of glacial and interglacial cycles that occurred and you have no underlying knowledge of what drives the planet's climate. All you can do is argue we should blindly accept what we are told. That is decidedly unscientific and ultimately harmful to science.
