Warmists Hung Out To Dry

[Mousterian]

It absolutely astonishes me that so many are skeptical about GW, and anthro GW in particular.
You people are betraying your children and grandchildren, who will be dealing with a crisis thrust upon them by your inaction.
Wake up! they will hate our guts anyhow, we've already inflicted so much damage.
Do you really want to see a return to the Stone Age?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I love watching the two of you duke it out!!!

So you don't see the difference in taking a paycheck to do impartial research, and taking a paycheck to be a dishonest shill?

Oh, you do. You're just pretending you don't.

There is no "impartial research" that supports global warming.

Wise up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Right after the year 2000,

Repeating Goddard's fraud now?

Come on. Even Goebbels would tell you to tone it down. You have to put some limits on the big lie technique.

Call the movement by its right name: Global Governance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ah yes, the same Richard Lindzen that took money from the tobacco industry to testify before Congress that it was harmless. That Richard Lindzen. A whore.

Every single 'warmist' takes money to make their claims.
What do you suppose Liberal monasteries...Universities....pay them for, you dunce!

They pay them to study the discipline that is their specialty. And the honesty of those in academic research in the sciences far, far exceeds the honesty that you have displayed. When a glaciologist states that he has tracked several different glaciers, using photos and observations from the past and present data for the last 30 years, it is very easy to check his data. So, if his claims are fraudulent, he will lose his job, especially if he has published those claims. But when you have frauds like Monkton, Watts, and other liars making claims, and they are proven false, assholes like you give them a pass. Accountability is the difference between mealy mouthed liars like you and real scientists.

Dr. James Hansen made this prediction in 1981. Pretty well put his reputation on line making it. And was called an alarmist for making this predicition.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

That link is to the whole article. As an alarmist, Dr. Hansen failed miserably. He thought we would see that opening of the Northwest Passage toward the end of this century. It first opened in 2007, and last year, a huge cruise ship transited it.

Only one as dumb as a brick....you....doesn't realize the truth after East Anglia.


Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [Mike Hulme] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007:

“…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence.

If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science.

¬ So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.


Gads, you're a fool.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It absolutely astonishes me that so many are skeptical about GW, and anthro GW in particular.
You people are betraying your children and grandchildren, who will be dealing with a crisis thrust upon them by your inaction.
Wake up! they will hate our guts anyhow, we've already inflicted so much damage.
Do you really want to see a return to the Stone Age?

"It absolutely astonishes me that so many are skeptical about GW, and anthro GW in particular."

Probably because you're as dumb as asphalt.

 

[Old Rocks]

No. We only demand that they take a vow of honesty.

So you're condemning the denier fraudsters as well? Excellent! Glad to have you on the rational and honest team.

The only frauds I've seen are those who use statistics to manipulate the figures by ignoring important factors to the overall model they are attempting to create. BTW that would be the global warming alarmists.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Another dumbass on board. LOL The absorption spectra of CO2 says it is a GHG. Same for that of CH4. We have increased CO2 by over 40% in our atmosphere, and CH4 by at least 250%. Simple physics says that the atmosphere will warm.

Stastitics? Look, asshole, the decline of the sea ice, ice caps, and alpine glaciers is not 'statistics', is is observed fact.

 

[Old Rocks]

The only cult ignoring looking at outside sources are the global warming alarmists. That or the civilization on Mars is suffering from to much CO2 being pumped into their atmosphere causing their ice caps to shrink also. Oh wait!!!!! There isn't a civilization on Mars is there... Maybe it's because the solar radiation increased and now it's decreasing and that's why a prominent Russian institution is saying we're now in a period of global cooling. Contrary to what you cultist wish to promote.

Mars isn't warming. I guess that's another thing that your cult failed to inform you about.

Not to worry. I'm sure by now you must be very used to reality shooting you down.

So is there any cult myth that you haven't fallen for? Even one?

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

More 'unsettled science' -- I suppose...

Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting
Climate Myth...
Mars is warming
"Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever. Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming: Martian warming. It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto.

NASA says the Martian South Pole’s “ice cap” has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter’s caught the same cold, because it’s warming up too, like Pluto." (Fred Thompson).


It is hard to understand how anyone could claim global warming is happening on Mars when we can’t even agree what’s happening on the planet we live on. Yet they do, and the alleged reasoning is this; if other planets are warming up, then there is some solar system-wide phenomena at work – and therefore that it isn’t human activity causing climate change here on Earth.

The broadest counter argument depends on a simple premise: we know so little about Mars that it's impossible to say what trends in climate the planet is experiencing, or why changes occur. We do have information from various orbiting missions and the few lander explorations to date, yet even this small amount of data has been misunderstood, in terms of causal complexity and significance.

There are a few basic points about the climate on Mars that are worth reviewing:

• Planets do not orbit the sun in perfect circles, sometimes they are slightly closer to the sun, sometimes further away. This is called orbital eccentricity and it contributes far greater changes to Martian climate than to that of the Earth because variations in Mars' orbit are five times greater than the Earth.
• Mars has no oceans and only a very thin atmosphere, which means there is very little thermal inertia – the climate is much more susceptible to change caused by external influences.
• The whole planet is subject to massive dust storms, and these have many causal effects on the planet’s climate, very little of which we understand yet.
• We have virtually no historical data about the climate of Mars prior to the 1970s, except for drawings (and latterly, photographs) that reveal changes in gross surface features (i.e. features that can be seen from Earth through telescopes). It is not possible to tell if current observations reveal frequent or infrequent events, trends or outliers.

And the TSI is not increasing, it is decreasing. That has been posted here many times, the charts from the solar observing satellites. That you would post a 'scientist' that says it is increasing is evidence that you are out of touch with reality.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah yes, the same Richard Lindzen that took money from the tobacco industry to testify before Congress that it was harmless. That Richard Lindzen. A whore.

Every single 'warmist' takes money to make their claims.
What do you suppose Liberal monasteries...Universities....pay them for, you dunce!

They pay them to study the discipline that is their specialty. And the honesty of those in academic research in the sciences far, far exceeds the honesty that you have displayed. When a glaciologist states that he has tracked several different glaciers, using photos and observations from the past and present data for the last 30 years, it is very easy to check his data. So, if his claims are fraudulent, he will lose his job, especially if he has published those claims. But when you have frauds like Monkton, Watts, and other liars making claims, and they are proven false, assholes like you give them a pass. Accountability is the difference between mealy mouthed liars like you and real scientists.

Dr. James Hansen made this prediction in 1981. Pretty well put his reputation on line making it. And was called an alarmist for making this predicition.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

That link is to the whole article. As an alarmist, Dr. Hansen failed miserably. He thought we would see that opening of the Northwest Passage toward the end of this century. It first opened in 2007, and last year, a huge cruise ship transited it.

Only one as dumb as a brick....you....doesn't realize the truth after East Anglia.


Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [Mike Hulme] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007:

“…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence.

If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science.

¬ So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.


Gads, you're a fool.

Social limits of seeking scientific truth? So, PC, you are a admirer of Lysenkoism. Not surprising since you are a proponent of 'Alternative Facts', otherwise known as lies pulled from one's ass. And they truly smell that way, and the smell clings to the person presenting them.

 

[Old Rocks]

You're right. For the last ten years it's been getting increasingly cooler just like the earth has because the solar radiation has been decreasing.

As the earth has been getting steadily warmer, what are you babbling about?

But then your global warmist cult doesn't take solar radiation as a factor for figuring the stats

How is solar radiation a factor in reading a thermometer, and seeing that thermometer read hotter? You're not making any sense.

which is why they have to manipulate the figures to prove their fake news.

Oh, you're a Trump-snowflake. The "fake news" thing gave it away. Why didn't you say so? I would have dumbed things down a lot more for you. Because I care, that's why.

Sound familiar or do you need a refresher course on how polls are 'so correct' when listening to the progressive news channel? Yep! The progressive would never drop a figure to rig anything to suit their agenda.

When you go off on poltical raves like that, you reveal that you're obviously a political cultist. The science isn't political, which is why those of us who know the science don't rave about politics. The science won't change just because the facts are inconvenient to your political cult.

It's the progressives that have made science into a political agenda. That's why it took a non-scientific bureaucrat to receive a Nobel Prize for your 'settled science' that doesn't take all factors into consideration. If the science is so 'settled' he and those who support the agenda sure do set a fine example of cutting back on their CO2 emissions to convince everyone to follow suit. Oh wait!!!!! This is one of those 'Do as I say don't do as I do' things isn't it?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Ah yes. Those damned scientists. They think just because they invented doppler radar that every time it indicates a tornado headed for your house you should retreat to your shelter. By God, you show them thar pointed headed liberal scientists what jerks they are, just go out on the veranda and watch that storm.

The scientists are seeing some big troubles in the future. And we are already seeing the effects in increased extreme weather events. But you would silence them. But you cannot silence the scientists in the other nations that also are tracking these changes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ah yes, the same Richard Lindzen that took money from the tobacco industry to testify before Congress that it was harmless. That Richard Lindzen. A whore.

Every single 'warmist' takes money to make their claims.
What do you suppose Liberal monasteries...Universities....pay them for, you dunce!

They pay them to study the discipline that is their specialty. And the honesty of those in academic research in the sciences far, far exceeds the honesty that you have displayed. When a glaciologist states that he has tracked several different glaciers, using photos and observations from the past and present data for the last 30 years, it is very easy to check his data. So, if his claims are fraudulent, he will lose his job, especially if he has published those claims. But when you have frauds like Monkton, Watts, and other liars making claims, and they are proven false, assholes like you give them a pass. Accountability is the difference between mealy mouthed liars like you and real scientists.

Dr. James Hansen made this prediction in 1981. Pretty well put his reputation on line making it. And was called an alarmist for making this predicition.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

That link is to the whole article. As an alarmist, Dr. Hansen failed miserably. He thought we would see that opening of the Northwest Passage toward the end of this century. It first opened in 2007, and last year, a huge cruise ship transited it.

Only one as dumb as a brick....you....doesn't realize the truth after East Anglia.


Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [Mike Hulme] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007:

“…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence.

If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science.

¬ So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.


Gads, you're a fool.

Social limits of seeking scientific truth? So, PC, you are a admirer of Lysenkoism. Not surprising since you are a proponent of 'Alternative Facts', otherwise known as lies pulled from one's ass. And they truly smell that way, and the smell clings to the person presenting them.

As soon as a fool like you sinks to 2nd grade vulgarity, I see that I've skewered you.

Excellent.

 

[flacaltenn]

The only cult ignoring looking at outside sources are the global warming alarmists. That or the civilization on Mars is suffering from to much CO2 being pumped into their atmosphere causing their ice caps to shrink also. Oh wait!!!!! There isn't a civilization on Mars is there... Maybe it's because the solar radiation increased and now it's decreasing and that's why a prominent Russian institution is saying we're now in a period of global cooling. Contrary to what you cultist wish to promote.

Mars isn't warming. I guess that's another thing that your cult failed to inform you about.

Not to worry. I'm sure by now you must be very used to reality shooting you down.

So is there any cult myth that you haven't fallen for? Even one?

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

More 'unsettled science' -- I suppose...

Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting
Climate Myth...
Mars is warming
"Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever. Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming: Martian warming. It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto.

NASA says the Martian South Pole’s “ice cap” has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter’s caught the same cold, because it’s warming up too, like Pluto." (Fred Thompson).


It is hard to understand how anyone could claim global warming is happening on Mars when we can’t even agree what’s happening on the planet we live on. Yet they do, and the alleged reasoning is this; if other planets are warming up, then there is some solar system-wide phenomena at work – and therefore that it isn’t human activity causing climate change here on Earth.

The broadest counter argument depends on a simple premise: we know so little about Mars that it's impossible to say what trends in climate the planet is experiencing, or why changes occur. We do have information from various orbiting missions and the few lander explorations to date, yet even this small amount of data has been misunderstood, in terms of causal complexity and significance.

There are a few basic points about the climate on Mars that are worth reviewing:

• Planets do not orbit the sun in perfect circles, sometimes they are slightly closer to the sun, sometimes further away. This is called orbital eccentricity and it contributes far greater changes to Martian climate than to that of the Earth because variations in Mars' orbit are five times greater than the Earth.
• Mars has no oceans and only a very thin atmosphere, which means there is very little thermal inertia – the climate is much more susceptible to change caused by external influences.
• The whole planet is subject to massive dust storms, and these have many causal effects on the planet’s climate, very little of which we understand yet.
• We have virtually no historical data about the climate of Mars prior to the 1970s, except for drawings (and latterly, photographs) that reveal changes in gross surface features (i.e. features that can be seen from Earth through telescopes). It is not possible to tell if current observations reveal frequent or infrequent events, trends or outliers.

And the TSI is not increasing, it is decreasing. That has been posted here many times, the charts from the solar observing satellites. That you would post a 'scientist' that says it is increasing is evidence that you are out of touch with reality.

Yeah. When you have to resort to SkepShitScience for talking points, I'm not interested. It's juvenile. Cook and Nutticelli are fanatical cartoonists, not scientists. Find some adults to coach you...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ah yes, telling mealy mouthed lies is your specialty. And pretending to be oh so well educated when you demonstrate your total ignorance on science every time you post. You are an advocate of Lysenkoism. A Stalinist to the core. LOL

Well, spanking you seems to have corrected the vulgarity.
Better.

Now....learn that the global governance scheme is not science....it is politics.

That's the reason it is pushed by Leftists like Obama, and Stalin's United Socialist Nations, the UN.

 

[mamooth]

Yeah. When you have to resort to SkepShitScience for talking points, I'm not interested. It's juvenile. Cook and Nutticelli are fanatical cartoonists, not scientists. Find some adults to coach you...

Do you really think the sun has gotten hotter just because you deny one source out of many, many sources that points out how it's gotten colder?

Who knows. Maybe you actually do think that you can change reality simply by wishing very hard.

 

[elektra]

There are, occasionally, some mitigating effects happening among the flood of disasters wrought by GW.
Uncharacteristic storms in Ca have gone some way to replacing the snow-melt water that's gone missing.

The drought still rages, and this top-up will prolong the agony as farmers continue to flog the dead horse of Ca agriculture.
From NASA: Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Storms filled 37 percent of CA snow-water deficit

"the dead horse of Ca. agriculture"

This is great example of somebody who believes everything they hear without actually checking to see if it is true.

California Agriculture has been setting record years. The Grape harvest is one example. Of the last 6 years of drought, any one of those years is a record Grape harvest when compared to any of the years prior to the drought, how is that?

Record Grape production and yet, people think agriculture died in california because the government has dictated there is a drought.

California Strawberries are hitting the grocery stores now, how is that, during a drought?

Almonds and Pistachios, Lettuce, Artichokes, all fine? How come, if there is a drought?

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are, occasionally, some mitigating effects happening among the flood of disasters wrought by GW.
Uncharacteristic storms in Ca have gone some way to replacing the snow-melt water that's gone missing.

The drought still rages, and this top-up will prolong the agony as farmers continue to flog the dead horse of Ca agriculture.
From NASA: Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Storms filled 37 percent of CA snow-water deficit

"the dead horse of Ca. agriculture"

This is great example of somebody who believes everything they hear without actually checking to see if it is true.

California Agriculture has been setting record years. The Grape harvest is one example. Of the last 6 years of drought, any one of those years is a record Grape harvest when compared to any of the years prior to the drought, how is that?

Record Grape production and yet, people think agriculture died in california because the government has dictated there is a drought.

California Strawberries are hitting the grocery stores now, how is that, during a drought?

Almonds and Pistachios, Lettuce, Artichokes, all fine? How come, if there is a drought?

"...somebody who believes everything they hear without actually checking to see if it is true."

I like the way you put that!

Seems to be the way government schooling turns 'em out.


Machiavelli put it this way:
'How happy the man is, as anyone can see,who is born stupid and believes everything."
Machiavelli, "Mandragola," (after the second act)

 

[Damaged Eagle]

No. We only demand that they take a vow of honesty.

So you're condemning the denier fraudsters as well? Excellent! Glad to have you on the rational and honest team.

The only frauds I've seen are those who use statistics to manipulate the figures by ignoring important factors to the overall model they are attempting to create. BTW that would be the global warming alarmists.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Another dumbass on board. LOL The absorption spectra of CO2 says it is a GHG. Same for that of CH4. We have increased CO2 by over 40% in our atmosphere, and CH4 by at least 250%. Simple physics says that the atmosphere will warm.

Stastitics? Look, asshole, the decline of the sea ice, ice caps, and alpine glaciers is not 'statistics', is is observed fact.

Yeah maybe if our atmosphere was as thick as Venus's the CO2 might have that sort of effect. On Terra the prime mover for heat retention is our oceans. Here's a simple physics question for you...

Which retains heat better water or air?

ANSWER: Water. That's why boilers are filled with water instead of air. Heat up a tank with water and it'll retain the heat for hours while that same tank filled with air will cool off in a hour or so.

Clue for you there's lot's of water on Terra and that's the prime mover of our climate dependent on the solar input. Funny how the global warming experts feel neither of these two factors play a significant role when attempting to convince the public to their cause.

Now take you CO2 and CH4 atmospheric content and shove it up you global warming hole.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah. When you have to resort to SkepShitScience for talking points, I'm not interested. It's juvenile. Cook and Nutticelli are fanatical cartoonists, not scientists. Find some adults to coach you...

Do you really think the sun has gotten hotter just because you deny one source out of many, many sources that points out how it's gotten colder?

Who knows. Maybe you actually do think that you can change reality simply by wishing very hard.

Actually -- the sun HAS gotten "hotter" since the 1700s. Only the IPCC can ignore that fact by creating new definitions of Solar Forcing that ignore Total Solar Irradiance measurements.

Using sun spots as "proxies" instead of more direct measurements and proxies. Same way NASA uses uses 10,000 thermometers instead of their satellite fleet to record "new record temperatures" every month, day, year..

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The only cult ignoring looking at outside sources are the global warming alarmists. That or the civilization on Mars is suffering from to much CO2 being pumped into their atmosphere causing their ice caps to shrink also. Oh wait!!!!! There isn't a civilization on Mars is there... Maybe it's because the solar radiation increased and now it's decreasing and that's why a prominent Russian institution is saying we're now in a period of global cooling. Contrary to what you cultist wish to promote.

Mars isn't warming. I guess that's another thing that your cult failed to inform you about.

Not to worry. I'm sure by now you must be very used to reality shooting you down.

So is there any cult myth that you haven't fallen for? Even one?

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

More 'unsettled science' -- I suppose...

Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting
Climate Myth...
Mars is warming
"Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever. Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming: Martian warming. It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto.

NASA says the Martian South Pole’s “ice cap” has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter’s caught the same cold, because it’s warming up too, like Pluto." (Fred Thompson).


It is hard to understand how anyone could claim global warming is happening on Mars when we can’t even agree what’s happening on the planet we live on. Yet they do, and the alleged reasoning is this; if other planets are warming up, then there is some solar system-wide phenomena at work – and therefore that it isn’t human activity causing climate change here on Earth.

The broadest counter argument depends on a simple premise: we know so little about Mars that it's impossible to say what trends in climate the planet is experiencing, or why changes occur. We do have information from various orbiting missions and the few lander explorations to date, yet even this small amount of data has been misunderstood, in terms of causal complexity and significance.

There are a few basic points about the climate on Mars that are worth reviewing:

• Planets do not orbit the sun in perfect circles, sometimes they are slightly closer to the sun, sometimes further away. This is called orbital eccentricity and it contributes far greater changes to Martian climate than to that of the Earth because variations in Mars' orbit are five times greater than the Earth.
• Mars has no oceans and only a very thin atmosphere, which means there is very little thermal inertia – the climate is much more susceptible to change caused by external influences.
  
• The whole planet is subject to massive dust storms, and these have many causal effects on the planet’s climate, very little of which we understand yet.
• We have virtually no historical data about the climate of Mars prior to the 1970s, except for drawings (and latterly, photographs) that reveal changes in gross surface features (i.e. features that can be seen from Earth through telescopes). It is not possible to tell if current observations reveal frequent or infrequent events, trends or outliers.

And the TSI is not increasing, it is decreasing. That has been posted here many times, the charts from the solar observing satellites. That you would post a 'scientist' that says it is increasing is evidence that you are out of touch with reality.

Gee!!!!! Funny how suddenly that lack of oceans and very thin atmosphere play a significant factor in why Mars is experiencing climate change. Then you also call upon orbital eccentricity as a 'far greater changes' to Martian climate than possibly say... Increased solar radiation input from the sun.

Clue for you. The sun rings like a bell and at the time that those caps on Mars melted we were in a period of significant solar activity.

Question for you...

How long is it going to take Terra's oceans to dissipate all that heat it's built up over the years?

Another question for you...

If we're expected to be in a extended period of solar inactivity, as a prominent Russian institute suggests, how cold is it going to get when Terra's oceans dissipate that heat?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

You're right. For the last ten years it's been getting increasingly cooler just like the earth has because the solar radiation has been decreasing.

As the earth has been getting steadily warmer, what are you babbling about?

But then your global warmist cult doesn't take solar radiation as a factor for figuring the stats

How is solar radiation a factor in reading a thermometer, and seeing that thermometer read hotter? You're not making any sense.

which is why they have to manipulate the figures to prove their fake news.

Oh, you're a Trump-snowflake. The "fake news" thing gave it away. Why didn't you say so? I would have dumbed things down a lot more for you. Because I care, that's why.

Sound familiar or do you need a refresher course on how polls are 'so correct' when listening to the progressive news channel? Yep! The progressive would never drop a figure to rig anything to suit their agenda.

When you go off on poltical raves like that, you reveal that you're obviously a political cultist. The science isn't political, which is why those of us who know the science don't rave about politics. The science won't change just because the facts are inconvenient to your political cult.

It's the progressives that have made science into a political agenda. That's why it took a non-scientific bureaucrat to receive a Nobel Prize for your 'settled science' that doesn't take all factors into consideration. If the science is so 'settled' he and those who support the agenda sure do set a fine example of cutting back on their CO2 emissions to convince everyone to follow suit. Oh wait!!!!! This is one of those 'Do as I say don't do as I do' things isn't it?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Ah yes. Those damned scientists. They think just because they invented doppler radar that every time it indicates a tornado headed for your house you should retreat to your shelter. By God, you show them thar pointed headed liberal scientists what jerks they are, just go out on the veranda and watch that storm.

The scientists are seeing some big troubles in the future. And we are already seeing the effects in increased extreme weather events. But you would silence them. But you cannot silence the scientists in the other nations that also are tracking these changes.

So when's your grand 'scientist who's not a scientist' Al Gore going to lead by example?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[ScienceRocks]

Science hung out to dry! These bastards want their own iran so it doesn't surprise me!