Global Cooling or Global Warming?

CasualBystander

Celestial
And your source for this alleged warming is from where?
Who exactly are these climate change deniers? Do you mean global warming deniers?
Where is earths thermostat located and what is the correct temperature it should be set at?

The sunspot cycle is a proxy for solar output. When the sunspot cycles started increasing in the 20th century it got warmer.

Since 2007 the solar activity has been reduced.

Up until 2007 most of the warming was solar related.

Now that a cycle has past we are going to see if solar or greenhouse gases have the most influence.

My understand is outgoing long wave (infrared) is increasing. That isn't good and would indicate the planet may be cooling. The greenhouse gas theory says that outgoing long wave should be steadily decreasing.

remotesensing-10-01539-g004-550.jpg


It looks to me like we are losing 1 W/m2.

But will have to find the incoming short wave and reflected short wave charts to determine what is going on.

If memory serves there was an unexplained 0.7 W/m2 imbalance in the early 2000s.
 

pepe

Celestial
There is no getting round the fact that we haven't enough experience to predict or even understand what is happening to the globe on the cyclic level. Another aspect which seems to be effecting a many great sensitive issues is the fact that the progressives are banging on about so many other supposed wrongs being committed that it has a diluting the effect of importance.

Seen quite a few graph offs that are created to fuel the argument one way or the other.

What gets me most on this topic is the fact that here in the UK we are very clean in comparison and have so many still bleating on as if we were one of the worst offenders.
 

CasualBystander

Celestial
There is no getting round the fact that we haven't enough experience to predict or even understand what is happening to the globe on the cyclic level. Another aspect which seems to be effecting a many great sensitive issues is the fact that the progressives are banging on about so many other supposed wrongs being committed that it has a diluting the effect of importance.

Seen quite a few graph offs that are created to fuel the argument one way or the other.

What gets me most on this topic is the fact that here in the UK we are very clean in comparison and have so many still bleating on as if we were one of the worst offenders.
120618_lh_carbon-emissions_graph_inline-1_370.png


China is on track (or already has) to produce more CO2 than the US and Europe combined.

India will eclipse the EU in a couple of years.

At that point the low carbon policies of the US and EU don't make any sense and put them at a competitive disadvantage (as well as giving them lousy power).

Just dumb.

The US and EU should continue burning fossil fuels since it doesn't hurt anything and is responsible for 40% of our food.
 

pepe

Celestial
I get that on the economic level fully casual.

We had one day in a year when the alternative power sources were adequate to power the nation and the money and time spent researching for this result is totally out of proportion.

China and India really don't and won't start caring about the supposed demise of our species due to global warming.

Nobody where I live have backyard fired like we used to but it is totally ok to do so, so I burnt every night, a shed another shed and the garden waste. The complaints I received were by proxy, people shouting out oh he's having another fire is he and I know that some would have checked the law as they would have been sure I was breaking the rules but of course, vocalising was the only route to travel. Quite a few people followed suit after realising they were abiding by a notion implanted by the collective progressive mind set.

Soy boys.
 

CasualBystander

Celestial
I get that on the economic level fully casual.

We had one day in a year when the alternative power sources were adequate to power the nation and the money and time spent researching for this result is totally out of proportion.

China and India really don't and won't start caring about the supposed demise of our species due to global warming.

Nobody where I live have backyard fired like we used to but it is totally ok to do so, so I burnt every night, a shed another shed and the garden waste. The complaints I received were by proxy, people shouting out oh he's having another fire is he and I know that some would have checked the law as they would have been sure I was breaking the rules but of course, vocalising was the only route to travel. Quite a few people followed suit after realising they were abiding by a notion implanted by the collective progressive mind set.

Soy boys.

If you read about some of processing soybean products go through that are in your food... you go "that's not good".

Stuff like soybean isolates.

Soybeans have estrogen-like compounds that mess with women and can't be good for men either, unless you think man-boobs are attractive.

While I encourage people to go vegan (so there is more beef for me), cold day in hell that I will go vegan. They will have to pry the steak out of my cold dead hands.

I eat vegans (cows are vegans).

And vegetables are what food eats.
 

pepe

Celestial
If you read about some of processing soybean products go through that are in your food... you go "that's not good".

Stuff like soybean isolates.

Soybeans have estrogen-like compounds that mess with women and can't be good for men either, unless you think man-boobs are attractive.

While I encourage people to go vegan (so there is more beef for me), cold day in hell that I will go vegan. They will have to pry the steak out of my cold dead hands.

I eat vegans (cows are vegans).

And vegetables are what food eats.

Moobs are a terrible look and there does appear to me to be a very jelly like fatness and a more solid type. This could be the vegan and the carnivorous difference in the jelatinous condition.

I have to get a meat sweat on at least once a week or I don't feel right, i've tried the substitutes and it doesn't suffice.

Lol. I too love medium rare vegan.
 

pepe

Celestial
Well I did read a bit and it effects a man's potency to successfully procreate another soyboy.

Nature always finds a way.
 

CasualBystander

Celestial


This is basically a lie.

If you go to the Denmark Meteorology page for Greenland you find "Oh, it is slightly beyond the past min/max excursions for this date (which don't show the absolute worst and best) and NASA is showing TWICE the melting Denmark is.

You then say "Oh, this is the usual global warming bullshit by US government scientists."

The Climate Cultist then responds, "It isn't like they are PAID to lie about this".

And I respond, "In point of fact, THEY ARE."

Surface Conditions: Polar Portal

I thought it was within the bounds of the "one least than the worst" shading but it may be a little over. But the melting is decreasing.

And it is almost exactly the middle of the summer from an Arctic perspective (another lie the announcer tells), since we are two days from the solstice.

The current temperature at the center of the Greenland Ice Sheet is -19.4°C. Not going to be melting a lot of ice.

Further there was some snow fall on the western side (the albedo increased). In fact the western side of the Greenland Ice Sheet (except for the edge) had no melting or had accumulation yesterday.
 
Last edited:

nivek

As Above So Below
 

CasualBystander

Celestial
July is a hotter month.

It is going to be 94 F in Paris Saturday, and 76 F in Paris July 2.

Villevieille, Gard, France is going to be in the 80s and 90s next week, with todays 106 F being the high of the heat wave.

Given the wind is about 11 miles an hour and Villevieille is 360 miles south of Paris that explains why Paris temperatures will peak tomorrow.
 
Last edited:

nivek

As Above So Below
CO2 is not to blame, the long night approaches, Winter is coming...

“Goodbye Anthropogenic Global Warming” — Dr. Roger Higgs

“The Earth is now cooling,” says geologist Dr. Roger Higgs.

“Man-made-global-warming believers will by 2021 have to admit they were wrong and that CO2 is blameless and that Svensmark’s sun/cosmic ray/cloud/temperature link is correct.”

The IPCC’s 2013 report says the sun “cannot explain global mean surface warming over the past 25 years, because solar irradiance has declined over this period,” Higgs points out.

But the IPCC assumes Earth’s average surface temperature reacts almost instantly to solar-output changes, with a time-lag of less than 3 years. When Higgs cross-correlated solar cosmic-ray and temperature graphs, he found that massive ocean thermal inertia causes, not a 3-year lag, but a 25-year lag.

“The ‘man-made-global-warming’ idea is a fallacy whose time is nearly over,” says Higgs.

The Science

During solar minimum, the sun’s magnetic field weakens and the outward pressure of the solar wind decreases — this allows more Cosmic Rays from deep space to penetrate earth’s atmosphere.

The work of H. Svensmark, M.B. Enghoff, N. Shaviv and J. Svensmark attributes Cosmic Rays to cloud nucleation here on earth.

“Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling,” Dr. Roy Spencer.

With this being a Grand Solar Minimum we’re entering, the affects will likely be amplified.

And on top of that, we’re also contending with a pole shift —double whammy— and one accelerating faster than most scientists thought possible.

As the poles migrate (predicted to meet somewhere over Indonesia in the next few years) our magnetosphere weakens further, down to as low as 10% it’s usual strength.

These two independent factors —Grand Solar Minimum and the Pole Shift— each result in a bombardment of galactic cosmic rays entering our atmosphere, nucleating clouds and cooling the planet.

It’s a downward spiral from here, one our modern civilisation has never had to contend with and certainly one no ill-advised carbon tax can save us from.

In fact, that callous money-grab has quite the opposite affect — it hinders our preparations.

The cold times are here.


GOODBYE ‘ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING’? FATAL IPCC ERROR BY NEGLECTING OCEAN THERMAL INERTIA?

.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
More relevant information, which actually supports my views on what we should expect in the near future...



NASA Predicts Next Solar Cycle will be Lowest in 200 Years (Dalton Minimum Levels) + the Implications

NASA attempts to paint the upcoming solar shutdown as a window of opportunity for space missions, “the improving ability to make such predictions about space weather are good news for mission planners who can schedule human exploration missions during periods of lower radiation.”

This is absurd, and serves as yet another example of government agency obfuscation and half-truths.

NASA is effectively forecasting a return to the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830) but gives no mention of the brutal cold, crop loss, famine, war and powerful Volcanic eruptions associated with it:

  • Like the deeper Maunder and Spörer Minimums preceding it, the Dalton brought on a period of lower-than-average global temperatures. The Oberlach Station in Germany, for example, experienced a 2C decline over 20 years, which devastated the country’s food production.
  • The Year Without a Summer also occurred during the Dalton Minimum, in 1816. It was caused by a combination of already low temperatures plus the aftereffects of the second largest volcanic eruption in 2000 years: Mount Tambora’s VEI 7 on April 10, 1815.
Cold-Sun-e1560845817350.jpg
 

nivek

As Above So Below
In the past I wasn't sure how much of an impact mankind has had on earth's climate but in recent times I've become more convinced the percentage of mankind's impact is high...Then I read reports such as this...

Finnish study finds ‘practically no’ evidence for man-made climate change

A new study conducted by a Finnish research team has found little evidence to support the idea of man-made climate change. The results of the study were soon corroborated by researchers in Japan.
In a paper published late last month, entitled ‘No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change’, a team of scientists at Turku University in Finland determined that current climate models fail to take into account the effects of cloud coverage on global temperatures, causing them to overestimate the impact of human-generated greenhouse gasses.

Models used by official bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature,” the study said, adding that “a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing” in the models.

Adjusting for the cloud coverage factor and accounting for greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers found that mankind is simply not having much of an effect on the Earth’s temperature.

If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice.

The study’s authors make a hard distinction between the type of model favored by climate scientists at the IPCC and genuine evidence, stating “We do not consider computational results as experimental evidence,” noting that the models often yield contradictory conclusions.

(more on the link)

.
 

spacecase0

earth human
In the past I wasn't sure how much of an impact mankind has had on earth's climate but in recent times I've become more convinced the percentage of mankind's impact is high...Then I read reports such as this...

Finnish study finds ‘practically no’ evidence for man-made climate change

A new study conducted by a Finnish research team has found little evidence to support the idea of man-made climate change. The results of the study were soon corroborated by researchers in Japan.
In a paper published late last month, entitled ‘No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change’, a team of scientists at Turku University in Finland determined that current climate models fail to take into account the effects of cloud coverage on global temperatures, causing them to overestimate the impact of human-generated greenhouse gasses.

Models used by official bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature,” the study said, adding that “a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing” in the models.

Adjusting for the cloud coverage factor and accounting for greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers found that mankind is simply not having much of an effect on the Earth’s temperature.

If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice.

The study’s authors make a hard distinction between the type of model favored by climate scientists at the IPCC and genuine evidence, stating “We do not consider computational results as experimental evidence,” noting that the models often yield contradictory conclusions.

(more on the link)

.
I have been around people that get funding to do things (worked at a place that wrote text books and other teaching material)
a fascinating thing happens when funding is an issue
people end up doing what is needed to get funding
when I pointed out to my friends that they were twisting science with what they were doing,
the reply was usually something about how they knew what was going on, but the funding required that things be from a particular point of view...
the IPCC in its charter (and in practice) only offers funding for man made global warming.
so, I see 6 possibilities here, man made warming, man made cooling, made made no change, nature warming, nature cooling, nature no change.
yet they only choose to fund 1/6 of the possibilities.
I have known enough people that cater to funding to know that you can't trust much of what they say when you pay them to say things.

if you are curious about this effect in real life,
ask an actor if you can pay them to say things.
so I am not amazed that the IPCC "proved" what they payed people to prove.

it use to be easy to show people what is really going on.
I would post links to raw data and have others put it into excel...
soon after I started doing this, raw temperature data vanished from the web.
when someone starts hiding data, you have to wonder why

years later when the private emails of the main IPCC "scientists" were made public,
it was clear reading them that these people were engaged in fraud,
mostly boring, but search for key words and they really tell you who they were.
at this point something happened that I am guessing almost no one noticed.
the advertisement money was pulled from climate change and moved to something called the war on poverty...
now the war on poverty had the exact same tax scheme...
the websites had been in place for years, but no real funding for the cause.
after a few weeks, it was clear that actual information and clear fraud had not stopped the climate change idea,
and then all the advertisement money got moved back to climate change...

not sure about everyone else,
but when that much money is paying to do something,
and "they" have backup plans for some global tax, (I really can't figure out why they want this so badly)
do I really want to trust them, especially when the actual data (that they now hide) points another direction ?
 
Top