Last July, Greenland broke the Northern Hemisphere record for July cold, and they are breaking cold records again.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
-
Recent Posts
Archives
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
Recent Comments
- Colorado Wellington on I’m A Bot
- Colorado Wellington on I’m A Bot
- Colorado Wellington on Today’s Global Warming Fraud At The New York Times
- Menicholas on I’m A Bot
- Louis Hooffstetter on I’m A Bot
Categories
Meta
Tony, I have that screenshot.
https://twitter.com/KiryeNet/status/1002068418906877952/photo/2
-46.5 C !
http://www.dmi.dk/index.php?eID=tx_cms_showpic&file=uploads%2Fpics%2Fhj_lav_abs_summit_03.gif&md5=d9d607e3be872ffaa71d79e0374f77f204bc1178¶meters%5B0%5D=YTo0OntzOjU6IndpZHRoIjtzOjQ6IjgwMG0iO3M6NjoiaGVpZ2h0IjtzOjQ6IjYw¶meters%5B1%5D=MG0iO3M6NzoiYm9keVRhZyI7czo0MToiPGJvZHkgc3R5bGU9Im1hcmdpbjowOyBi¶meters%5B2%5D=YWNrZ3JvdW5kOiNmZmY7Ij4iO3M6NDoid3JhcCI7czozNzoiPGEgaHJlZj0iamF2¶meters%5B3%5D=YXNjcmlwdDpjbG9zZSgpOyI%2BIHwgPC9hPiI7fQ%3D%3D
Thanks god they changed the name from global warming to climate change.
Now such anomalies can not only no longer be used by the sceptics
to disprove
but be weaponized by the cult to prove the world wide tax called Climate Change.
(and i still wonder how those who tried to convince us that greenland ice is melting at recordlevels can explain how this melt is possible.
Blame the warmer oceans as done with the arctic?
Pretend that calving increases when it gets supercold?
The latest government junk climate “science” fiction is that warmer temperatures result in more ice snow and cold.
“Good enough for government work”
After their early embarrassments with “global warming” they finally fail-proofed their hypothesis by postulating that every possible outcome is compatible with it and to be expected. It worked because “climate change” cultists are ignorant about the scientific method. They don’t know and they don’t care that a hypothesis that cannot be falsified is not science but an article of faith. They’ll keep yapping about “science”.
With the volcanic eruptions this year, I wonder if we are in for some cooler years.
Oops…. time to redirect our attack to the South Pole. That big thing with a crack is going to splash in the water and release some methane
“That big thing with a crack is going to splash in the water and release some methane”
They don’t have hippopotami down there !!
Al, is that you?
So we have record cold in Greenland.
CO2 at 400 ppm and record cold in the Arctic. I’m no authority, but isn’t there something the Klimate Klowns refer to as “Polar Amplification?”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_amplification
Oh never mind.
It’s cold here, and warm somewhere else.
No, Its cold here, too. !!
And?
Are you alleging this is a change in the climate back to cold? Or what?
Make your own conclusions brainiac….or in your case….make up your own conclusions…..
I was rather hoping tony would actually explain why on earth he keeps posting this stuff?
what is it designed to show? what is the hypothesis this is proving??
I was rather hoping tony would actually explain why on earth he keeps posting this stuff?
To drive you moronic alarmists crazy. And it is working beautifully! Every day you sick bastards come here and piss and moan in response to Tony’s posts.
Ring bell = drool. LOL
To show off his geologist skillz?
griff and terak are showing off their non-thinking skills.
both highly trained.
Speaking of skills drooler, how about you show some?
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
I’m still waiting…
Griff DENIES the existence of the AMO cycle.
Climate DENIAL is strong with griff.
Thanks so much.
I believe its the grand Solar Minimum, and the Cosmic ray ( Professor Henrik Svensmark)
Its was not worm in Denmark 2017, and everyone forget how cold our spring was, with frost and snow, but as soon as there is worm somewhere, all the papers are over it, but with cold…..The papers are QUIRET….Look at the south pole, -50c right now and going down….down….South Africa is cold, australia is very cold, and the heat is over in Denmark………
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/antarctica/south-pole
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNPicpRw6l8
Thanks all from the Danish grand solar minimum channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWSP7zcgQtxxcwZQXhuCo9g
The Sun has been weakening for 2 cycles and the atmospheric temperatures & ocean heat content keeps going up. It is probable an El Nino starts later this year.
terak thinks that turning a stove down from 10 to 8 makes things cool instantly. Can you get much DUMBER than that !!
What sort of maybe El Nino, terak.
Seems your ignorance is very deep.
Since the oceans are rising, they are not cooling. So where is the “extra” heat coming from that keeps heating up the atmosphere decades after the peak in solar output?
She has the answer in her question, and does not even know it! LOL
Yes, after being the most active it has been in over a thousand years…
4.4 Grand maxima of solar activity
4.4.1 The modern episode of active sun
We have been presently living in a period of very high sun activity with a level of activity that is unprecedentedly high for the last few centuries covered by direct solar observation. The sunspot number was growing rapidly between 1900 and 1940, with more than a doubling average group sunspot number, and has remained at that high level until recently (see Figure 1). Note that growth comes entirely from raising the cycle maximum amplitude, while sunspot activity always returns to a very low level around solar cycle minima. While the average group sunspot number for the period 1750 – 1900 was 35 ± 9 (39 ± 6, if the Dalton minimum in 1797 – 1828 is not counted), it stands high at the level of 75 ± 3 since 1950. Therefore the modern active sun episode, which started in the 1940s, can be regarded as the modern grand maximum of solar activity, as opposed to a grand minimum (Wilson, 1988b).
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf
The variation in solar output is a small fraction of one percent….what will the next excuse be for global warming once the termperatures creep up later this year?
Ms Terak, you are only referring to TSI, and you are again showing the breadth and depth of your ignorance.
Try again?
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
Still waiting…
Gator that’s the Shifting the burden fallacy. If you claim that the current rapid warming is “natural”, you need to provide evidence for it. Still waiting…
Shifting the burden
Fallacious shifting of the burden of proof occurs if someone makes a claim that needs justification, then demands that the opponent justify the opposite of the claim. The opponent has no such burden until evidence is presented for the claim.
Ms Terak, the Null Hypothesis does not need to be proven, it needs to be disproven. That is how science works.
Try again.
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
Still waiting…
Gator,
Why should Ms Terak tell you what she believes about climate forcings when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?
She is completely within her rights to make extraordinary claims about the Earth’s climate and it is your responsibility to disprove them.
Denialists produce about 1/500th of the number scientific papers than mainstream scientists do. Therefore they are always inconvenienced when they are asked to publish their evidence/results, to run experiments or to develop models. They cannot – it’s simply too hard!
Case in point, wild claims about fraudulent adjustements of datasets that this site is making all the time. Have they led even into ONE meaningful publication? Ich don’t think so, it’s all just hot air for the gullible who do not NEED evidence.
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
Still waiting…
What exactly is the holdup Ms Terak?
You reference the mountains of alarmist science papers available, so surely the answers to my queries are right there! Remember, this is “settled science” and “basic physics”, so get to it!
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
Still waiting…
“There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here.”
Where is your evidence for that? Let’s see the references :D
Ms Terak, you are the party claiming there is a new paradigm, it is therefore up to youto provide proof of this.
How old are you? You do not seem to have the slightest idea how science works.
Try again…
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
Still waiting…
Gator, be patient and gentle. Ms Terak has never heard about this whole scientific method and null hypothesis thing …
But she’s a progressive and she loves science so the burden of disproving is on you when she makes a claim.
Because science.
She’s waiting …
But she knows her altimetry!
Maybe Tony should for the umpteenth time post overlaid NASA then versus NASA now graphs where it shows plainly that NASA now does not match what they claimed and published previously. Since there is a common past to both graphs, I conclude that there is some combination of incompetence or lying then versus now.
Unless you are ignorant or stupid or slavishly pushing a cause, you can’t possibly believe that both prior and current NASA graphs that refer to a common past are both accurate when they do not agree with each over for that common past.
Your claim that there is “nothing unusual” going on needs evidence. So where is it? References please.
Once again Ms Terak, you are the party claiming there is a new paradigm, it is therefore up to you to provide proof of this.
Seriously, hold are you? You do not have the slightest idea how science works.
Try again…
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
Still waiting…
Shifting the burden of proof fallacy. An untenable position, which is why you keep repeating it I guess. Your “brown people” line of avoiding discussion is even dumber of course.
Shifting the burden of proof fallacy.
Wow! What a great example of psychological projection!
Try again?
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
Still waiting…
I have made no claims. Your claim that the current situation is “nothing unusual”, which I guess is codespeak for “no human influence in climate” requires evidence. Too bad denialtards rarely produce science..
Sorry Ms Terak, but BAU needs no proof. It is cute that you think it does.
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
You would need to show some evidence that for example the current speed of warming is not unusual. Milankovitch cycles take thousands of years for example. Got anything?
Sorry and Terak, but the Null Hypothesis still needs no defense.
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
Wrong Gator, the null hypothesis absolutely needs to be defended:
“In the hypothesis testing approach of Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson, a null hypothesis is contrasted with an alternative hypothesis and the two hypotheses are distinguished on the basis of data, with certain error rates.”
Got data? Let’s see it.
Ms Terak, you are really trying hard to redefine the Scientific Method, but still failing utterly.
Alarmists claim there is a new paradigm, so it is up to them to now prove this.
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
“Shifting the burden of proof fallacy”
Yep, terak, you HAVE to do that, because you KNOW that you have ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
You do know the planet is only a tiny amount warmer than the COLDEST it has been in 10,000 years, don’t you ?
Claims of “catastrophic ” warming are IDIOTIC to say the least.
“An untenable position”
Yes, your position is TOTALLY UNTENABLE
There is ZERO EVIDENCE to back it up.
Your baseless assumptions are based on nothing but juvenile and erroneous fantasy comprehension of physics
“There is ZERO EVIDENCE to back it up.”
If “there is” refers to “human influence on climate”, you need to look harder. Forget everything you read in blogs or heard in a church…
Skeptics generally become skeptics because we actually do read the studies, and because we ignore the opinions of salesmen. Most of us here have scientific backgrounds which allow us to both read and comprehend the papers that are published.
In fact, several surveys have shown that skeptics have s better grasp on climate change science, and science in general, than the AGW faithful. It’s what makes us skeptics, and not sheep.
Try again?
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
Still waiting…
Yep, skeptics are skeptics because they didn’t accept the package without opening the box and checking out what’s in it. The sheep accept the package and carry it without question. They can’t think outside the box because they never even bothered to open the box and investigate what’s inside of it. They just accept it and run with it because that is what the rest of their tribe is doing. They are not thinking individuals but a part of the Borg. A Borg continually guided and led by what they see on the regular news. A Borg that demands acceptance, adherence, and compliance. A Borg which brainwashes them to the point that some become agents which must come to forums outside the Borg to, like this one to try and convert the unbelievers.
I guess you can all figure out which one in this picture represents Tony and the skeptics and which one represents Griff, terak and the Borg.
And that is why most are so hard to convert.
Terek, it is the claims of the warmists aka, the IPCC reports making CO2 the culprit. They are the one who post every 5 years a report with predictions/projections based on modeling scenarios.
The ones that fail over and over. The NULL hypothesis still stands.
Since it is the AGW conjecture that is the cornerstone of it all, it is the same people who have to provide real world evidence that it is real and ongoing. Skeptics only want verification of validated research, which are never provided, heck you ignore Gators question over and over.
Since they failed to back up their models with empirical evidence, it stands to reason that they are no good.
Skeptical people find a lot of holes in it, which is why you are all bothered by it, but you make clear you are NOT following the Scientific Method which doesn’t really exist in the warmist world, who lives on computer generated reality without verifiable results.
It is YOU who is taken in by pseudoscience babble, heck you don’t even know what is the big deal about Sea ice changes, you just follow the warmist herd.
Tommy:
Ms Terak would appreciate if you stopped interrupting her emotional outbursts with appeals to facts and reason.
sunsettommy, writing on blogs does not constitute “finding holes” in a scientific theory. Only publications count, and they will be subjected to public critique.
CW that’s dr. terak if you insist. let’s keep gender out of this.
Dr? LOL
Is Ms Terak a chiropractor?
Tommy:
Dr. Terak would appreciate if you stopped interrupting her emotional outbursts with appeals to facts and reason.
Dr. Terek,
I didn’t refer to blogs at all in finding holes in the AGW conjecture. I stated:
“Skeptical people find a lot of holes in it, which is why you are all bothered by it, but you make clear you are NOT following the Scientific Method which doesn’t really exist in the warmist world, who lives on computer generated reality without verifiable results.”
There have been over 2,000 published papers that doesn’t support the AGW conjecture.
You still haven’t answered Gators questions.
It is YOUR ignorance is why you are a warmist loon.
sunsettommy can you post a few of the most influential papers that deny AGW?
The IPCC reports denied the efficacy of the AGW conjecture with this failed PREDICTION from the 1990 report:
“If emissions follow a Business-as-usual pattern
Under the IPCC Business as Usual emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2C – 0.5C)”
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf
Reality is half that average rate and well below the Minimum warming rate.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1990/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1990
That earlier prediction by IPCC was not spot on, obviously. However, we should see whether the 0.13-15C per decade increases from now on.
So are there influential papers denying AGW?
Terek, you ask a loaded question, which is why it isn’t getting answered.
You write:
“sunsettommy can you post a few of the most influential papers that deny AGW?”
Since no skeptic denies that CO2 a trace IR absorber is absorbing a trace amount of OLWR, therefore your question is already wrong.
Carry on.
So are there influential papers denying AGW?
You cannot deny that which has never been established. Prove your claimed “settled science”…
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
2000 papers denying AGW were mentioned. Did they have *any* impact or were they all in shithole journals like Creation Research?
Ms Terak? Quit running from the truth. Can you…
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
Your claim that there IS something unusual needs evidence
There is ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for warming by CO2
The CO2 GHE has NEVER been observed or measured on this planet or any other planet.
CO2 DOES NOT trap anything, it absorbs in a tiny thin band of low-energy radiation and immediately passes it to the rest (99.96%) of the atmosphere ,where it is dealt with by the normal operation of the gravity based thermal gradient.
andy how come Earth’s emission spectra has a dip at frequencies CO2 works as a greenhouse gas?
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
Gator that mantra of yours impedes critical thinking skills. If you think you can handle reality you should drop it..
No, it impedes your ability to convince anyone that is here is a problem.
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
Damn iPhone pigeon English!
Worth repeating…
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
Still waiting Chiropractor Terak.
No Terek,
you were given an opportunity several times now to answer the question, your refusal and now your pathetic whining indicate that you have NOTHING to counter with.
AS Gator stated, CO2 has very small absorption bands, TWO are in the very LOW ENEGRY area that doesn’t amount to much, only the one main band does it absorb a little bit of the OLWR. Yet even there it isn’t much because the main TERRESTRIAL outflow lies OUTSIDE of the main CO2 bandwidth area.
CO2 at best absorbs around 6% of the outflow.
Gee it sure does look like that CO2 has created a YUGE drop in the radiance of Earth.
Terek, your proven inability to read the spectral chart is now legendary since it doesn’t even begin to support your irrational claim.
That big drop is the OLWR you completely missed.
Here is a far more revealing chart:
Ms Terak, climates change naturally, this is an undisputed fact. Nobody needs to prove this. The burden of proof falls on those who make new and as yet unsubstantiated claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
Still waiting, stop stalling and weaseling.
“There is high confidence that annual mean surface warming
since the 20th century has reversed long-term cooling trends
of the past 5000 years in mid-to-high latitudes of the Northern
Hemisphere (NH). ” -IPCC AR5
If you are interested in the actual studies, which I seriously doubt, go and read them. Thanks to sci-hub there is no paywall any longer.
“High confidence”
ROFLMAO
in other words they have basically ZERO proof,.
You really have ZERO clue about this stuff do you, terak.
GULLIBILITY personified
And WTF has that got to do with you CONSTANTING running and hiding form Gator’s questions.
5000 years ago was MUCH warmer in the NH, by every known REAL data.
History tells us that the NH are not even up to MWP temperatures yet.
“High confidence” = “We believe”.
Amen.
Go and read the studies first Andy. And then read some later studies that cite those (now older) studies in the IPCC report.
There’s a shitload of unusual stuff going on, that is unusual in this stage of the interglacial (let’s say last 5000 years). Temperature, sea level, Antarctic ice shelf collapses etc. to name a few.
No silly Ms Chiropractor, there is absolutely nothing unusual or unprecedented taking place.
Why can’t you show us your thuper thecret thettled thience?
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
Still waiting…
You should provide evidence that the sudden reversal of a 5000-year old cooling trend is “normal”. Is there a natural cycle that hits every 5000 years and what could it be? Got any references? Of course not…
“You should provide evidence that the sudden reversal of a 5000-year old cooling trend is “normal”. Is there a natural cycle that hits every 5000 years and what could it be? Got any references? Of course not…”
So you deny the Holocene Optimum, Roman warming period, and Medieval warming periods ever occurred?
Holocene optimum was more than 5000 years ago. If you have published studies contradicting this, I would like to read them:
“There is high confidence that annual mean surface warming since the 20th century has reversed long-term cooling trends of the past 5000 years in mid-to-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (NH). ” -IPCC AR5
“We believe that annual mean surface warming since the 20th century has reversed long-term cooling trends of the past 5000 years in mid-to-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (NH). ” -IPCC AR5
That’s all that means. They believe.
Now, what makes them believe this? Can they…
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
No the cooling trend of the last few thousand years is still dominant, the latest warming is about to end:
Terak,
Most of your “sudden reversal” occurred after the LIA (~1860) and before fossil fuel CO2 increased (~1950). There is no evidence the “sudden reversal” is permanent. A “high confidence” rating from a corrupt political propaganda outlet is not evidence.
Yes, and………?
Of course we all know the climate works on regular time schedules. That there is only one factor in play and your inability to answer Gator’s questions is because you believe that CO2 is the control knob of earths climate (despite NO empirical evidence for that every happening before) and so ignore his continued queries as inconsequential.
Interesting figure sunsettommy, what is the source?
We are now at pre-industrial + 1C which brings us to the level of the Minoan warm period.
terak says:
June 22, 2018 at 3:22 pm
“Holocene optimum was more than 5000 years ago. If you have published studies contradicting this, I would like to read them”
What? The current earth average is about 16 C.
https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html
According to ice cores the Minoan average was between 28 and 29 C.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/climate-change-history-the-fall-of-empires-come-when-warming-turns-of-cooling/
RAH no it wasn’t that warm, please try again, this time with references thanks.
” which brings us to the level of the Minoan warm period.”
What a load of absolute BS you keep coming out with !!
It is highly unlikely we are even up to the MWP yet.
Explain Vikings buried in ground that is now permafrost.
Explain tree stumps under retreating glaciers.
Ignore History,
Ignore SCIENCE
Ignorance is all you have to maintain your rancid belief of AGW.
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
Still waiting Ms Chiropractor…
High confidence based on Unverified climate models to year 2100. You that stupid, Terek?
Here is how poor their “high confidence” quality is:
The 1990 IPCC report PREDICTED an average of .30C per decade warming rate. That it would warm by 1C to year 2025.
Reality is about HALF that rate per decade and even less than half for the 1C total warming with just a little over 6 year left to go.
There goes my “high confidence” in the IPCC reports. This is normally called an EPIC fail!
The science improves.
No it is STILL wrong as they now state a .30C per decade warming trend, while we are seeing HALF that rate.
Science is science, it does not improve or decline. Knowledge improves, but only if one is not following a failed hypothesis.
Ms Terak, you keep yammering on and on about all these “studies” that prove man is warming the planet, so provide them. Show me the studies that…
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
What does AR5 predict for the warming rate?
Terek, apparently can NOT answer Gators questions.
You are an empty warmist loon.
Not one single part of the UN is a scientific body. It is a political body with agendas and any supposed scientific body that serves it is only there to advance those agendas. This is a fundamental truth that people like terak either don’t understand or deny because they agree with the POLITICAL agenda.
It is clear that Terek is a TROLL for not answering specific questions, while getting his own given some due attention. It is a one sided debate where the little warmist loon doesn’t discuss anything, just most empty replies.
The ignoramus doesn’t even seem to realize the IPCC themselves have been spectacularly wrong on the short term prediction/projections such as the following:
Cyclone trends
Snowfall trends
Per Decade warming trend
Lack of the Tropospheric “hot spot”
Tornado trends
and so on.
The little git refuses to answer questions that are indeed relevant since it goes to the heart of the entire AGW debate
Gator asked over and over,
“1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.”
Surely the little warmist loon can answer at least one of them……
Snicker…………..
…still waiting for data arguing the current sudden warming jump to the level of the Minoan warm period is “natural”…hearing crickets so far…
Until you can…
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
And…
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
We have nothing to prove.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
Terek has NOTHING to offer here, he is a troll, nothing more.
Refuses to debate, answer question, make numerous unsupported claims.
This is the best warmists have to offer, no wonder they are getting creamed in forums.
“sudden warming jump to the level of the Minoan warm period”
BULLSHIT !!
Terek, made this unsupported claim,
“There’s a shitload of unusual stuff going on, that is unusual in this stage of the interglacial (let’s say last 5000 years). Temperature, sea level, Antarctic ice shelf collapses etc. to name a few.”
That was a few HOURS ago, it is still unsupported.
When are you going to post it?
Meanwhile another chart with several links behind it: http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/12/are-modern-temperatures-unprecedented-us-govt-greenland-ice-core-research-finds-theyre-not-even-clos.html
And another
And CO2 has actually been rising as the Holocene cooled
Biodata clearly shows that the Arctic sea ice is very close to the maximum it has been for 10,000 years
That didn’t work very well, lets fix it.
Even the PAGES 2K, who are AGW cronies. show temps not even up to MWP.
We are currently at +0.6C at that graph, so well above MWP.
BULLSHIT
You do not understand the data, do you terak
Devoid of KNOWLEDGE.
Devoid of understanding.