Famous China waterfall freezes over solid!!!

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You dumb fuck. The graphs are right there in front of you, and they do not lend a shred of credibility to your lies. One is from Stanford, the other from the American Institute of Physics, the largest single Scientific Society in the world.

One can only be awed by the stupidity of people that are presented irrefutable evidence, and insist on repeating the same old lies.

ROFLMNAO!

You're helpless.

Ya can't teach the Intellectually Less Fortunate folks... they're idiots.

The thing to understand here, is that THE SAME PEOPLE that are DEMANDING that you accept Abnormal Sexuality as Normal... are DEMANDING that you accept that the SUN is irrelevant to the Earth's Climate Temperature.

And they further DEMAND that you not hold them accountable for not a SINGLE ONE of their "Climate Predictions" having come CLOSE to being accurate. "THEY KNOW!" and that's all you need to know...

LOL! See how that works?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"A paper published today in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds a "strong and stable correlation" between the millennial variations in sunspots and the temperature in Antarctica over the past 11,000 years. In stark contrast, the authors find no strong or stable correlation between temperature and CO2 over that same period.

The authors correlated reconstructed CO2 levels, sunspots, and temperatures from ice-core data from Vostok Antarctica and find:"that the variations of SSN [sunspot number] and T [temperature] have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable."
Thus, the well known ~1000 year climate cycle responsible for the Holocene Climate Optimum 6000 to 4000 years ago, the Egyptian warm period ~4000 years ago, the Minoan warm period ~3000 years ago, the Roman warm period ~2000 years ago, the Medieval warm period ~1000 years ago, and the current warm period at present all roughly fall in this same 1000 year sequence of increased solar activity associated with warm periods.

The authors find temperature changes lag solar activity changes by ~40 years, which is likely due to the huge heat capacity and inertia of the oceans. Warming proponents attempt to dismiss the Sun's role in climate change by claiming 20th century solar activity peaked at around 1960 and somewhat declined from 1960 levels to the end of the 20th century (and have continued to decline in the 21st century right along with the 18+ year "pause" of global warming).

Abstract
The solar impact on the Earth's climate change is a long topic with intense debates. Based on the reconstructed data of solar sunspot number (SSN), the local temperature in Vostok (T), and the atmospheric CO2 concentration data of Dome Concordia, we investigate the periodicities of solar activity, the atmospheric CO2 and local temperature in the inland Antarctica as well as their correlations during the past 11,000 years before AD 1895. We find that the variations of SSN and T have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable. These results indicate that solar activity might have potential influences on the long-term change of Vostok's local climate during the past 11,000 years before modern industry.

Firstly, the assumption that solar activity peaked in 1960 and declined since is false, since it is necessary to determine the accumulated solar energy over multiple solar cycles, which is the accumulated departure from the average number of sunspots over the entire period, which I call the "sunspot integral." The sunspot integral is plotted in blue and shows remarkable correction with global temperatures plotted in red below. Correlating sunspot and temperature data with and without CO2, we find the sunspot integral explains 95% of temperature change over the past 400 years, and that CO2 had no significant influence (also here).

Secondly, this paper finds strong evidence of a 30-40 year lag between solar activity and temperature response. So what happened ~40 years after the 1960 peak in sunspot activity? Why that just so happens to be when satellite measurements of global temperature peaked with the 1998 El Nino [which is also driven by solar activity], followed by the "pause" and cooling since.

We have thus shown

• Strong correlation between solar activity and climate over the past 11,000 years of the Holocene
• Strong lack of correlation between CO2 and climate over the past 11,000 years of the Holocene
• Solar activity explains all 6 well-known warming periods that have occurred during the Holocene, including the current warm period
• The 20th century peak in sunspot activity is associated with a 40 year lag in the peak global temperature

What more proof do you need that it's the Sun! "

New paper finds strong evidence the Sun has controlled climate over the past 11 000 years not CO2 Principia Scientific Intl

 

[skookerasbil]

"A paper published today in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds a "strong and stable correlation" between the millennial variations in sunspots and the temperature in Antarctica over the past 11,000 years. In stark contrast, the authors find no strong or stable correlation between temperature and CO2 over that same period.

The authors correlated reconstructed CO2 levels, sunspots, and temperatures from ice-core data from Vostok Antarctica and find:"that the variations of SSN [sunspot number] and T [temperature] have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable."
Thus, the well known ~1000 year climate cycle responsible for the Holocene Climate Optimum 6000 to 4000 years ago, the Egyptian warm period ~4000 years ago, the Minoan warm period ~3000 years ago, the Roman warm period ~2000 years ago, the Medieval warm period ~1000 years ago, and the current warm period at present all roughly fall in this same 1000 year sequence of increased solar activity associated with warm periods.

The authors find temperature changes lag solar activity changes by ~40 years, which is likely due to the huge heat capacity and inertia of the oceans. Warming proponents attempt to dismiss the Sun's role in climate change by claiming 20th century solar activity peaked at around 1960 and somewhat declined from 1960 levels to the end of the 20th century (and have continued to decline in the 21st century right along with the 18+ year "pause" of global warming).

Abstract
The solar impact on the Earth's climate change is a long topic with intense debates. Based on the reconstructed data of solar sunspot number (SSN), the local temperature in Vostok (T), and the atmospheric CO2 concentration data of Dome Concordia, we investigate the periodicities of solar activity, the atmospheric CO2 and local temperature in the inland Antarctica as well as their correlations during the past 11,000 years before AD 1895. We find that the variations of SSN and T have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable. These results indicate that solar activity might have potential influences on the long-term change of Vostok's local climate during the past 11,000 years before modern industry.

Firstly, the assumption that solar activity peaked in 1960 and declined since is false, since it is necessary to determine the accumulated solar energy over multiple solar cycles, which is the accumulated departure from the average number of sunspots over the entire period, which I call the "sunspot integral." The sunspot integral is plotted in blue and shows remarkable correction with global temperatures plotted in red below. Correlating sunspot and temperature data with and without CO2, we find the sunspot integral explains 95% of temperature change over the past 400 years, and that CO2 had no significant influence (also here).

Secondly, this paper finds strong evidence of a 30-40 year lag between solar activity and temperature response. So what happened ~40 years after the 1960 peak in sunspot activity? Why that just so happens to be when satellite measurements of global temperature peaked with the 1998 El Nino [which is also driven by solar activity], followed by the "pause" and cooling since.

We have thus shown

• Strong correlation between solar activity and climate over the past 11,000 years of the Holocene
• Strong lack of correlation between CO2 and climate over the past 11,000 years of the Holocene
• Solar activity explains all 6 well-known warming periods that have occurred during the Holocene, including the current warm period
• The 20th century peak in sunspot activity is associated with a 40 year lag in the peak global temperature

What more proof do you need that it's the Sun! "

New paper finds strong evidence the Sun has controlled climate over the past 11 000 years not CO2 Principia Scientific Intl

w0w......good find dude.......more AGW k00k losing is what this is ^^^^. They'll dismiss it as a total crock......but we are used to that!!! If it doesn't fit the established narrative, its ALWAYS nonsense to them.

 

[mamooth]

Solar activity has actually correlated PRECISELY to the ebb and flow of climate temperatures.

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, ....

Given how you fail so completely at even the most basic science, it's safe to assume that everything you write is a fabrication, unless independent evidence shows otherwise.

Yes, there was a strong correlation ... up until 1970. Then solar activity dropped and temperature took off. How does your kook theory explain that?

 

[jc456]

and here comes stalker mothmouth!!!!! OMG this is too funny.....

 

[jc456]

ROFLMNAO! I love these idiots...

"DENIER!"

Now... somewhere on this forum, this same would-be 'contributor' is found lamenting the "Witch Trials" and the Spanish Inquisition... which for those keeping score, was the last time that word was used as a means to cow 'the believer'.

I'm not going to be PC and forgo the use of a very correct and applicable word just because it offends your tender feelings. Buck up, ya big sissyboy. If you don't want to be called denier, stop denying all the science and evidence.

Of course... in fairness, the Inquisition was dealing with intangible points of faith... while this cult is dealing with scientific fact wherein THE SUN is responsible for the bulk of the Earth's Climate... assuming that the earth's orbit around such, and the rest of the equation: earth's rotation, etc... remain constant.

Over the short term, the sun's output been essentially constant, or decreasing slightly. The earth's orbit has been constant. Yet the earth suddenly started warming fast. Hence, the sun or the earth's orbit is clearly not the cause. What one factor has changed? The greenhouse gas levels.

Which nature requires they must, barring catastrophic events, which also... it should be noted, cannot be effected by transferring property from those who earned it to those who cannot.

If you let them go on long enough, all deniers eventually devolve into political conspiracy rants. That's because denialism isn't science; it's just one of the many required beliefs for acolytes of the right-wing-extremist-kook cult.

there isn't any bigger Denier than the one who shouts it out the most! You sir/ maam are the winner, you are the biggest denier on here!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Solar activity has actually correlated PRECISELY to the ebb and flow of climate temperatures.

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, ....

Given how you fail so completely at even the most basic science, it's safe to assume that everything you write is a fabrication, unless independent evidence shows otherwise.

Yes, there was a strong correlation ... up until 1970. Then solar activity dropped and temperature took off. How does your kook theory explain that?

That graph is absolute nonsense. Which is to say that it is a lie, deceitfully advanced as truth, toward the hope of influencing the Ignorant.

 

[skookerasbil]

Solar activity has actually correlated PRECISELY to the ebb and flow of climate temperatures.

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, ....

Given how you fail so completely at even the most basic science, it's safe to assume that everything you write is a fabrication, unless independent evidence shows otherwise.

Yes, there was a strong correlation ... up until 1970. Then solar activity dropped and temperature took off. How does your kook theory explain that?

That graph is absolute nonsense. Which is to say that it is a lie, deceitfully advanced as truth, toward the hope of influencing the Ignorant.

That's what Mamooth contributes to this forum............lots of philosophy, conjecture, opinion and gay graphs he does up in this PC in WORD Office


Meanwhile, skeptics post up actual research links that jackass says are fake.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This thread is a good example of denier desperation tactic #2, pointing at random snowflakes as proof that there's no warming.

Denier desperation tactic #1 would be declaring that everything is a conspiracy.

nobody cares about 1/20th of one degree s0n...........only OCD mental cases and maybe ghey cats.

97% of liquid based thermometers, which 98% of all thermometers are, have a error bar of +/- 1 deg C. Hundredths of a degree is not only laughable but shows the lack of scientific integrity/understanding of many of the posters here.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, ....

Given how you fail so completely at even the most basic science, it's safe to assume that everything you write is a fabrication, unless independent evidence shows otherwise.

Yes, there was a strong correlation ... up until 1970. Then solar activity dropped and temperature took off. How does your kook theory explain that?

Ok you hair ball lets do a little cognitive thought process, shall we. The Sun is the earths heat source which drives all weather and thus climate on earth. If its power is declining the temperature of earth should also follow not diverge and continue to climb. There is only one reason that such and occurrence could happen, human manipulation of the data.

Second grade students can grasp this concept. turn on heat the water on the stove boils, turn down the heat and it cools. Man could burn everything on the earth and it wouldn't raise the temp one degree C if the sun were declining in thermal output.

I'm interested to find out how you managed such a feet given the thermal output is waning without violating the laws of thermal dynamics.

 

[JFK_USA]

ROFLMNAO! I love these idiots...

"DENIER!"

Now... somewhere on this forum, this same would-be 'contributor' is found lamenting the "Witch Trials" and the Spanish Inquisition... which for those keeping score, was the last time that word was used as a means to cow 'the believer'.

I'm not going to be PC and forgo the use of a very correct and applicable word just because it offends your tender feelings.

ROFL! That is ADORABLE!

Scamp, the Term: "DENIER!" is the epitome of Political Correctness.

LOL! You're being LAUGHED AT! And you think I'm offended... .

Folks you can BUY that kind of hysteria! THAT has to be the result of BIRTH.

Oh so you're a climatologist I see that has actually studied the data and knows the actual truth.

Or you're a complete idiot that thinks he is smarter than the the phd scientists who study it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

ROFLMNAO! I love these idiots...

"DENIER!"

Now... somewhere on this forum, this same would-be 'contributor' is found lamenting the "Witch Trials" and the Spanish Inquisition... which for those keeping score, was the last time that word was used as a means to cow 'the believer'.

I'm not going to be PC and forgo the use of a very correct and applicable word just because it offends your tender feelings.

ROFL! That is ADORABLE!

Scamp, the Term: "DENIER!" is the epitome of Political Correctness.

LOL! You're being LAUGHED AT! And you think I'm offended... .

Folks you can BUY that kind of hysteria! THAT has to be the result of BIRTH.

Oh so you're a climatologist I see that has actually studied the data and knows the actual truth.

Or you're a complete idiot that thinks he is smarter than the the phd scientists who study it.

Well, the good news is that anyone who went to US schools before they were turned them into Leftist Indoctrination Centers, knows what the Sun is and how it is almost exclusively responsible for the temperature of the Earth's climate.

But you couldn't have known that...

I mean given your 'feelings' that only the High Priests of Climatology can KNOW what heats the earth... you're lucky to be able to participate in a forum requiring written communication.

Not to worry "you be aheieet."

 

[mamooth]

97% of liquid based thermometers, which 98% of all thermometers are, have a error bar of +/- 1 deg C. Hundredths of a degree is not only laughable but shows the lack of scientific integrity/understanding of many of the posters here.

So much wrongness in one little sentence.

First, the modern stations don't use liquid thermometers.

Second, liquid thermometers can easily register tenths of a degree.

Third, multiple measurements decrease the error. A hundred measurements decrease error by a factor of 10. Ten thousand measurements decrease error by a factor of 100. This is basic statistics, and you fail hard at it. Fascinating, how a doctoral student doesn't know such things.

Ok you hair ball lets do a little cognitive thought process, shall we.

Proceed, shitlicker. I can't refer to you as pissdrinker, being SSDD holds that title.

The Sun is the earths heat source which drives all weather and thus climate on earth. If its power is declining the temperature of earth should also follow not diverge and continue to climb.

Yet the weather is warming, so clearly the sun isn't the only thing influencing climate.

There is only one reason that such and occurrence could happen, human manipulation of the data.

No, it's because anyone who isn't a deluded conspiracy cultist understands that the sun isn't the only factor influencing weather.

Second grade students can grasp this concept. turn on heat the water on the stove boils, turn down the heat and it cools. Man could burn everything on the earth and it wouldn't raise the temp one degree C if the sun were declining in thermal output.

If I put another blanket on the bed, I get warmer, even though my heat production doesn't change, or even decreases as I rest. Hence your senseless claim is refuted. You're just really lacking in the common sense department here.

I'm interested to find out how you managed such a feet given the thermal output is waning without violating the laws of thermal dynamics.

Being warm blooded, I'm usually the one using my thermal dynamics to warm up someone else's unnaturally icy feet. Though I'm not sure why you brought up the topic of how to warm feet with thermal dynamics.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If I put another blanket on the bed, I get warmer, even though my heat production doesn't change, or even decreases as I rest. Hence your senseless claim is refuted. You're just really lacking in the common sense department here.

Yet... according to you geniuses, the human race has wrapped the earth in blankets, and still the earth's climate is cooling. And in the craziest of coincidences, this even as the Sun's radiated energy is in a cyclical decline... .

So, as crazy as it seems, that seems to follow the facts, wherein the Sun is the SINGULAR source of energy (Heat) the earth enjoys.

Now I know that there's the rumors about the earth's molten core being mixed in there somewhere, but absent the sun, the Earth is a rock... which in terms of temperature, would be a rock of the near absolute zero variety.

 

[elektra]

How many times have the idiots screaming the, "the earth is warming", told us, "its just one spot", "its just California", or "the USA is not the whole world".

Now they tell us to ignore the freezing in China.

Being the ones based in Science, their Scientists are obviously ignoring all the freezing temperatures, the records being set, after all people such as maMOOT, Old Crock and Crick. are simply following, "SCIENCE".

 

[dilloduck]

If I put another blanket on the bed, I get warmer, even though my heat production doesn't change, or even decreases as I rest. Hence your senseless claim is refuted. You're just really lacking in the common sense department here.

Yet... according to you geniuses, the human race has wrapped the earth in blankets, and still the earth's climate is cooling. And in the craziest of coincidences, this even as the Sun's radiated energy is in a cyclical decline... .

So, as crazy as it seems, that seems to follow the facts, wherein the Sun is the SINGULAR source of energy (Heat) the earth enjoys.

Now I know that there's the rumors about the earth's molten core being mixed in there somewhere, but absent the sun, the Earth is a rock... which in terms of temperature, would be a rock of the near absolute zero variety.

Absolute zero ??

 

[westwall]

ROFLMNAO! I love these idiots...

"DENIER!"

Now... somewhere on this forum, this same would-be 'contributor' is found lamenting the "Witch Trials" and the Spanish Inquisition... which for those keeping score, was the last time that word was used as a means to cow 'the believer'.

I'm not going to be PC and forgo the use of a very correct and applicable word just because it offends your tender feelings.

ROFL! That is ADORABLE!

Scamp, the Term: "DENIER!" is the epitome of Political Correctness.

LOL! You're being LAUGHED AT! And you think I'm offended... .

Folks you can BUY that kind of hysteria! THAT has to be the result of BIRTH.

Oh so you're a climatologist I see that has actually studied the data and knows the actual truth.

Or you're a complete idiot that thinks he is smarter than the the phd scientists who study it.

The problem with climatologists is they seem to be really bad at math. A statistician has shown their work to be sub par on far too many occasions. That means it's bad. Faulty. WRONG. And in the case of some of them who knew it was wrong...FRAUDULENT.

But hey. We know you don't know anything so keep on keepin on buddy. They need useful idiots.

 

[westwall]

97% of liquid based thermometers, which 98% of all thermometers are, have a error bar of +/- 1 deg C. Hundredths of a degree is not only laughable but shows the lack of scientific integrity/understanding of many of the posters here.

So much wrongness in one little sentence.

First, the modern stations don't use liquid thermometers.

Second, liquid thermometers can easily register tenths of a degree.

Third, multiple measurements decrease the error. A hundred measurements decrease error by a factor of 10. Ten thousand measurements decrease error by a factor of 100. This is basic statistics, and you fail hard at it. Fascinating, how a doctoral student doesn't know such things.

Ok you hair ball lets do a little cognitive thought process, shall we.

Proceed, shitlicker. I can't refer to you as pissdrinker, being SSDD holds that title.

The Sun is the earths heat source which drives all weather and thus climate on earth. If its power is declining the temperature of earth should also follow not diverge and continue to climb.

Yet the weather is warming, so clearly the sun isn't the only thing influencing climate.

There is only one reason that such and occurrence could happen, human manipulation of the data.

No, it's because anyone who isn't a deluded conspiracy cultist understands that the sun isn't the only factor influencing weather.

Second grade students can grasp this concept. turn on heat the water on the stove boils, turn down the heat and it cools. Man could burn everything on the earth and it wouldn't raise the temp one degree C if the sun were declining in thermal output.

If I put another blanket on the bed, I get warmer, even though my heat production doesn't change, or even decreases as I rest. Hence your senseless claim is refuted. You're just really lacking in the common sense department here.

I'm interested to find out how you managed such a feet given the thermal output is waning without violating the laws of thermal dynamics.

Being warm blooded, I'm usually the one using my thermal dynamics to warm up someone else's unnaturally icy feet. Though I'm not sure why you brought up the topic of how to warm feet with thermal dynamics.

So.....if a thermocouple is able to measure to the tenth of a degree.....how is it that they are calculating temperature differences to hundredths of degrees? Enquiring minds want to know!

 

[westwall]

How many times have the idiots screaming the, "the earth is warming", told us, "its just one spot", "its just California", or "the USA is not the whole world".

Now they tell us to ignore the freezing in China.

Being the ones based in Science, their Scientists are obviously ignoring all the freezing temperatures, the records being set, after all people such as maMOOT, Old Crock and Crick. are simply following, "SCIENCE".

Shhhhhh. It's regional cooling, but global warming. Everyone knows that....

 

[DriftingSand]

Oh my gosh! This is truly something to fear. I mean ... if the globe gets any warmer we're all going to freeze to death. Aaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhh!!