Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....

[Crick]

Still waiting for you to find a period in the last 10,000 years where global temperatures increased faster than they are at present AS YOU CLAIMED.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Still waiting for you to find a period in the last 10,000 years where global temperatures increased faster than they are at present AS YOU CLAIMED.

Way to go retard.. Once again your so clueless that your incapable of even simple facts..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still waiting for you to find a period in the last 10,000 years where global temperatures increased faster than they are at present AS YOU CLAIMED.

Way to go retard.. Once again your so clueless that your incapable of even simple facts..

You never said, Billy, do objects at equilibrium stop emitting?
Does matter stop emitting when warmer matter is nearby?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Still waiting for you to find a period in the last 10,000 years where global temperatures increased faster than they are at present AS YOU CLAIMED.

Still waiting for YOU to provide such high resolution of yearly data or decadal warming trend data, in the last 10,000 years.

 

[Crick]

If it's not available, SSDD has no basis for his claim that he had evidence of such a thing. Much obliged.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Still waiting for you to find a period in the last 10,000 years where global temperatures increased faster than they are at present AS YOU CLAIMED.

Way to go retard.. Once again your so clueless that your incapable of even simple facts..

You never said, Billy, do objects at equilibrium stop emitting?
Does matter stop emitting when warmer matter is nearby?

LOL
Sure they do.. Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.

This has nothing to do with Cricks claims.. HE is trying to say today's warming is the fastest ev'a, but he has no scientific basis to make that claim. Spatial resolution of all proxy data is 250 years. Crick is incapable of proving today's rate is faster because he has noting to compare it to in empirical evidence. When you place today's warming in the same spatial resolution as the rest of the record we are warming at just 1/10 the rate of know long term trends.. He has NOTHING..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still waiting for you to find a period in the last 10,000 years where global temperatures increased faster than they are at present AS YOU CLAIMED.

Way to go retard.. Once again your so clueless that your incapable of even simple facts..

You never said, Billy, do objects at equilibrium stop emitting?
Does matter stop emitting when warmer matter is nearby?

LOL
Sure they do.. Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.

This has nothing to do with Cricks claims.. HE is trying to say today's warming is the fastest ev'a, but he has no scientific basis to make that claim. Spatial resolution of all proxy data is 250 years. Crick is incapable of proving today's rate is faster because he has noting to compare it to in empirical evidence. When you place today's warming in the same spatial resolution as the rest of the record we are warming at just 1/10 the rate of know long term trends.. He has NOTHING..

do objects at equilibrium stop emitting?

Sure they do..

Why?

​

This has nothing to do with Cricks claims.​

Because I'm not discussing Crick's claims.
​

Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.​

When objects reach equilibrium they neither warm nor cool.

Does matter stop emitting when warmer matter is nearby?​

 

[SSDD]

If it's not available, SSDD has no basis for his claim that he had evidence of such a thing. Much obliged.

Ice core temperature reconstructions are considered to be the gold standard...and they simply don't support your claims of the present being unprecedented either in absolute temperature or the speed at which the temperature changes.

 

[RealDave]

Wow. Yet another denier who thinks climatologists are all too stupid to consider the past cyclical nature of our climate.

Your argument is that since climate is cyclical, that nothing can affect the climate.

What we have is mankind with the onset of the industrial revolution alter the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere that has increased the greenhouse gas effect & is warming the planet. This effect is added to any cyclical aspect of the climate.

This is SCIENCE.

The only ones being duped are the deniers who believe that paid spokespeople of the fossil fuel industry & those who do it for political purposes to try to gain the trust of the poorly educated voters.

 

[RealDave]

Still waiting for you to find a period in the last 10,000 years where global temperatures increased faster than they are at present AS YOU CLAIMED.

Way to go retard.. Once again your so clueless that your incapable of even simple facts..

You never said, Billy, do objects at equilibrium stop emitting?
Does matter stop emitting when warmer matter is nearby?

LOL
Sure they do.. Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.

This has nothing to do with Cricks claims.. HE is trying to say today's warming is the fastest ev'a, but he has no scientific basis to make that claim. Spatial resolution of all proxy data is 250 years. Crick is incapable of proving today's rate is faster because he has noting to compare it to in empirical evidence. When you place today's warming in the same spatial resolution as the rest of the record we are warming at just 1/10 the rate of know long term trends.. He has NOTHING..

.

We have evidence of the planet's past climate. We can see variances in temperatures & can compare it to the time frames involved. This provides a idea of how fast this occurred.

We may not have daily temperature readings but to say we have no clue is false.,

Ice cores, tree rings, fossils, ancient histories all provide information.

The sun provides the heat. Greenhouse gases trap that heat. These are facts.

 

[SSDD]

Wow. Yet another denier who thinks climatologists are all too stupid to consider the past cyclical nature of our climate.

Your argument is that since climate is cyclical, that nothing can affect the climate.

What we have is mankind with the onset of the industrial revolution alter the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere that has increased the greenhouse gas effect & is warming the planet. This effect is added to any cyclical aspect of the climate.

This is SCIENCE.

The only ones being duped are the deniers who believe that paid spokespeople of the fossil fuel industry & those who do it for political purposes to try to gain the trust of the poorly educated voters.

Alas, it is you and yours who have been duped.

For all your talk of science, there is precious little to support your position.

There is not a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by mankind’s CO2 has been empirially quantified and ascribed to our CO2 production.

You have been duped by activist pseudoscientists and the media...science is about searching for evidence to support hypotheses...there is no observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...none.

 

[RealDave]

Wow. Yet another denier who thinks climatologists are all too stupid to consider the past cyclical nature of our climate.

Your argument is that since climate is cyclical, that nothing can affect the climate.

What we have is mankind with the onset of the industrial revolution alter the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere that has increased the greenhouse gas effect & is warming the planet. This effect is added to any cyclical aspect of the climate.

This is SCIENCE.

The only ones being duped are the deniers who believe that paid spokespeople of the fossil fuel industry & those who do it for political purposes to try to gain the trust of the poorly educated voters.

Alas, it is you and yours who have been duped.

For all your talk of science, there is precious little to support your position.

There is not a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by mankind’s CO2 has been empirially quantified and ascribed to our CO2 production.

You have been duped by activist pseudoscientists and the media...science is about searching for evidence to support hypotheses...there is no observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...none.

Google Scholar

Take your pick.

Any works by Michael Mann.

 

[SSDD]

Still waiting for you to find a period in the last 10,000 years where global temperatures increased faster than they are at present AS YOU CLAIMED.

Way to go retard.. Once again your so clueless that your incapable of even simple facts..

You never said, Billy, do objects at equilibrium stop emitting?
Does matter stop emitting when warmer matter is nearby?

LOL
Sure they do.. Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.

This has nothing to do with Cricks claims.. HE is trying to say today's warming is the fastest ev'a, but he has no scientific basis to make that claim. Spatial resolution of all proxy data is 250 years. Crick is incapable of proving today's rate is faster because he has noting to compare it to in empirical evidence. When you place today's warming in the same spatial resolution as the rest of the record we are warming at just 1/10 the rate of know long term trends.. He has NOTHING..

.

We have evidence of the planet's past climate. We can see variances in temperatures & can compare it to the time frames involved. This provides a idea of how fast this occurred.

We may not have daily temperature readings but to say we have no clue is false.,

Ice cores, tree rings, fossils, ancient histories all provide information.

The sun provides the heat. Greenhouse gases trap that heat. These are facts.

The only temperature reconstructions with any respectable level of resolution at all are ice cores, and they show that in the past 10,000 years, there have been multiple times when temperatures both rose higher, and faster than any change wee have seen

As to CO2 trapping heat, there isn’t the first piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. You seem to have what is fact and what is model output confused.

 

[RealDave]

Wow. Yet another denier who thinks climatologists are all too stupid to consider the past cyclical nature of our climate.

Your argument is that since climate is cyclical, that nothing can affect the climate.

What we have is mankind with the onset of the industrial revolution alter the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere that has increased the greenhouse gas effect & is warming the planet. This effect is added to any cyclical aspect of the climate.

This is SCIENCE.

The only ones being duped are the deniers who believe that paid spokespeople of the fossil fuel industry & those who do it for political purposes to try to gain the trust of the poorly educated voters.

Alas, it is you and yours who have been duped.

For all your talk of science, there is precious little to support your position.

There is not a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by mankind’s CO2 has been empirially quantified and ascribed to our CO2 production.

You have been duped by activist pseudoscientists and the media...science is about searching for evidence to support hypotheses...there is no observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...none.

To say there is no research published on this proves are are an ignorant fool.

 

[RealDave]

Still waiting for you to find a period in the last 10,000 years where global temperatures increased faster than they are at present AS YOU CLAIMED.

Way to go retard.. Once again your so clueless that your incapable of even simple facts..

You never said, Billy, do objects at equilibrium stop emitting?
Does matter stop emitting when warmer matter is nearby?

LOL
Sure they do.. Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.

This has nothing to do with Cricks claims.. HE is trying to say today's warming is the fastest ev'a, but he has no scientific basis to make that claim. Spatial resolution of all proxy data is 250 years. Crick is incapable of proving today's rate is faster because he has noting to compare it to in empirical evidence. When you place today's warming in the same spatial resolution as the rest of the record we are warming at just 1/10 the rate of know long term trends.. He has NOTHING..

.

We have evidence of the planet's past climate. We can see variances in temperatures & can compare it to the time frames involved. This provides a idea of how fast this occurred.

We may not have daily temperature readings but to say we have no clue is false.,

Ice cores, tree rings, fossils, ancient histories all provide information.

The sun provides the heat. Greenhouse gases trap that heat. These are facts.

The only temperature reconstructions with any respectable level of resolution at all are ice cores, and they show that in the past 10,000 years, there have been multiple times when temperatures both rose higher, and faster than any change wee have seen

As to CO2 trapping heat, there isn’t the first piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. You seem to have what is fact and what is model output confused.

More CO2 => more greenhouse gas effects => warmer temperatures

This is a PROVEN fact.

 

[SSDD]

Wow. Yet another denier who thinks climatologists are all too stupid to consider the past cyclical nature of our climate.

Your argument is that since climate is cyclical, that nothing can affect the climate.

What we have is mankind with the onset of the industrial revolution alter the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere that has increased the greenhouse gas effect & is warming the planet. This effect is added to any cyclical aspect of the climate.

This is SCIENCE.

The only ones being duped are the deniers who believe that paid spokespeople of the fossil fuel industry & those who do it for political purposes to try to gain the trust of the poorly educated voters.

Alas, it is you and yours who have been duped.

For all your talk of science, there is precious little to support your position.

There is not a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by mankind’s CO2 has been empirially quantified and ascribed to our CO2 production.

You have been duped by activist pseudoscientists and the media...science is about searching for evidence to support hypotheses...there is no observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...none.

Google Scholar

Take your pick.

Any works by Michael Mann.

Wow. Yet another denier who thinks climatologists are all too stupid to consider the past cyclical nature of our climate.

Your argument is that since climate is cyclical, that nothing can affect the climate.

What we have is mankind with the onset of the industrial revolution alter the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere that has increased the greenhouse gas effect & is warming the planet. This effect is added to any cyclical aspect of the climate.

This is SCIENCE.

The only ones being duped are the deniers who believe that paid spokespeople of the fossil fuel industry & those who do it for political purposes to try to gain the trust of the poorly educated voters.

Alas, it is you and yours who have been duped.

For all your talk of science, there is precious little to support your position.

There is not a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by mankind’s CO2 has been empirially quantified and ascribed to our CO2 production.

You have been duped by activist pseudoscientists and the media...science is about searching for evidence to support hypotheses...there is no observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...none.

Google Scholar

Take your pick.

Any works by Michael Mann.

Step on up to the plate Bucky and provide the title of the paper and the author here...or dont...since there are none

 

[SSDD]

Way to go retard.. Once again your so clueless that your incapable of even simple facts..

You never said, Billy, do objects at equilibrium stop emitting?
Does matter stop emitting when warmer matter is nearby?

LOL
Sure they do.. Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.

This has nothing to do with Cricks claims.. HE is trying to say today's warming is the fastest ev'a, but he has no scientific basis to make that claim. Spatial resolution of all proxy data is 250 years. Crick is incapable of proving today's rate is faster because he has noting to compare it to in empirical evidence. When you place today's warming in the same spatial resolution as the rest of the record we are warming at just 1/10 the rate of know long term trends.. He has NOTHING..

.

We have evidence of the planet's past climate. We can see variances in temperatures & can compare it to the time frames involved. This provides a idea of how fast this occurred.

We may not have daily temperature readings but to say we have no clue is false.,

Ice cores, tree rings, fossils, ancient histories all provide information.

The sun provides the heat. Greenhouse gases trap that heat. These are facts.

The only temperature reconstructions with any respectable level of resolution at all are ice cores, and they show that in the past 10,000 years, there have been multiple times when temperatures both rose higher, and faster than any change wee have seen

As to CO2 trapping heat, there isn’t the first piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. You seem to have what is fact and what is model output confused.

More CO2 => more greenhouse gas effects => warmer temperatures

This is a PROVEN fact.

So stop telling me it is fact and show me the empirical evidence...my bet is you wouldn’t know empirical evidence if it bit you on the ass,

 

[SSDD]

The sun provides the heat. Greenhouse gases trap that heat. These are facts.

You really should check with the infrared heating industry....they have about a million hours of observation, testing, design, experiment, and commercial and residential installation that demonstrates pretty conclusively that infrared radiation does not warm the air...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Way to go retard.. Once again your so clueless that your incapable of even simple facts..

You never said, Billy, do objects at equilibrium stop emitting?
Does matter stop emitting when warmer matter is nearby?

LOL
Sure they do.. Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.

This has nothing to do with Cricks claims.. HE is trying to say today's warming is the fastest ev'a, but he has no scientific basis to make that claim. Spatial resolution of all proxy data is 250 years. Crick is incapable of proving today's rate is faster because he has noting to compare it to in empirical evidence. When you place today's warming in the same spatial resolution as the rest of the record we are warming at just 1/10 the rate of know long term trends.. He has NOTHING..

.

We have evidence of the planet's past climate. We can see variances in temperatures & can compare it to the time frames involved. This provides a idea of how fast this occurred.

We may not have daily temperature readings but to say we have no clue is false.,

Ice cores, tree rings, fossils, ancient histories all provide information.

The sun provides the heat. Greenhouse gases trap that heat. These are facts.

The only temperature reconstructions with any respectable level of resolution at all are ice cores, and they show that in the past 10,000 years, there have been multiple times when temperatures both rose higher, and faster than any change wee have seen

As to CO2 trapping heat, there isn’t the first piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. You seem to have what is fact and what is model output confused.

More CO2 => more greenhouse gas effects => warmer temperatures

This is a PROVEN fact.

UMmmmmmm

No it is not... Our atmosphere is not a closed system and there are multiple paths for energy to escape. Your modeling FAILS empirical review EVERY TIME. Now be useful and provide empirical evidence of man's influence and how it was proven, using the scientific method and ruling out all other factors. I'll wait..

 

[Sunsettommy]

The sun provides the heat. Greenhouse gases trap that heat. These are facts.

You really should check with the infrared heating industry....they have about a million hours of observation, testing, design, experiment, and commercial and residential installation that demonstrates pretty conclusively that infrared radiation does not warm the air...

Way to go retard.. Once again your so clueless that your incapable of even simple facts..

You never said, Billy, do objects at equilibrium stop emitting?
Does matter stop emitting when warmer matter is nearby?

LOL
Sure they do.. Only when they reach equilibrium do they cool at the same rate.

This has nothing to do with Cricks claims.. HE is trying to say today's warming is the fastest ev'a, but he has no scientific basis to make that claim. Spatial resolution of all proxy data is 250 years. Crick is incapable of proving today's rate is faster because he has noting to compare it to in empirical evidence. When you place today's warming in the same spatial resolution as the rest of the record we are warming at just 1/10 the rate of know long term trends.. He has NOTHING..

.

We have evidence of the planet's past climate. We can see variances in temperatures & can compare it to the time frames involved. This provides a idea of how fast this occurred.

We may not have daily temperature readings but to say we have no clue is false.,

Ice cores, tree rings, fossils, ancient histories all provide information.

The sun provides the heat. Greenhouse gases trap that heat. These are facts.

The only temperature reconstructions with any respectable level of resolution at all are ice cores, and they show that in the past 10,000 years, there have been multiple times when temperatures both rose higher, and faster than any change wee have seen

As to CO2 trapping heat, there isn’t the first piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere. You seem to have what is fact and what is model output confused.

More CO2 => more greenhouse gas effects => warmer temperatures

This is a PROVEN fact.

Gee how did the planet have its first GLACIATION phase when CO2 levels in the atmosphere was at least 4,000 ppm?

LINK