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

[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..

.

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.

1. The cause of warming and cooling is still at a point of great distention. All climate modeling fails to this day, illustrating how badly (poorly) we understand the system. Every single model to date has to be retrained every three years due to diverging from reality (FAILING).

2.The resolution of your proxies is 150-250 year data point plots. Thus you do not posses the data to make these claims.

I find it amusing when you make these claims and have no evidence to support your assumptions. If we place today's warming into the the proper resolution of the rest of the proxies, the current warming trend is nonexistent, showing how insignificant and within natural variation it is.

 

[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?

 

[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.

1. The cause of warming and cooling is still at a point of great distention. All climate modeling fails to this day, illustrating how badly (poorly) we understand the system. Every single model to date has to be retrained every three years due to diverging from reality (FAILING).

2.The resolution of your proxies is 150-250 year data point plots. Thus you do not posses the data to make these claims.

I find it amusing when you make these claims and have no evidence to support your assumptions. If we place today's warming into the the proper resolution of the rest of the proxies, the current warming trend is nonexistent, showing how insignificant and within natural variation it is.

1) It does not mean the concept of heightened CO2 emissions are not the major cause.

2) Climatologists have access to the climate & atmospheric conditions millions of years ago. You are claiming these are irrelevant because we did not have the satellites a million years ago which makes you a fucking moron.

3) It is amusing that you think that you know more than the climatologists.

Climate models are accurate enough to tel us that we need to cut emissions & what the results we can expect if we do nothing.

When you claim that we have not experienced global warming is prrof how big a fool you really are.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

1. The cause of warming and cooling is still at a point of great distention. All climate modeling fails to this day, illustrating how badly (poorly) we understand the system. Every single model to date has to be retrained every three years due to diverging from reality (FAILING).

2.The resolution of your proxies is 150-250 year data point plots. Thus you do not posses the data to make these claims.

I find it amusing when you make these claims and have no evidence to support your assumptions. If we place today's warming into the the proper resolution of the rest of the proxies, the current warming trend is nonexistent, showing how insignificant and within natural variation it is.

1) It does not mean the concept of heightened CO2 emissions are not the major cause.

2) Climatologists have access to the climate & atmospheric conditions millions of years ago. You are claiming these are irrelevant because we did not have the satellites a million years ago which makes you a fucking moron.

3) It is amusing that you think that you know more than the climatologists.

Climate models are accurate enough to tel us that we need to cut emissions & what the results we can expect if we do nothing.

When you claim that we have not experienced global warming is prrof how big a fool you really are.

Climate models are accurate enough to tel us that we need to cut emissions & what the results we can expect if we do nothing.

How many new nuclear plants do we need to build?

 

[SSDD]

1) It does not mean the concept of heightened CO2 emissions are not the major cause.

If infrared radiation can not warm the air, exactly how does the absorption and emission of infrared by CO2 cause warming? There is not a single piece of actual observed, measured evidence which supports the claim that it does.

2) Climatologists have access to the climate & atmospheric conditions millions of years ago. You are claiming these are irrelevant because we did not have the satellites a million years ago which makes you a fucking moron.

When you look back millions of years, you see just how insignificant the bit of warming we have seen is....at the point where the ice age in which the earth is still exiting began, atmospheric CO2 was in the neighborhood of 1000ppm...an ice age began with CO2 at 1000ppm...and climate science is threatening run away warming if CO2 gets much above 400 or 500 ppm?

3) It is amusing that you think that you know more than the climatologists.

Maybe you are unaware...but climate science is a soft science...Physics, chemistry, biology, even engineering are hard sciences...soft sciences are for those who can't quite meet the rigors of an education in the hard sciences but still want to cal themselves scientists...Climate science, being a soft science isn't that difficult to grasp. I do feel sorry for people who believe themselves to be so uneducated that even the soft sciences are out of their reach and are left simply believing one side or another based mostly on their political leanings.

Climate models are accurate enough to tel us that we need to cut emissions & what the results we can expect if we do nothing.

Got any actual observed, measured evidence to support that claim? Like I said, when the ice age the earth is presently exiting began, CO2 levels were about 1000ppm...We are sitting at about 400ppm now.....If an ice age began with CO2 at 1000ppm, why, exactly are you worried that more CO2 will cause warming?

When you claim that we have not experienced global warming is prrof how big a fool you really are.

It has been warming since the end of the little ice age...what exactly is your point. Climate science likes to look at very short periods of time and wave their hands hysterically, but if you look at the long term, you will see that the present is considerably cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

Here are two gold standard ice core temperature reconstructions...one ice core was taken above the arctic circle, the other was taken in antarctica...both show similar peaks and dips in temperature...both show similar time spans between the peaks and dips...since the two poles show similar warming and cooling patterns, you would be hard pressed to provide a rational scientifically valid explanation as to how the globe between the two poles missed out on the same temperature variations...after all, climate science has been telling us for decades that the poles are the canary in the coal mine and whatever is happening at the poles is going to happen everywhere else.

As you can see, according to the gold standard temperature reconstructions, it is cooler now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1) It does not mean the concept of heightened CO2 emissions are not the major cause.

If infrared radiation can not warm the air, exactly how does the absorption and emission of infrared by CO2 cause warming? There is not a single piece of actual observed, measured evidence which supports the claim that it does.

2) Climatologists have access to the climate & atmospheric conditions millions of years ago. You are claiming these are irrelevant because we did not have the satellites a million years ago which makes you a fucking moron.

When you look back millions of years, you see just how insignificant the bit of warming we have seen is....at the point where the ice age in which the earth is still exiting began, atmospheric CO2 was in the neighborhood of 1000ppm...an ice age began with CO2 at 1000ppm...and climate science is threatening run away warming if CO2 gets much above 400 or 500 ppm?

3) It is amusing that you think that you know more than the climatologists.

Maybe you are unaware...but climate science is a soft science...Physics, chemistry, biology, even engineering are hard sciences...soft sciences are for those who can't quite meet the rigors of an education in the hard sciences but still want to cal themselves scientists...Climate science, being a soft science isn't that difficult to grasp. I do feel sorry for people who believe themselves to be so uneducated that even the soft sciences are out of their reach and are left simply believing one side or another based mostly on their political leanings.

Climate models are accurate enough to tel us that we need to cut emissions & what the results we can expect if we do nothing.

Got any actual observed, measured evidence to support that claim? Like I said, when the ice age the earth is presently exiting began, CO2 levels were about 1000ppm...We are sitting at about 400ppm now.....If an ice age began with CO2 at 1000ppm, why, exactly are you worried that more CO2 will cause warming?

When you claim that we have not experienced global warming is prrof how big a fool you really are.

It has been warming since the end of the little ice age...what exactly is your point. Climate science likes to look at very short periods of time and wave their hands hysterically, but if you look at the long term, you will see that the present is considerably cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

Here are two gold standard ice core temperature reconstructions...one ice core was taken above the arctic circle, the other was taken in antarctica...both show similar peaks and dips in temperature...both show similar time spans between the peaks and dips...since the two poles show similar warming and cooling patterns, you would be hard pressed to provide a rational scientifically valid explanation as to how the globe between the two poles missed out on the same temperature variations...after all, climate science has been telling us for decades that the poles are the canary in the coal mine and whatever is happening at the poles is going to happen everywhere else.

As you can see, according to the gold standard temperature reconstructions, it is cooler now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

If infrared radiation can not warm the air,

What gave you that idea?

exactly how does the absorption and emission of infrared by CO2 cause warming?

If it absorbs IR, it warms.

 

[SSDD]

If infrared radiation can not warm the air,

What gave you that idea?

A million plus hours of experiment, testing, development, and observation of commercial and residential IR heating systems. What gave you the idea that it did? Let me guess, an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model.

exactly how does the absorption and emission of infrared by CO2 cause warming?

If it absorbs IR, it warms.

Really? Got any observed, measured evidence to support that claim? Didn't think so.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If infrared radiation can not warm the air,

What gave you that idea?

A million plus hours of experiment, testing, development, and observation of commercial and residential IR heating systems. What gave you the idea that it did? Let me guess, an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model.

exactly how does the absorption and emission of infrared by CO2 cause warming?

If it absorbs IR, it warms.

Really? Got any observed, measured evidence to support that claim? Didn't think so.

A million plus hours of experiment, testing, development, and observation of commercial and residential IR heating systems.

That is your proof that IR isn't absorbed in the air? Doesn't heat the air?
That's funny.

Really? Got any observed, measured evidence to support that claim?

You need evidence that CO2 absorbs IR?
That's funny.

 

[SSDD]

That is your proof that IR isn't absorbed in the air? Doesn't heat the air?
That's funny.

Of course it is absorbed...than emitted...no warming. And it figures that you would disregard actual observed, measured data showing that IR does not warm the air in favor of a model...

You need evidence that CO2 absorbs IR?
That's funny.

Poor stupid child...I need evidence that the absorption of IR by CO2 results in warming..and since there isn't the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence showing such a thing, you are left simply proclaiming your faith...not discussing observable measurable phenomena...but then, that's your speed...isn't it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is your proof that IR isn't absorbed in the air? Doesn't heat the air?
That's funny.

Of course it is absorbed...than emitted...no warming. And it figures that you would disregard actual observed, measured data showing that IR does not warm the air in favor of a model...

You need evidence that CO2 absorbs IR?
That's funny.

Poor stupid child...I need evidence that the absorption of IR by CO2 results in warming..and since there isn't the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence showing such a thing, you are left simply proclaiming your faith...not discussing observable measurable phenomena...but then, that's your speed...isn't it?

Of course it is absorbed...than emitted...no warming.

All of it is emitted? 100%? Is there warming for the period after absorption, before emission?

And it figures that you would disregard actual observed, measured data showing that IR does not warm the air in favor of a model...

Where is your observed data that it doesn't warm the air?

I need evidence that the absorption of IR by CO2 results in warming.

Post your data that shows matter doesn't warm after it absorbs IR.
I'll be happy to point out your error.

 

[SSDD]

All of it is emitted? 100%? Is there warming for the period after absorption, before emission?

Since the infrared heating industry has proven pretty conclusively that IR does not and can not warm the air, that would be a no....there is no warming.

Where is your observed data that it doesn't warm the air?

Refer to the infrared heating industry...

 

[RealDave]

1) It does not mean the concept of heightened CO2 emissions are not the major cause.

If infrared radiation can not warm the air, exactly how does the absorption and emission of infrared by CO2 cause warming? There is not a single piece of actual observed, measured evidence which supports the claim that it does.

2) Climatologists have access to the climate & atmospheric conditions millions of years ago. You are claiming these are irrelevant because we did not have the satellites a million years ago which makes you a fucking moron.

When you look back millions of years, you see just how insignificant the bit of warming we have seen is....at the point where the ice age in which the earth is still exiting began, atmospheric CO2 was in the neighborhood of 1000ppm...an ice age began with CO2 at 1000ppm...and climate science is threatening run away warming if CO2 gets much above 400 or 500 ppm?

3) It is amusing that you think that you know more than the climatologists.

Maybe you are unaware...but climate science is a soft science...Physics, chemistry, biology, even engineering are hard sciences...soft sciences are for those who can't quite meet the rigors of an education in the hard sciences but still want to cal themselves scientists...Climate science, being a soft science isn't that difficult to grasp. I do feel sorry for people who believe themselves to be so uneducated that even the soft sciences are out of their reach and are left simply believing one side or another based mostly on their political leanings.

Climate models are accurate enough to tel us that we need to cut emissions & what the results we can expect if we do nothing.

Got any actual observed, measured evidence to support that claim? Like I said, when the ice age the earth is presently exiting began, CO2 levels were about 1000ppm...We are sitting at about 400ppm now.....If an ice age began with CO2 at 1000ppm, why, exactly are you worried that more CO2 will cause warming?

When you claim that we have not experienced global warming is prrof how big a fool you really are.

It has been warming since the end of the little ice age...what exactly is your point. Climate science likes to look at very short periods of time and wave their hands hysterically, but if you look at the long term, you will see that the present is considerably cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

Here are two gold standard ice core temperature reconstructions...one ice core was taken above the arctic circle, the other was taken in antarctica...both show similar peaks and dips in temperature...both show similar time spans between the peaks and dips...since the two poles show similar warming and cooling patterns, you would be hard pressed to provide a rational scientifically valid explanation as to how the globe between the two poles missed out on the same temperature variations...after all, climate science has been telling us for decades that the poles are the canary in the coal mine and whatever is happening at the poles is going to happen everywhere else.

As you can see, according to the gold standard temperature reconstructions, it is cooler now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

There you go again. Claiming current climatologists are too stupid to consider anything beyond the present. How are these PhDs so stupid & you are so smart?

You run in circles waving your arms screaming how CO2 levels were higher in the past yet you are too naive to consider what the Earth was like then. Our civilizations are build on our current climate.

You ignore the ocean levels in those years with higher CO2 yet ocean levels of that time would devastate a high percentage of this planet's people. Let alone our food production. What if the higher temps lowered the production we get out of the bread belt? This effect is happening now.

This is how uneducated you must be. It is the ignorant people like you that prevent Congress from taking more action. Stupid, ignorant, uneducated assholes like you put my children's future in jeopardy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All of it is emitted? 100%? Is there warming for the period after absorption, before emission?

Since the infrared heating industry has proven pretty conclusively that IR does not and can not warm the air, that would be a no....there is no warming.

Where is your observed data that it doesn't warm the air?

Refer to the infrared heating industry...

Since the infrared heating industry has proven pretty conclusively that IR does not and can not warm the air, that would be a no....there is no warming.

Are their heating elements the same temperature as the Earth's surface?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1) It does not mean the concept of heightened CO2 emissions are not the major cause.

If infrared radiation can not warm the air, exactly how does the absorption and emission of infrared by CO2 cause warming? There is not a single piece of actual observed, measured evidence which supports the claim that it does.

2) Climatologists have access to the climate & atmospheric conditions millions of years ago. You are claiming these are irrelevant because we did not have the satellites a million years ago which makes you a fucking moron.

When you look back millions of years, you see just how insignificant the bit of warming we have seen is....at the point where the ice age in which the earth is still exiting began, atmospheric CO2 was in the neighborhood of 1000ppm...an ice age began with CO2 at 1000ppm...and climate science is threatening run away warming if CO2 gets much above 400 or 500 ppm?

3) It is amusing that you think that you know more than the climatologists.

Maybe you are unaware...but climate science is a soft science...Physics, chemistry, biology, even engineering are hard sciences...soft sciences are for those who can't quite meet the rigors of an education in the hard sciences but still want to cal themselves scientists...Climate science, being a soft science isn't that difficult to grasp. I do feel sorry for people who believe themselves to be so uneducated that even the soft sciences are out of their reach and are left simply believing one side or another based mostly on their political leanings.

Climate models are accurate enough to tel us that we need to cut emissions & what the results we can expect if we do nothing.

Got any actual observed, measured evidence to support that claim? Like I said, when the ice age the earth is presently exiting began, CO2 levels were about 1000ppm...We are sitting at about 400ppm now.....If an ice age began with CO2 at 1000ppm, why, exactly are you worried that more CO2 will cause warming?

When you claim that we have not experienced global warming is prrof how big a fool you really are.

It has been warming since the end of the little ice age...what exactly is your point. Climate science likes to look at very short periods of time and wave their hands hysterically, but if you look at the long term, you will see that the present is considerably cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

Here are two gold standard ice core temperature reconstructions...one ice core was taken above the arctic circle, the other was taken in antarctica...both show similar peaks and dips in temperature...both show similar time spans between the peaks and dips...since the two poles show similar warming and cooling patterns, you would be hard pressed to provide a rational scientifically valid explanation as to how the globe between the two poles missed out on the same temperature variations...after all, climate science has been telling us for decades that the poles are the canary in the coal mine and whatever is happening at the poles is going to happen everywhere else.

As you can see, according to the gold standard temperature reconstructions, it is cooler now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

There you go again. Claiming current climatologists are too stupid to consider anything beyond the present. How are these PhDs so stupid & you are so smart?

You run in circles waving your arms screaming how CO2 levels were higher in the past yet you are too naive to consider what the Earth was like then. Our civilizations are build on our current climate.

You ignore the ocean levels in those years with higher CO2 yet ocean levels of that time would devastate a high percentage of this planet's people. Let alone our food production. What if the higher temps lowered the production we get out of the bread belt? This effect is happening now.

This is how uneducated you must be. It is the ignorant people like you that prevent Congress from taking more action. Stupid, ignorant, uneducated assholes like you put my children's future in jeopardy.

It is the ignorant people like you that prevent Congress from taking more action.

Is that why Kyoto received as many votes in the US Senate as it did?

How many votes was that again?

 

[SSDD]

There you go again. Claiming current climatologists are too stupid to consider anything beyond the present. How are these PhDs so stupid & you are so smart?

Got any examples of climate scientists pointing out that the past was much warmer than the present...or that the present is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years...or mentioning that the ice age the earth is exiting began with CO2 levels at or near 1000ppm? Any examples of climate science pointing out that the past makes it apparent that we have little to worry about?

You run in circles waving your arms screaming how CO2 levels were higher in the past yet you are too naive to consider what the Earth was like then. Our civilizations are build on our current climate.

At the onset of the ice age that the earth is presently exiting, the would have been almost indistinguishable from the present. And civilization over the past 10,000 years developed in a warmer climate than the present.

You ignore the ocean levels in those years with higher CO2 yet ocean levels of that time would devastate a high percentage of this planet's people. Let alone our food production. What if the higher temps lowered the production we get out of the bread belt? This effect is happening now.

CO2 levels had nothing to do with the climate...again, there isn't the first piece of observed, measured evidence which suggests that CO2 has any effect on climate whatsoever. But feel free to bring a piece of such evidence here if you believe it exists...good luck with that.

This is how uneducated you must be. It is the ignorant people like you that prevent Congress from taking more action. Stupid, ignorant, uneducated assholes like you put my children's future in jeopardy.

Still waiting on the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support the claim that action on CO2 needs to be taken...you clearly believe it does, but based on what actual evidence?

 

[SSDD]

Are their heating elements the same temperature as the Earth's surface?

So you think that warmer IR elements would not warm the air but cooler IR elements would? How might the air know the difference? Does it somehow only react to cooler IR than warmer IR?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are their heating elements the same temperature as the Earth's surface?

So you think that warmer IR elements would not warm the air but cooler IR elements would? How might the air know the difference? Does it somehow only react to cooler IR than warmer IR?

So you think that warmer IR elements would not warm the air but cooler IR elements would?

You'd have to post the emission spectra of each.
Maybe you can find it in the millions of hours of "experiment, testing, development, and observation of commercial and residential IR heating systems"?

Does it somehow only react to cooler IR than warmer IR?



You'd have to see where the emission spectra of the heating element overlaps with the absorption spectra of the air.

 

[SSDD]

knock yourself out...you won't believe any actual evidence that contradicts your beliefs anyway..

 

[Crick]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAaaaaa what a fucking MORON

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

knock yourself out...you won't believe any actual evidence that contradicts your beliefs anyway..

And you can't post any actual evidence that contradicts my beliefs, or that supports your beliefs.
Weird.
What's wrong, millions of hours of experiment, testing, development, and observation of commercial and residential IR heating systems not enough data for you?