Maunder minimum gone missing

[gtopa1]

Seems you are one stupid individual. And it was 121 one day in Lytton, British Columbia.

View attachment 547903

UAH Global Temperature Update for September, 2021: +0.25 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

???????????????????????????????????????????????????

From your site:

"

Global Warming​

“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.
Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.
But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.
It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.
The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.
The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. NASA’s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore are campaigning for a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired power plants in the U.S.
You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.
The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ‘skeptic’ regarding mankind’s influence on climate.
Climate change — it happens, with or without our help."

Global Warming « Roy Spencer, PhD

www.drroyspencer.com

Roy Spencer is one of the BEST!!!!!



Greg

 

[gtopa1]

One can see here how a series of decreasing values make up the temperature record.

Global Temperature

Something's going on around here!!!!!!!!!!

Greg

 

[gipper]

You forgot to make your point. What is your point?

Lol. You’ll have to guess.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Are you saying that the effects of the sun is causing the warming and cooling of the planet? Oh my....

Impossible for the Sun to have any impact on climate change! Physically impossible! It's well know that a de minimus atmospheric trace gas CO2 DRIVES the climate and has since the 1850's

 

[ding]

Dingleberry, that was not a prediction, that link was to observation of what the sun is doing right now.

Solar Activity Forecast for Next Decade Favorable for Exploration - NASA

The last astronauts of the Apollo program were lucky. Not just because they were chosen to fly to the Moon, but because they missed some really bad weather en

www.nasa.gov

 

[Old Rocks]

???????????????????????????????????????????????????

From your site:

"

Global Warming​

“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.
Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.
But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.
It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.
The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.
The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. NASA’s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore are campaigning for a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired power plants in the U.S.
You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.
The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ‘skeptic’ regarding mankind’s influence on climate.
Climate change — it happens, with or without our help."

Global Warming « Roy Spencer, PhD

www.drroyspencer.com

Roy Spencer is one of the BEST!!!!!



Greg

The dumb ass is also a creationist. LOL He and his partner had value with the wrong sign in their data for years, and insisted that the rest of the scientists were cheating. Then, when it came out what their error was, never apologized. Yes, his graph is now accurate, but he is also very wrong as to the causes of global warming and has little credibility among other scientists.

 

[Old Rocks]

Solar Activity Forecast for Next Decade Favorable for Exploration - NASA

The last astronauts of the Apollo program were lucky. Not just because they were chosen to fly to the Moon, but because they missed some really bad weather en

www.nasa.gov

Jun 12, 2019

Solar Activity Forecast for Next Decade Favorable for Exploration​

It is now October, 2021, and we are seeing a rather active solar cycle. LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

That's exactly what they are saying. They are literally saying the radiative forcing of CO2 dominates the radiative forcing of solar irradiance.

They just haven't thought through the implications of that.

Crap, you are such a dumb fuck. When there is very little change in the solar forcing, and what change there is is going in the opposite direction of the present climate change, then that change in solar forcing obviously has little to do with the change we are seeing. Lordy, you sure have a way of misinterpreting the simplest logic.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here's a way to visualize what that graph is saying.

View attachment 548946

And?

 

[gtopa1]

The dumb ass is also a creationist. LOL He and his partner had value with the wrong sign in their data for years, and insisted that the rest of the scientists were cheating. Then, when it came out what their error was, never apologized. Yes, his graph is now accurate, but he is also very wrong as to the causes of global warming and has little credibility among other scientists.

So you have...NOTHING!!!! Link!!!

Yeah; you are as dim as they come. Peer reviewing didn't spot it right away?? lol. But isn't REAL Science like that?? Constant checking is a MUST; refer to Popper for details!!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

And?

You give out insults quite freely, dumbfuk!! Seems every time you open your buttlips you spew out Clintons!!!

Greg

 

[Old Rocks]

You give out insults quite freely, dumbfuk!! Seems every time you open your buttlips you spew out Clintons!!!

Greg

Why should I not name people like you for what they are? Willful ignorance is never acceptable, and those that practice it should be chastised at every opportunity. AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

 

[gtopa1]

Why should I not name people like you for what they are? Willful ignorance is never acceptable, and those that practice it should be chastised at every opportunity. AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

ANY storm or weather event CAN BE a real and present danger. Your conflation is amateur!! Evidence is sadly lacking from your East Anglia claptrap!!!

"
The take-home points of this shoddy, dishonest propaganda exercise were:

• The Climategate scientists were just decent, hardworking, nice professionals doing an honest job
• Climategate was a last ditch act of sabotage by a tiny minority of nasty, devious, anti-science climate deniers. A “rearguard assault on climate science” as Mann described it
• The document dump was definitely not a leak but a criminal hack — an act of theft against a reputable and blameless scientific institution (the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia)
• Any nefarious conclusions reached by sceptics were based on a few cherry-picked emails which they deliberately misrepresented to make them sound worse than they actually were, notably the ‘Hide the Decline’ email.
• The Climategate scientists were really nice — oh, did we mention that already?
• The Climategate scientists shed tears, real tears, not only at the time but also looking back, ten years on, when remembering how they felt at all those death threats they (allegedly) received from evil, vicious, hateful deniers.
• Michael Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’ chart, far from being just about the most widely discredited artefact in the history of junk science, was in fact an “iconic” image
• The notorious Mike’s Nature Trick email was not, in fact, an extremely dodgy and unscientific “apples and oranges” attempt to fudge the results of inconvenient proxy data by splicing on real temperature data. It was – Mann again – “an entirely innocent and appropriate conversation between three scientists”.
• Climate science is entirely trustworthy and in no wise did Climategate demonstrate anything to the contrary.
• “The modern period was likely the warmest in the last 1,000 years” (Tim Osborn of the CRU). So take that, Medieval Warming Period! Just like Mann’s Hockey Team had always hoped you’ve finally been written out of history…
• George Monbiot never wrote this in the Guardian after Climategate: “No-one has been as badly let down by the revelations in the emails as those of us who have championed the science”. He can’t have done because he appeared on this documentary as one of the star witnesses, explaining how totally undamning and innocuous those emails in fact were.

The Climate Industrial Complex, as we know, operates like a giant tag team. Which is why a compliant media was ready and waiting to give this complacent piece of tosh the favourable attention it didn’t deserve.

Here is Guardian reviewer Lucy Mangan. (I love Lucy: she is my touchstone of wrong. If ever she writes favourably about something — be it the wokefest travesty that is the BBC’s His Dark Materials, or the PC atrocity that is Watchmen — you just know it’s going to suck, big time.)

She begins:

Is it pure arrogance that makes laypeople think they know better than scientists who have spent their lives painstakingly researching an issue? Or a desperate insecurity that makes them unable to stand the respect accorded to experts?

Yes, Lucy. Amateur psychoanalysis of your ideological enemies is so much easier than doing basic journalism, like, say, asking: “Do the claims in this TV documentary stand up?”

Unsurprisingly, Lucy can’t even get her basic facts right.

Delingpole: Climategate, Ten Years On – 'Nothing to See Here' Says BBC

This month marks the tenth anniversary of Climategate -- the biggest scandal in the brief, ignominious history of "climate science"...

www.breitbart.com

why do you HOPE that everyone just forgets what BULLSHIT you dribble??

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

View attachment 548944

hmmmm...a correlation with GW. As I have said for many years: the earth has been warming since BEFORE the Industrial Revolution. But causation is another matter...definitely food for thought.

Many thanks.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Why should I not name people like you for what they are? Willful ignorance is never acceptable, and those that practice it should be chastised at every opportunity. AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

wtf is "naming people"...Hello; I am Greg. You are dogshit.

Wtf is this "naming" rubbish?? lmao

As if i give a damn about being "named" by a buffoon. Remember that little old saying; sticks and stones??

Continue with your vacuous shtick!! It's amusing to see such insipid critiques. I trust you don't think I take your nonsense seriously??? lmao

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Why should I not name people like you for what they are? Willful ignorance is never acceptable, and those that practice it should be chastised at every opportunity. AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

"Hockey stick".....lmao

f'n stupid!!!

Greg

 

[ding]

The dumb ass is also a creationist. LOL He and his partner had value with the wrong sign in their data for years, and insisted that the rest of the scientists were cheating. Then, when it came out what their error was, never apologized. Yes, his graph is now accurate, but he is also very wrong as to the causes of global warming and has little credibility among other scientists.

Wow, character attack. Who didn't see that coming.

 

[ding]

Jun 12, 2019

Solar Activity Forecast for Next Decade Favorable for Exploration​

It is now October, 2021, and we are seeing a rather active solar cycle. LOL

Show me.

 

[ding]

Crap, you are such a dumb fuck. When there is very little change in the solar forcing, and what change there is is going in the opposite direction of the present climate change, then that change in solar forcing obviously has little to do with the change we are seeing. Lordy, you sure have a way of misinterpreting the simplest logic.

When there is very little change in the solar forcing? You mean it changes?

Radiative forcing of solar irradiance is not going in the opposite direction, dummy.

The point you are missing is that according to the IPCC CO2 dominates all radiative forcing components which means the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet 2.7 million years ago and the 33 drastic temperature swings of 5C to 8C since that time could have never have happened because no other radiative component (according to them) could have offset the radiative forcing of CO2.

 

[ding]

And?

What part of "Here's a way to visualize what that graph is saying" did you not understand?