|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 15, 2019 0:15:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Mar 15, 2019 3:55:57 GMT
Naut what
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 15, 2019 10:07:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 15, 2019 10:08:09 GMT
"Global Cooling: The Real Climate Threat By Vijay Jayaraj Climate alarmists constantly warn us that man-made global warming is making our world less habitable and that climate doomsday is fast approaching. But a closer look at our climate reveals a surprising climate discovery that our mainstream media have conveniently ignored for decades: the role of the sun in determining Earth's climate. For the first time in humanity's history, our leaders could be actively devising policies — based on their defiant and biased obsession with global warming — that will render us highly vulnerable to even the slightest cooling in our climatic system.
"We are causing irreversible damage to our environment," "We are headed for a climate doomsday due to excessive warming," "Climate change may wipe out humanity" — these are our everyday news headlines.
www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/global_cooling_the_real_climate_threat.html
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 15, 2019 10:14:54 GMT
NASA link From the above American Thinker article "NASA hides page saying the Sun was the primary climate driver, and clouds and particles are more important than greenhouse gases ZeroHedge asks: What the hell are NASA Hiding? The NASA site used to have a page titled “What are the primary forcings of the Earth system?“. In 2010 this page said that the Sun is the major driver of Earth’s climate, that it controls all the major aspects, and we may be on the cusp of an ice age. Furthermore NASA Science said things like clouds, albedo and aerosol behaviour can have more powerful cooling effects that outdo the warming effect of CO2. Today that page says Share the science and stay connected, and “Access Denied"
Whatever you do, don’t tell the world that NASA says the Sun is more important than CO2. The Wayback Machine captured the same NASA “Primary Climate Forcings” link in 2010."joannenova.com.au/2019/02/nasa-hides-page-saying-the-sun-was-the-primary-climate-driver-and-clouds-and-particles-are-more-important-than-greenhouse-gases/Now I know why I couldn't find this page again when I looked for it. Note the important text from the page image above that NASA now wants to hide. "Earth’s orbit around and orientation toward the Sun change over spans of many thousands of years. In turn, these changing “orbital mechanics” force climate to change because they change where and how much sunlight reaches Earth. (Please see for more details.) Thus, changing Earth’s exposure to sunlight forces climate to change. According to scientists’ models of Earth’s orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age."I suppose that they may have hidden it as we are in an ice age already just in an interglacial - so one assumes they mean we could exit the current interglacial.
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Mar 15, 2019 11:41:38 GMT
MEMORY HOLE!!!
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 15, 2019 11:53:34 GMT
NASA link From the above American Thinker article "NASA hides page saying the Sun was the primary climate driver, and clouds and particles are more important than greenhouse gases ZeroHedge asks: What the hell are NASA Hiding? The NASA site used to have a page titled “What are the primary forcings of the Earth system?“. In 2010 this page said that the Sun is the major driver of Earth’s climate, that it controls all the major aspects, and we may be on the cusp of an ice age. Furthermore NASA Science said things like clouds, albedo and aerosol behaviour can have more powerful cooling effects that outdo the warming effect of CO2. Today that page says Share the science and stay connected, and “Access Denied"
Whatever you do, don’t tell the world that NASA says the Sun is more important than CO2. The Wayback Machine captured the same NASA “Primary Climate Forcings” link in 2010."Trust in the Forcing, Luke!
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 16, 2019 16:31:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 17, 2019 14:10:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 17, 2019 15:38:32 GMT
It's a waste of time. There's no science discussed, just mindless dogma-babble. There is no such thing as a global climate. It's a contradiction in terms. A climate is local conditions bounded by a timeframe. There are millions of climates on planet earth. You can't have a global-local that is bounded by time yet open-ended timewise. The Global Warming religion hijacked the word "climate" and applied it as the name of their main deity who punishes humanity for its carbon sins. Also, science has already addressed the question of CO2 or any other gas having an effect on the earth's average global temperature and it's just not possible. This Dr. Curry guy is a fraud.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 17, 2019 20:18:50 GMT
But a cri de coeur from the New York Times from 5 years ago ...... "Opinion The End of Snow?
It was a big step forward for skiers and the country. And it led people to ask me, “Why save skiing when there are more pressing consequences of climate change to worry about?” The answer is, this is not about skiing. It is about snow, a vital component of earth’s climate system and water cycle. When it disappears, what follows is a dangerous chain reaction of catastrophes like forest fires, drought, mountain pine beetle infestation, degraded river habitat, loss of hydroelectric power, dried-up aquifers and shifting weather patterns. Not to mention that more than a billion people around the world — including about 70 million in the western United States — rely on snowmelt for their fresh water supply. I remember watching my first Winter Olympics in 1980. We were on a family ski trip at Copper Mountain in Colorado, where my brother and I skied the first powder run of our lives. It was on a gentle slope just off one of the main trails. We wiggled down the hill in chaotic rapture then skied the run again and again. The snow was soft and the turns effortless. You don’t have to be a skier to feel nostalgia for those whitewashed days — or to see the writing on the wall."www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-snow.htmlAlways wrong but never admit it
|
|
|
Post by RicksFormula on Mar 18, 2019 18:48:03 GMT
"Opinion The End of Snow?
It was a big step forward for skiers and the country. And it led people to ask me, “Why save skiing when there are more pressing consequences of climate change to worry about?” The answer is, this is not about skiing. It is about snow, a vital component of earth’s climate system and water cycle. When it disappears, what follows is a dangerous chain reaction of catastrophes like forest fires, drought, mountain pine beetle infestation, degraded river habitat, loss of hydroelectric power, dried-up aquifers and shifting weather patterns. Not to mention that more than a billion people around the world — including about 70 million in the western United States — rely on snowmelt for their fresh water supply. I remember watching my first Winter Olympics in 1980. We were on a family ski trip at Copper Mountain in Colorado, where my brother and I skied the first powder run of our lives. It was on a gentle slope just off one of the main trails. We wiggled down the hill in chaotic rapture then skied the run again and again. The snow was soft and the turns effortless. You don’t have to be a skier to feel nostalgia for those whitewashed days — or to see the writing on the wall."
www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-snow.html
Always wrong but never admit it ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wow, I read the whole article, that's quite a tale! It should be read with a flashlight to the chin around a late night campfire!
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 19, 2019 0:20:33 GMT
"Opinion The End of Snow?
It was a big step forward for skiers and the country. And it led people to ask me, “Why save skiing when there are more pressing consequences of climate change to worry about?” The answer is, this is not about skiing. It is about snow, a vital component of earth’s climate system and water cycle. When it disappears, what follows is a dangerous chain reaction of catastrophes like forest fires, drought, mountain pine beetle infestation, degraded river habitat, loss of hydroelectric power, dried-up aquifers and shifting weather patterns. Not to mention that more than a billion people around the world — including about 70 million in the western United States — rely on snowmelt for their fresh water supply. I remember watching my first Winter Olympics in 1980. We were on a family ski trip at Copper Mountain in Colorado, where my brother and I skied the first powder run of our lives. It was on a gentle slope just off one of the main trails. We wiggled down the hill in chaotic rapture then skied the run again and again. The snow was soft and the turns effortless. You don’t have to be a skier to feel nostalgia for those whitewashed days — or to see the writing on the wall."
www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-snow.html
Always wrong but never admit it ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wow, I read the whole article, that's quite a tale! It should be read with a flashlight to the chin around a late night campfire!
Well, he did put a question mark at the end of the title ... and then went on to write an article that totally ignored it.
|
|
|
Post by IB DaMann on Mar 19, 2019 1:45:00 GMT
Well, he did put a question mark at the end of the title ... and then went on to write an article that totally ignored it The most glaring problem with the article is that it completely ignores physics. The earth's average global temperature will not be changing. The atmosphere will not be disappearing. The planet's water isn't going anywhere. There will always be conditions for snow somewhere on the planet.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 23, 2019 14:44:37 GMT
There would appear to be a problem in the way climate 'science' generates temperatures. It takes the maximum temperature observation and the minimum and then calculates the arithmetic mean - which the then call 'the average temperature'. This average temperature can rise because the lows are not as low. However, the climate 'scientists' use the average and the 'anomaly' in the average to claim we are all going to fry.
Max 85.00 84.80 84.60 84.40 84.20 84.00 83.80 83.60 83.40 83.20 83.00 82.80 Min 40.00 40.30 40.60 40.90 41.20 41.50 41.80 42.10 42.40 42.70 43.00 43.30 Avg 62.50 62.55 62.60 62.65 62.70 62.75 62.80 62.85 62.90 62.95 63.00 63.05 Maximum Temperature dropped by 2.2 Minimum temperature rose by 3.3 Reported as a rise in temperatures/anomaly of 0.55
However, top temperatures are actually generally reducing.
This appears to be carried out in the initial processing of the observations - can anyone check if I am right?
|
|