"Did the coal miners canary just flutter?"

[Rockstar]

To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe.../#75f0f4474dcf

... this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide. The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013,

“Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.”

That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, “Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.” In other words, another Little Ice Age.

...The German Herald reported on March 31, 2013,
“German meteorologists say that the start of 2013 is now the coldest in 208 years - and now German media has quoted Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov from the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory [saying this] is proof as he said earlier that we are heading for a "Mini Ice Age." Talking to German media the scientist who first made his prediction in 2005 said that after studying sunspots and their relationship with climate change on Earth, we are now on an ‘unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop.’”
Faith in Global Warming is collapsing in formerly staunch Europe following increasingly severe winters which have now started continuing into spring. Christopher Booker explained in The Sunday Telegraph on April 27, 2013,

[Schroeder]

Funny that the temperature is still rising even though we should be heading for an ice age...2016 was the hottest on record.

[Rockstar]

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...s-warming.html

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.
Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.
"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.


It will be interesting see the direction Mars and Earths ice caps take. But as we hear some people already have their made up who to blame

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Funny that the temperature is still rising even though we should be heading for an ice age...2016 was the hottest on record.

Hottest on record where? Because over here we're preparing for record cold and snow

[Rockstar]

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...er-than-losses

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

[Rockstar]

My my not too long ago polar ice caps melted on Mars along with the rise of our own global warming alarmist political hype here on earth. Now NASA is expecting Mars caps to thicken as climate model suggest our own caps are doing. Earths global warming alarmists still holding on tight to their religion that it's my fault because I didn't believe them. Dress warm fellas!


Now as global warming political alarmists say:" time for more pseudoscience from NASA!"

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nas...mars-polar-cap

But Mars also undergoes variations in its tilt and the shape of its orbit over hundreds of thousands of years. These changes cause substantial shifts in the planet's climate, including ice ages. Earth has similar, but less variable, phases called Milankovitch cycles.

[ikalugin]

Global warming would be nice, as it would make a lot of Russian lands actually farmable/livable.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe.../#75f0f4474dcf

Originally Posted by Rockstar

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...s-warming.html

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory

So, which one is it? Cooling or warming?

[Mr Quatro]

I really don't want to bring up the G** word, but the seed has already been planted in my thought pattern that this is all predestined to happen by our maker. The bible points to a new heaven and a new earth at the end of the prophesied 1,000 years of peace which of course comes after the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ.

My seed thought came for Edgar Cacye whom just happened to prophesy that this would happen in a trance like dream state back in the 1930's. Edgar Cayce said that the north pole and the south pole would change directions. He failed to say when, but he had more than one trance like reading and came up with that it would start in the mid 1990's. A lot of followers thought he meant that it would happen in the mid 1990's, but further analyzes shows that he only said that it would start then.

The El nino problem was first noticed by myself in 1997 in Arizona when the weatherman said that it was going to rain a lot due to a warm spot in the Pacific Ocean called El nino. I laughed and said to myself you can't ell if it's going to rain a lot due to a little warm spot in the Pacific Ocean ... it rained a lot and it would'n't stop raining.

Y'all can do some research if you want to:

https://www.google.com/search?safe=a...w=1354&bih=652

You can't out run this problem and you can't solve this problem and you can't blame just man ... therefore I bring up the G** word.

He can handle all of your questions.

I have to go have my coffee now ...

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Dowly

So, which one is it? Cooling or warming?

Its known both earth and mars have had warm and cool periods in their history.

Which is it natural or man made?

One planet seems to just adapt to natural enviromental changes. In fact science even says so.

The other planets inhabitants politicizes the phenomena and blames the other for it.

You presume its mans fault and the funding is provided to prove it. How much funding has gone towards looking for natural causes?

[Gargamel]

[August]

This thread makes me want to get a fire going in the fireplace.

[Rockstar]

My primary heat source for my 1895 2700 sqft home. Im burning wood pellets and wood from a 60 foot pecan tree I cut down in my backyard two years ago. Because its freaking cold right now.

[August]

I love burning wood for heat.

In addition to the living room fireplace we also have a Jotul wood stove in the basement. Them Norwegians know their wood stoves. I love the side door.

[Dowly]

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001[1]. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects")[2]. Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half. See here.
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

1: Satellite data from RSS and UAH shows warming:

RSS:


UAH:


2: The effect of ground measuring stations in "poor exposure" areas and the "heat island" effect has been studied.

On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record

[..]the bias in unadjusted maximum temperature data from poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites is, on average, negative (colder) while the bias in minimum temperatures is positive (warmer) (though smaller in magnitude than the negative bias in maximum temperatures).

Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications (PDF)

We observe the opposite of an urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 ± 0.24°C/100yr (2σ error) in the Berkeley Earth global land temperature average.

***

MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that. See here for more information.

The criticism of Mann's 1998 paper by the skeptic paper by McKitrick and McIntyre is assessed independently by Wahl et al.

Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence (PDF)

The results presented here show no evidence for removing the MBH Northern Hemisphere
temperature reconstruction from the list of important climate reconstructions of the past six
centuries, on the basis of alleged “flaws” in its use of proxy data or underlying methodology.
Indeed, our analyses act as an overall indication of the robustness of the MBH reconstruction
to a variety of issues raised concerning its methods of assimilating proxy data, and also
to two significant simplifications of the MBH method that we have introduced. The shape
of a single-bladed “hockey stick”-like evolution of Northern Hemisphere temperature over
the last 600 years is strongly confirmed within the MBH reconstruction framework (general
algorithm and proxy data).

***

MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by about 120 part per million (ppm), most of which is likely due to human-caused CO2 emissions. The RATE of growth during this century has been about 0.55%/year. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

The CO2 v. Temperature lag has been studied in a number of papers and they tend to agree that while orbital forcing has been the trigger of deglacification, the released CO2 afterwards has been the main driver of the continued warming.

See for example:
Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation (PDF)

Our global temperature stack and transient modelling point to CO2
as a key mechanism of global warming during the last deglaciation

***

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.04% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 75% of the "Greenhouse effect". (See here) At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.

CO2 is the most talked about GHG because it affects the climate most in the long run. Water vapor stays in atmosphere for about 10 days, CO2 stays in the atmosphere anywhere from couple of years to over 1,000 years.

***

MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. Using the output of a model to verify its initial assumption is committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

Sun's activity can't explain the raising temperature anymore.

How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006 (PDF)

None of the natural processes can account for the
overall warming trend in global surface temperatures. In the
100 years from 1905 to 2005, the temperature trends
produce by all three natural influences are at least an order
of magnitude smaller than the observed surface temperature
trend reported by IPCC [2007]. According to this analysis,
solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in
the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100
years, not 69% as claimed by Scafetta and West [2008]
(who assumed larger solar irradiance changes and enhanced
climate response on longer time scales).

Global temperature evolution 1979–2010

The resultant adjusted data show clearly, both visually and when subjected to statistical analysis, that the rate of global warming due to other factors (most likely these are exclusively anthropogenic) has been remarkably steady during the 32 years from 1979 through 2010. There is no indication of any slowdown or acceleration of global warming, beyond the variability induced by these known natural factors. Because the effects of volcanic eruptions and of ENSO are very short-term and that of solar variability very small (figure 7), none of these factors can be expected to exert a significant influence on the continuation of global warming over the coming decades.

Red: Monthly number of sunspots
Green: Global mean temperature
Blue: Total Solar Irradiance monthly average


***

MYTH 6: The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
See a Wall Street Journal article here.

Can't say much about the deleted stuff other than to offer the letter responding to the allegation by Benjamin Santer:
https://stephenschneider.stanford.ed...WSJ_June25.pdf

As for there not being any scientific proof of man-made global warming, here's a paper published already in 1956 which links CO2, both natural and anthropogenic, to climate change:
Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change

***

MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it. The graph here shows changes in vegetative cover due to CO2 fertilization between 1982 and 2010 (Donohue et al., 2013 GRL). A major study here shows that CO2 fertilization will likely increase the value of crop production between now and 2050 by an additional $11.7 trillion ($US 2014). See here for more discussion.

Whether CO2 is classed as a pollutant or not is, imho, irrelevant.

***

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting. See here for graphs and discussion of extreme weather.

The simple answer is: Scientists are not sure yet.

***

MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of man-made global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, changes to glacier's extent is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

Coming out of the LIA doesn't explain the increasingly rapid rate at which global glacier mass is decreasing.

http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/pdfs/7.pdf

The early mass balance
measurements indicate strong ice losses as early as
the 1940s and 1950s, followed by a moderate ice loss
between 1966 and 1985, and accelerating ice losses until
present. The global average annual mass loss of more
than half a metre water equivalent during the decade
of 1996 to 2005 represents twice the ice loss of the
previous decade (1986–95) and over four times the rate
of the decade from 1976 to 1985

***

MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming and the polar ice caps are breaking up and melting.
FACT: The earth is variable. The Arctic Region had warmed from 1966 to 2005, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean and soot from Asia darkening the ice, but there has been no warming since 2005. Current temperatures are the same as in 1943. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice cap thicknesses in both Greenland and Antarctica are increasing. North polar temperature graph here. South polar temperature graph here. See here for sea ice extent.

Both the Arctic region and Greenland are losing mass. Antarctic is gaining mass, but at ever decreasing rate.