Man made global warming is a hoax

[istodolez]

You might look at the research of Professor Valentina Zakharov whose work -- latterly at the University of Newcastle in the UK -- is directly linked to planet temperature change , albeit as a result of Sun spot cycles and the activity drivers , its magnetic centres .
Previously thought to be two . But now reported to be four .
All of them are now out of phase which based on the past is a guarantee of a colder temperatures . She says . Peer reviewed studies available in the top journals .
A mini ice age no less . Starting right now and forecast to last around 350 -- 400 years .
A repeat of our mini ice age in the middle ages which those believing in steady climbing temperatures chose to forget about ( IPCC ) in their desperate pseudo scientific attempt to prove the warmer climate forecast for now .
With Valentina literally announcing her forecasts to be starting 'tomorrow ' we should watch carefully rather than indiscriminately argue the proverbial toss .
So far her model on which forecasts have been made has been 93% accurate and significantly more accurate and reliable than competing models -- around 150 apparently .

I am only the messenger .

Yeah, sounds pretty fringe.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You might look at the research of Professor Valentina Zakharov whose work -- latterly at the University of Newcastle in the UK -- is directly linked to planet temperature change , albeit as a result of Sun spot cycles and the activity drivers , its magnetic centres .
Previously thought to be two . But now reported to be four .
All of them are now out of phase which based on the past is a guarantee of a colder temperatures . She says . Peer reviewed studies available in the top journals .
A mini ice age no less . Starting right now and forecast to last around 350 -- 400 years .
A repeat of our mini ice age in the middle ages which those believing in steady climbing temperatures chose to forget about ( IPCC ) in their desperate pseudo scientific attempt to prove the warmer climate forecast for now .
With Valentina literally announcing her forecasts to be starting 'tomorrow ' we should watch carefully rather than indiscriminately argue the proverbial toss .
So far her model on which forecasts have been made has been 93% accurate and significantly more accurate and reliable than competing models -- around 150 apparently .

I am only the messenger .

I have access to many "top journals." Can you provide me with a link, paper title, or DOI number please?

 

[watsup]

I have access to many "top journals." Can you provide me with a link, paper title, or DOI number please?

When you never do? Why the double-standard?

 

[longview]

When you never do? Why the double-standard?

You make this too easy to prove you wrong!
In this very thread, Post # 137, LOP cited a journal article,
The Mass of the Atmosphere: A Constraint on Global Analyses
So your assertion that LOP "NEVER" posts links to journals, is well, WRONG!

 

[watsup]

You make this too easy to prove you wrong!
In this very thread, Post # 137, LOP cited a journal article,
The Mass of the Atmosphere: A Constraint on Global Analyses
So your assertion that LOP "NEVER" posts links to journals, is well, WRONG!

So 117 posts ago is when he posted his last source? Wow, he stays on top of it!

 

[longview]

So 117 posts ago is when he posted his last source? Wow, he stays on top of it!

You statement was still wrong! How many time do you cite peer reviewed articles?

 

[watsup]

I have access to many "top journals." Can you provide me with a link, paper title, or DOI number please?

Actually, those who truly have knowledge of the subject at hand do not feel the need to constantly cite themselves as being expert, as you do. Instead, others recognize their knowledge base by acknowledging the depth of their posts. I'm talking istodolez here, of course, not you.

 

[Monica33]

I have access to many "top journals." Can you provide me with a link, paper title, or DOI number please?

No . You have a search engine .And I am busy and only work for reward .
Just enter the Profs name and all will be revealed .

But here is a starter morsel for you :-

Professor Valentina Zharkova gave a presentation of her Climate and the Solar Magnetic Field hypothesis at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in October, 2018. Even if you believe the IPCC’s worst case scenario, Zharkova’s analysis blows any ‘warming’ out of the water.
Lee Wheelbarger sums it up: even if the IPCC’s worst case scenarios are seen, that’s only a 1.5 watts per square meter increase. Zharkova’s analysis shows a 8 watts per square meter decrease in TSI to the planet. The information she unveiled should shake/wake you up. Zharkova was one of the few that correctly predicted solar cycle 24 would be weaker than cycle 23 – only 2 out of 150 models predicted this. Her models have run at a 93% accuracy and her findings suggest a SuperGrand Solar Minimum is on the cards beginning 2020 and running for 350-400 years.
The last time we had a little ice age only two magnetic fields of the sun went out of phase. This time, all four magnetic fields are going out of phase.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Actually, those who truly have knowledge of the subject at hand do not feel the need to constantly cite themselves as being expert, as you do. Instead, others recognize their knowledge base by acknowledging the depth of their posts. I'm talking istodolez here, of course, not you.

Then you will read this factual report.

EU Road to Climate Neutrality

EU Road to Climate Neutrality

www.roadtoclimateneutrality.eu

 

[Yakshi]

Humanity is already past this topic. Deniers of manmade global warming are quickly becoming a historical curiosity.

A hundred years ago, there was still a guy or two clogging up the road with his horse and buggy and yammering about cars being a flash in the pan.

 

[watsup]

Then you will read this factual report.

EU Road to Climate Neutrality

EU Road to Climate Neutrality

www.roadtoclimateneutrality.eu

Wind, solar, nuclear energy. Looks good, although some (many?) would disagree with the nuclear.

 

[longview]

Humanity is already past this topic. Deniers of manmade global warming are quickly becoming a historical curiosity.

A hundred years ago, there was still a guy or two clogging up the road with his horse and buggy and yammering about cars being a flash in the pan.

Have you actually identified anyone who says there is no man made climate change?

 

[distraff]

Research shows that there is 35 billion tons of CO2 produced my man every year.

The total weight of the Atmosphere is 5.5 quadrillion tons.

Dividing 35 billion by 5.5 quadrillion come out to .000006

So made made CO2 compared to the whole earths atmosphere is 6 parts in a million. That is such a small amount that it is meaningless.

So lets stop the BS about man made global warming.

Wrong, CO2 is 415 PPM not 6 PPM. Being a small part of the atmosphere doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact. For example, sustained exposure to 150 PPM of carbon monoxide will cause severe symptoms, sometimes death.

Carbon Dioxide Concentration | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[watsup]

Humanity is already past this topic. Deniers of manmade global warming are quickly becoming a historical curiosity.

A hundred years ago, there was still a guy or two clogging up the road with his horse and buggy and yammering about cars being a flash in the pan.

And yet if you are a Republican and you dare to acknowledge manmade global warming and its deleterious effects, you will be hounded mercilessly on social media and called a RINO who is unfit to carry the mantle of the party.
God help us. At least we now have a serious person as president, and who will appoint serious and knowledgeable people to carry out his policies.

 

[watsup]

Have you actually identified anyone who says there is no man made climate change?

Republicans. All of them: "there are 130 members of Congress who have doubted or denied climate change"
And goodness knows how many tens of millions of the ignorant Republican "base" agree with them. Probably equal to the tens of millions who think that Trump won, including the violent insurrectionist mob that stormed the Capitol.

These are the 130 current members of Congress who have doubted or denied climate change

A majority of scientists agree that human activity contributed to the warming of the Earth's climate, but climate denial still exists in Congress.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[longview]

Wrong, CO2 is 415 PPM not 6 PPM. Being a small part of the atmosphere doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact. For example, sustained exposure to 150 PPM of carbon monoxide will cause severe symptoms, sometimes death.

Carbon Dioxide Concentration | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

Actually his numbers are correct, and the 6 ppm is per year, We emit about 6 ppm per year, and the environment
uptake picks up about 3.5 ppm per year, leaving growth of between 2 and 3 ppm per year.

 

[istodolez]

Actually his numbers are correct, and the 6 ppm is per year, We emit about 6 ppm per year, and the environment
uptake picks up about 3.5 ppm per year, leaving growth of between 2 and 3 ppm per year.

And that's a problem.

That excess CO2 will take a VERY LONG TIME to come back out of the atmosphere. It relies on the carbon cycle to fix the C out of the atmosphere which is much slower than the hydrologic cycle which removes excess H2O from the atmosphere.

The GIGATONS of CO2 humans produce on an annual basis dwarfs natural sources like volcanoes.

From little things can come BIG EFFECTS.

 

[longview]

Republicans. All of them: "there are 130 members of Congress who have doubted or denied climate change"
And goodness knows how many tens of millions of the ignorant Republican "base" agree with them. Probably equal to the tens of millions who think that Trump won, including the violent insurrectionist mob that stormed the Capitol.

These are the 130 current members of Congress who have doubted or denied climate change

A majority of scientists agree that human activity contributed to the warming of the Earth's climate, but climate denial still exists in Congress.

www.businessinsider.com

You are again confusing terms! Remember, even the IPCC says the range of ECS is 1.5 to 4.5 C, without even a best estimate.
If a person thinks that the actual figure is closer to 1.5 C, does not mean that they are denying anything,
only that the climate's sensitivity to added CO2 is not high enough to be of concern.
The actual warming is likely even less that the ECS range, as CO2 does not actually double instantly.
TCR transient climate response, is a bit closer, with the CO2 level increasing at 1% per year.
I believe the IPCC's TCR range is 1°–2.5°C, so the mid point of that range would be 1.75°C,
about what my black box experiment came up with.

 

[Glitch]

LOL. You know nothing! I had civics class! :LOLOLOL. Math and science? Yup, had those in Jr and high school as well.

If you recall, I said Democrat filth abolished civics in public schools in 1984. Didn't you say you graduated high school in 1982?

Are your math skills that bad that you cannot comprehend that 1984 comes AFTER 1982? It certainly wouldn't surprise me considering the state of US public education.

That's why I provided you with REFERENCES. You are free to disagree with me, but you still have to face the facts.

Sorry, but leftist propaganda does not qualify as a "reference."

Why do you say this?

Because it is a fact.

Well, at least I know the HISTORY of AGW and I have some background in the sciences.

So I'll stick with my PhD in geology over whatever it is you are pushing here.

As demonstrated by your repeated references to glacial periods. A real geologist would know the difference between an ice-age that lasts for tens of millions of years and a glacial period during an ice-age. The fact that you cannot make that distinction tells me you don't know diddly-squat.

I seriously doubt you could recognize a rock if one hit you in the head.

 

[longview]

And that's a problem.

That excess CO2 will take a VERY LONG TIME to come back out of the atmosphere. It relies on the carbon cycle to fix the C out of the atmosphere which is much slower than the hydrologic cycle which removes excess H2O from the atmosphere.

The GIGATONS of CO2 humans produce on an annual basis dwarfs natural sources like volcanoes.

From little things can come BIG EFFECTS.

Your comment does not say anything about what I said!

 

[watsup]

You are again confusing terms! Remember, even the IPCC says the range of ECS is 1.5 to 4.5 C, without even a best estimate.
If a person thinks that the actual figure is closer to 1.5 C, does not mean that they are denying anything,
only that the climate's sensitivity to added CO2 is not high enough to be of concern.
The actual warming is likely even less that the ECS range, as CO2 does not actually double instantly.
TCR transient climate response, is a bit closer, with the CO2 level increasing at 1% per year.
I believe the IPCC's TCR range is 1°–2.5°C, so the mid point of that range would be 1.75°C,
about what my black box experiment came up with.

Doubted or denied is close enough for me. Tens of millions of the Republican base, too. Look up polls a oit it as regards Repubs.

 

[watsup]

If you recall, I said Democrat filth abolished civics in public schools in 1984. Didn't you say you graduated high school in 1982?

Are your math skills that bad that you cannot comprehend that 1984 comes AFTER 1982? It certainly wouldn't surprise me considering the state of US public education.

Sorry, but leftist propaganda does not qualify as a "reference."

Because it is a fact.


As demonstrated by your repeated references to glacial periods. A real geologist would know the difference between an ice-age that lasts for tens of millions of years and a glacial period during an ice-age. The fact that you cannot make that distinction tells me you don't know diddly-squat.

I seriously doubt you could recognize a rock if one hit you in the head.

More ad hom. It only make YOU look bad, not others.

 

[distraff]

Actually his numbers are correct, and the 6 ppm is per year, We emit about 6 ppm per year, and the environment
uptake picks up about 3.5 ppm per year, leaving growth of between 2 and 3 ppm per year.

The number that matters is the concentration in the atmosphere now and what it will be in 100 years. Messing with our climate system sounds like a recipe for problems if you ask me.

 

[Nickyjo]

Research shows that there is 35 billion tons of CO2 produced my man every year.

The total weight of the Atmosphere is 5.5 quadrillion tons.

Dividing 35 billion by 5.5 quadrillion come out to .000006

So made made CO2 compared to the whole earths atmosphere is 6 parts in a million. That is such a small amount that it is meaningless.

So lets stop the BS about man made global warming.

Well that settles it. Get your six sentences peer-reviewed and submit them to the next international conference on climate. It's in Glasgow in November.

 

[longview]

Doubted or denied is close enough for me. Tens of millions of the Republican base, too. Look up polls a oit it as regards Repubs.

Carry on with your beliefs, but understand that they are not based in science.