Scientists FlipFlop Back to Global COOLING?

[Deuce]

Wow. One might have thought that whole comment was made in jest. Of course...you are dealing with getting nailed in your lies in the other thread so I can see where you are still 'tender'. :lamo

More deflection from the fact that you fell for the 1970s ice age myth fed to you be "skeptics." How sad.

 

[VanceMack]

More deflection from the fact that you fell for the 1970s ice age myth fed to you be "skeptics." How sad.

I didn't fall for it silly person. I pointed out how stupid people of faith are when it comes to their willingness to buy the global warming bull****. I have ALWAYS states the one constant is climate change. And it's really kinda laughable to see you, one of the most rabid true believers of the AGW mythology, now saying "see? There ALWAYS been climate change!" :lamo

 

[Tim the plumber]

The alleged weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation appears to be triggering a growing amount of speculation about abrupt cooling, like the plot of the movie “The Day After Tomorrow”.
Who else is speculating about abrupt cooling? One name which might surprise you is former NASA GISS director James Hansen.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07...-flipflop-back-to-global-cooling-predictions/

The Gulf stream/ North Atlantic convayor/ Atlantic Meridional Over-new-word-so-it-sounds-more-scientific is wind driven. The force produced by the action of the westerly winds across the distance between the Carribean and Ireland is many thousands of times greater than the force of a slight difference in salinity or temperature produced by anthing else.

The Jet stream would have to do some spectacular shifting to change that and it will not do so.

 

[Threegoofs]

Seems to me I have heard about those 'ice ages' in the past. I remember reading about how the industrial era caused the ice age back 3 million years ago or so.

This confirms what we all suspected about your reading comprehension.

 

[Deuce]

I didn't fall for it silly person. I pointed out how stupid people of faith are when it comes to their willingness to buy the global warming bull****. I have ALWAYS states the one constant is climate change. And it's really kinda laughable to see you, one of the most rabid true believers of the AGW mythology, now saying "see? There ALWAYS been climate change!" :lamo

What do you mean "now saying" there has always been climate change?

Do you think that's new? Are you really under the impression that climate change proponents think mankind is the only thing to affect climate? Do you really believe that?

Wow, have you really bought into the far-right blogger brigade's lines. So sad.

 

[VanceMack]

What do you mean "now saying" there has always been climate change?

Do you think that's new? Are you really under the impression that climate change proponents think mankind is the only thing to affect climate? Do you really believe that?

I think you and the rest of the AGW true believers have and will parrot whatever narrative is being spoon fed to you and that as soon as the AGW rhetoric got blown up you changed your sad tune to "Climate Change!" Because....come on...you cant defend any of the AGW positions, the 'scientists' have been caught numerous time lying and doctoring data...hell the UN counsel on Global Warming has come out and admitted the whole thing is nothing more than a wealth redistribution scam...but the one thing you can always reliably count on...which as been the position of those of us that didnt bend bob and swallow the AGW bull****...is that the climate changes. The only one constantly shifting their rhetoric out of NECESSITY is...well...you.

Dont worry though Deuce...when there is a new batch of pro AGW talking points they need you to parrot, I'm sure they will send you the memo.

 

[Deuce]

I think you and the rest of the AGW true believers have and will parrot whatever narrative is being spoon fed to you and that as soon as the AGW rhetoric got blown up you changed your sad tune to "Climate Change!" Because....come on...you cant defend any of the AGW positions, the 'scientists' have been caught numerous time lying and doctoring data...hell the UN counsel on Global Warming has come out and admitted the whole thing is nothing more than a wealth redistribution scam...but the one thing you can always reliably count on...which as been the position of those of us that didnt bend bob and swallow the AGW bull****...is that the climate changes. The only one constantly shifting their rhetoric out of NECESSITY is...well...you.

Dont worry though Deuce...when there is a new batch of pro AGW talking points they need you to parrot, I'm sure they will send you the memo.

Your position is "climate changes?" Wow. That's just stunning. What a hero you are. Bravely standing up for the belief that 100% of the planet understands.

Pat yourself on the back some more, buddy. You've earned that ****.

Keep on with the personal attacks. It's entertaining, and totally not an obvious ploy to deflect from the fact that you got duped in the 1970s about ice ages.

 

[VanceMack]

Your position is "climate changes?" Wow. That's just stunning. What a hero you are. Bravely standing up for the belief that 100% of the planet understands.

Pat yourself on the back some more, buddy. You've earned that ****.

Keep on with the personal attacks. It's entertaining, and totally not an obvious ploy to deflect from the fact that you got duped in the 1970s about ice ages.

:lamo

No one got duped about the 'ice age' and you are silly if you think making that claim is relevant. The relevant point is that the 'scientists' have been using scare tactics to get true believers like you to step in time for the last 50 years. But we can be honest...right? Its not like it was a hard sell. I mean...you cant REALLY dupe someone that is a willing disciple and true believer.

OF COURSE the climate changes. THAT HAS been the whole point all along. The climate changes...always has, even without mans influence. Say...I wonder...since Hillary is all but assured the presidency in November, does that mean you guys have to cancel the AGW protests for at least another 4-8 years?

You and others are just precious with your whining about 'personal attacks'.

 

[Deuce]

:lamo

No one got duped about the 'ice age' and you are silly if you think making that claim is relevant. The relevant point is that the 'scientists' have been using scare tactics to get true believers like you to step in time for the last 50 years. But we can be honest...right? Its not like it was a hard sell. I mean...you cant REALLY dupe someone that is a willing disciple and true believer.

OF COURSE the climate changes. THAT HAS been the whole point all along. The climate changes...always has, even without mans influence. Say...I wonder...since Hillary is all but assured the presidency in November, does that mean you guys have to cancel the AGW protests for at least another 4-8 years?

You and others are just precious with your whining about 'personal attacks'.

It gets worse. Your partisan perception bias is so unbelievably powerful that you actually convinced yourself you remember people saying ice ages 3 million years ago were caused by industrialization. Nothing about that sets off your bull**** detector. It's really the best thing I've read all week.

Yes, VanceMack, climate changes. We all knew that already. You think this is some challenging point you just can't get those darned liberals to understand. But that's not the case. We get that. We've all known that, all along. We've moved past that discussion. Try and keep up.

Climate changes. On its own. And sometimes humans influence it. THAT is the point. Whine all yo want about "true believers" and gullible people like me. But it's you. You're the one who thought scientists were warning us about an imminent ice age. You got tricked by the scare tactic. Not me. The next ice age will not occur in my lifetime and I've never believed otherwise.

And again you perceive "whining" where there is only disdain for your pathetic, spit-spewing, keyboard mashing rants. I can just picture you near-screaming at a monitor. WHY WONT THESE LIBRULS UNDERSTAND THAT CLIMATE CHANGES?

Keep tilting at windmills, my friend. I will always watch and enjoy.

 

[VanceMack]

It gets worse. Your partisan perception bias is so unbelievably powerful that you actually convinced yourself you remember people saying ice ages 3 million years ago were caused by industrialization. Nothing about that sets off your bull**** detector. It's really the best thing I've read all week.

Yes, VanceMack, climate changes. We all knew that already. You think this is some challenging point you just can't get those darned liberals to understand. But that's not the case. We get that. We've all known that, all along. We've moved past that discussion. Try and keep up.

Climate changes. On its own. And sometimes humans influence it. THAT is the point. Whine all yo want about "true believers" and gullible people like me. But it's you. You're the one who thought scientists were warning us about an imminent ice age. You got tricked by the scare tactic. Not me. The next ice age will not occur in my lifetime and I've never believed otherwise.

And again you perceive "whining" where there is only disdain for your pathetic, spit-spewing, keyboard mashing rants. I can just picture you near-screaming at a monitor. WHY WONT THESE LIBRULS UNDERSTAND THAT CLIMATE CHANGES?

Keep tilting at windmills, my friend. I will always watch and enjoy.

What? Those are mean harsh words! How can you use such a dreaful personal attack? My...my...my FEELERZ!!!!

:lamo

Classic.

Gosh...if only you had proof of this AGW wihtout a bunch of manufactured specualtion and data manipulations...you could have stuck with the whole AGW schtick and not had to bail out to the 'climate change' argument.

True believers...

:lamo

 

[Deuce]

What? Those are mean harsh words! How can you use such a dreaful personal attack? My...my...my FEELERZ!!!!

:lamo

Classic.

Gosh...if only you had proof of this AGW wihtout a bunch of manufactured specualtion and data manipulations...you could have stuck with the whole AGW schtick and not had to bail out to the 'climate change' argument.

True believers...

:lamo

Oh look. It's another one who thinks "climate change" is a different argument than "global warming."

Funny. You claim to have been paying attention during the 1970s. How did you not catch the phrase "climate change" back then? Both terms have been around for decades.

Is it because you never actually read any of the scientific material?

 

[VanceMack]

Oh look. It's another one who thinks "climate change" is a different argument than "global warming."

Funny. You claim to have been paying attention during the 1970s. How did you not catch the phrase "climate change" back then? Both terms have been around for decades.

Is it because you never actually read any of the scientific material?

:lamo

Do you REALLY want to try to pretend that you and others were bleating on about "Climate Change" and not AGW for 15 years? The rhetoric changed to Climate CHange when they couldnt even definitively prove ANY warming.

You are a crack up, dood, but nothing can better exemplify the AGW shuffle than what you are doing right now.

:lamo

 

[Deuce]

:lamo

Do you REALLY want to try to pretend that you and others were bleating on about "Climate Change" and not AGW for 15 years? The rhetoric changed to Climate CHange when they couldnt even definitively prove ANY warming.

You are a crack up, dood, but nothing can better exemplify the AGW shuffle than what you are doing right now.

:lamo

I'm telling you that the terms have been used interchangeably since the 1970s.

In early phases of climate research, scientists weren't actually sure whether human activity was providing a warming influence or cooling influence. (or whether the forces balanced out) So, early on, "inadvertent climate modification" was a term used. But that's clunky, so it eventually evolved into "climate change." As evidence mounted in favor of global warming, that term also started to appear.

https://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change

Of course, your entire perception of the climate change debate comes from the media so I wouldn't expect you to have known this.

 

[VanceMack]

I'm telling you that the terms have been used interchangeably since the 1970s.

In early phases of climate research, scientists weren't actually sure whether human activity was providing a warming influence or cooling influence. (or whether the forces balanced out) So, early on, "inadvertent climate modification" was a term used. But that's clunky, so it eventually evolved into "climate change." As evidence mounted in favor of global warming, that term also started to appear.

https://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change

Of course, your entire perception of the climate change debate comes from the media so I wouldn't expect you to have known this.

:lamo
Dance...keep dancing.

You are lying if you are presenting that anything but AGW was used for 15 years. You are similarly lying if you are claiming you have ALWAYS used AGW and Climate Change interchangeably. But then...it wouldnt be the first time you have been caught lying.

True believers...

:lamo

 

[Deuce]

:lamo
Dance...keep dancing.

You are lying if you are presenting that anything but AGW was used for 15 years. You are similarly lying if you are claiming you have ALWAYS used AGW and Climate Change interchangeably. But then...it wouldnt be the first time you have been caught lying.

True believers...

:lamo

I've supplied you with proof that both terms have been around far longer. I know you desperately want this thread to be about me instead of the two hilarious blunders you've demonstrated here. (belief in the 1970s ice age consensus, and this 3 million year old industrialization thing that is just... i mean that's way out there man)

Here's a post from 2010. A thread I started about "AGW." It's right there in the title.

But wait. A few pages in I use the term "climate change" in a direct reference to that very thread's content
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...ical-evidence-favor-agw-4.html#post1058991355

Rant on, buddy. Rant on. I know it's been a rough day for you, what with that dastardly Hillary Clinton getting away with eating a baby, or whatever it is you people think she did these days. Your continuous spew of anger isn't really about me, it's about her. I understand.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=1]The North Atlantic: Ground Zero of Global Cooling[/h]Guest essay by David Archibald The warning signs have been there for some time now – persistent failures of the wheat crop in Norway for example. The North Atlantic is cooling. The cooling trend was evident at the time of an expedition to investigate this phenonemon three years ago. The rate of cooling has now…
Continue reading →

 

[Lord of Planar]

[h=1]The North Atlantic: Ground Zero of Global Cooling[/h]Guest essay by David Archibald The warning signs have been there for some time now – persistent failures of the wheat crop in Norway for example. The North Atlantic is cooling. The cooling trend was evident at the time of an expedition to investigate this phenonemon three years ago. The rate of cooling has now…
Continue reading →

I didn't read the link, but how many times have I pointed out the sun is expected to dim over the next two solar cycles or more? With all the feedbacks like the greenhouse gas effect that relay on the solar radiance as a source, this can lead to a notable cooling in the future.

 

[iguanaman]

[h=1]The North Atlantic: Ground Zero of Global Cooling[/h]Guest essay by David Archibald The warning signs have been there for some time now – persistent failures of the wheat crop in Norway for example. The North Atlantic is cooling. The cooling trend was evident at the time of an expedition to investigate this phenonemon three years ago. The rate of cooling has now…
Continue reading →

LOL This cooling has been predicted by climate models and is the result of slowing of the AMOC otherwise known as the Gulf Stream. Isn't it typical of Watts to embrace a totally false narrative for the cause? There is no weakening of the sun and if the circulation fails England will have the climate of Nova Scotia.

It happens to be just that area for which climate models predict a cooling when the Gulf Stream System weakens (experts speak of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation or AMOC, as part of the global thermohaline circulation). That this might happen as a result of global warming is discussed in the scientific community since the 1980s – since Wally Broecker’s classical Nature article “Unpleasant surprises in the greenhouse?” Meanwhile evidence is mounting that the long-feared circulation decline is already well underway.

What’s going on in the North Atlantic? « RealClimate

 

[Jack Hays]

There is no weakening of the sun . . . .
What’s going on in the North Atlantic? « RealClimate

Are we headed for a new solar minimum?

Posted on June 27, 2016 | 92 comments
by Judith Curry
We can conclude that the evidence provided is sufficient to justify a complete updating and reviewing of present climate models to better consider these detected natural recurrences and lags in solar processes. – Jorge Sánchez-Sesma

Continue reading →

In pondering how the climate of the 21st century will play out, solar variability has generally been dismissed as an important factor by the proponents of AGW. However, I think that it is important that scenarios of future solar variability and their potential impacts on climate should by considered in scenarios of future climate change.
I have been cursorily following the literature on this topic. I have recently been in communication with Jorge Sanchez-Sesma. He has new paper that was just accepted for publication in Earth System Dynamics, an interactive open-access journal published by the EGU. I am featuring this paper in a post since it provides important new analysis and insights on this topic, and also provides a useful assessment of the literature and current state of knowledge on this topic.
The significance of this paper is reflected in the EGU metrics link that indicates that this paper has been downloaded 1531 times so far (before it has been formally published).
Evidence of cosmic recurrent and lagged millennia-scale patterns and consequent forecasts: multi-scale responses of solar activity to planetary gravitational forcing [link]
Jorge Sánchez-Sesma

Abstract.Solar activity (SA) oscillations over the past millennia are analyzed and extrapolated based on reconstructed solar-related records. Here, simple recurrent models of SA signal are applied and tested. The consequent results strongly suggest the following: (a) the existence of multi-millennial (9500-year) scale solar patterns linked with planetary gravitational forcing (PGF), and (b) their persistence, over at least the last glacial– interglacial cycle, but possibly since the Miocene (10.5 Ma). This empirical modeling of solar recurrent patterns has also provided a consequent multi-millennial-scale experimental forecast, suggesting a solar decreasing trend toward Grand (Super) Minimum conditionsfor the upcoming period, AD2050–2250 (AD 3750–4450). Taking into account the importance of these estimated SA scenarios, a comparison is made with other SA forecasts. In Appendixes A and B, we provide further verification, testing and analysis of solar recurrent patterns since geological eras, and their potential gravitational forcing. . . .

 

[iguanaman]

Are we headed for a new solar minimum?

Posted on June 27, 2016 | 92 comments
by Judith Curry
We can conclude that the evidence provided is sufficient to justify a complete updating and reviewing of present climate models to better consider these detected natural recurrences and lags in solar processes. – Jorge Sánchez-Sesma

Continue reading →

In pondering how the climate of the 21st century will play out, solar variability has generally been dismissed as an important factor by the proponents of AGW. However, I think that it is important that scenarios of future solar variability and their potential impacts on climate should by considered in scenarios of future climate change.
I have been cursorily following the literature on this topic. I have recently been in communication with Jorge Sanchez-Sesma. He has new paper that was just accepted for publication in Earth System Dynamics, an interactive open-access journal published by the EGU. I am featuring this paper in a post since it provides important new analysis and insights on this topic, and also provides a useful assessment of the literature and current state of knowledge on this topic.
The significance of this paper is reflected in the EGU metrics link that indicates that this paper has been downloaded 1531 times so far (before it has been formally published).
Evidence of cosmic recurrent and lagged millennia-scale patterns and consequent forecasts: multi-scale responses of solar activity to planetary gravitational forcing [link]
Jorge Sánchez-Sesma

Abstract.Solar activity (SA) oscillations over the past millennia are analyzed and extrapolated based on reconstructed solar-related records. Here, simple recurrent models of SA signal are applied and tested. The consequent results strongly suggest the following: (a) the existence of multi-millennial (9500-year) scale solar patterns linked with planetary gravitational forcing (PGF), and (b) their persistence, over at least the last glacial– interglacial cycle, but possibly since the Miocene (10.5 Ma). This empirical modeling of solar recurrent patterns has also provided a consequent multi-millennial-scale experimental forecast, suggesting a solar decreasing trend toward Grand (Super) Minimum conditionsfor the upcoming period, AD2050–2250 (AD 3750–4450). Taking into account the importance of these estimated SA scenarios, a comparison is made with other SA forecasts. In Appendixes A and B, we provide further verification, testing and analysis of solar recurrent patterns since geological eras, and their potential gravitational forcing. . . .

LOL So a "multi-millennial-scale experimental forecast, suggesting a solar decreasing trend" is the same as "The N. Atlantic ocean cooling is because of a weak sun" in your mind. Watts pseudo-science has gotten over the top and so have you. The cause of the cooling is well documented by AGW models and that is why you are making such off the wall hypothesis's. You just hate it when those models are right. You need to get used to it.

 

[Jack Hays]

LOL So "suggesting a solar decreasing trend" is the same as "The N. Atlantic ocean cooling is because of a weak sun" in your mind. Watts pseudo-science has gotten over the top and so have you. The cause of the cooling is well documented by AGW models and that is why you are making such off the wall hypothesis's. You just hate it when those models are right.

The cooling is consistent with diminished solar activity.

 

[Jack Hays]

LOL So a "multi-millennial-scale experimental forecast, suggesting a solar decreasing trend" is the same as "The N. Atlantic ocean cooling is because of a weak sun" in your mind. Watts pseudo-science has gotten over the top and so have you. The cause of the cooling is well documented by AGW models and that is why you are making such off the wall hypothesis's. You just hate it when those models are right. You need to get used to it.

[h=1]Solar physicist sees global cooling ahead[/h]Via the GWPF: Recent research by Professor Valentina Zharkova (Northumbria University) and colleagues has shed new light on the inner workings of the Sun. If correct, this new discovery means that future solar cycles and variations in the Sun’s activity can be predicted more accurately. The research suggests that the next three solar cycles will…

2 weeks ago August 9, 2016 in Global cooling, Solar.

 

[iguanaman]

The cooling is consistent with diminished solar activity.

NO it is not, especially when combined with the warming elsewhere. It is an anomalous effect that is consistent with ocean circulation disturbances. And it was predicted to happen in the 1980's as a result of the melting of the Greenland Ice sheet due to AGW.

 

[Jack Hays]

NO it is not, especially when combined with the warming elsewhere. It is an anomalous effect that is consistent with ocean circulation disturbances. And it was predicted to happen in the 1980's as a result of the melting of the Greenland Ice sheet due to AGW.

[h=1]How Much Global Cooling Will We See On Transition To La Niña?[/h]The potential for the massive El Niño to transition into La Niña later in the year is one of the hottest topics in commodities markets right now. The short question-and-answer session would look like this: Are we headed for La Niña toward the end of 2016? Looks that way. Will it be a big one?…

March 21, 2016 in ENSO.

 

[iguanaman]

[h=1]Solar physicist sees global cooling ahead[/h]Via the GWPF: Recent research by Professor Valentina Zharkova (Northumbria University) and colleagues has shed new light on the inner workings of the Sun. If correct, this new discovery means that future solar cycles and variations in the Sun’s activity can be predicted more accurately. The research suggests that the next three solar cycles will…

2 weeks ago August 9, 2016 in Global cooling, Solar.

So it all about creating doubt and throwing real science to the wind....

This month there’s been a hoopla about a mini ice age, and unfortunately it tells us more about failures of science communication than the climate. Such failures can maintain the illusion of doubt and uncertainty, even when there’s a scientific consensus that the world is warming.

The 'mini ice age' hoopla is a giant failure of science communication