• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scientists FlipFlop Back to Global COOLING?

Jack Hays said:
I'm sure the Royal Astronomical Society is deeply concerned by this criticism.:lamo
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that decreased sunspot activity (if it even happens!) would over-ride the warming trend caused by AGW and they never claimed a "mini-ice age" is coming either.
 
iguanaman said:
There is no evidence that decreased sunspot activity (if it even happens!) would over-ride the warming trend caused by AGW and they never claimed a "mini-ice age" is coming either.
Click to expand...

Decreased sunspot activity would be a marker rather than a cause. As for the "mini ice age," we shall see.
 
iguanaman said:
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.

What’s going on in the North Atlantic? « RealClimate
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, yes.

Your bloggers at RealClimate always equivocate and rationalize.

Yawn...
 
iguanaman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Multiple things occur. The Atlantic and Pacific oscillations are at least partially affected by solar changes.
 
iguanaman said:
There is no evidence that decreased sunspot activity (if it even happens!) would over-ride the warming trend caused by AGW and they never claimed a "mini-ice age" is coming either.
Click to expand...

Sunspot activities are not the correct proxy to use. Sunspots generally follow the solar activity, but not as well as isotopic measurements. Be10 is for proxies, and measured TSI for the modern era.
 
Jack Hays said:
[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 →
Click to expand...

Looks like a hockey stick hanging off the table's edge, doesn't it?

Hey, a rapid decline in solar activity ... where have I heard that recently?
Oh yeah, they were trying to destroy Professor Valentina Zharkova's research.
 
Deuce said:
Erm, yes. Climate changes naturally. You seem to be the last person on the planet to have figured that out.



You are mistaken. It wasn't "all the rage." In fact, it was always a minority opinion. What you're really remembering is some media hype. Congrats on being duped by sensationalist journalists.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Take a look at this example of sensationalist journalism: http://Thread: Today's warming is going to get worse, even if we totally stop GHG emissions today.
 
Threegoofs said:
Again. Not journalism.

It's a paper from Nature Scientific Reports.

You guys really are confused on the difference between journalism and science....I blame the steady diet of Fox News.
Click to expand...

I believe it's the other way around. I think you might have dirt or something on your nose.
 
humbolt said:
I believe it's the other way around. I think you might have dirt or something on your nose.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that the published scientific article is really journalism, or that the news stories are really scientific articles?

Or are you just embarrassed at your last post and desperate to save face in any way possible?
 
Threegoofs said:
So are you saying that the published scientific article is really journalism, or that the news stories are really scientific articles?

Or are you just embarrassed at your last post and desperate to save face in any way possible?
Click to expand...

I'm embarrassed for you in that you don't seem to be able appreciate and discern the difference. If I applied the same standard of judgement you accept here to the political left, you'd be apoplectic.
 
humbolt said:
I'm embarrassed for you in that you don't seem to be able appreciate and discern the difference. If I applied the same standard of judgement you accept here to the political left, you'd be apoplectic.
Click to expand...

Nature is one of the premier scientific journals.
 
Deuce said:
Nature is one of the premier scientific journals.
Click to expand...
The article was not in Nature, but in one of Nature's open access Journals, Scientific Reports.
http://www.nature.com/srep/about/faq
Does Scientific Reports publish papers rejected from other Nature Publishing Group titles?

Yes — Scientific Reports is editorially independent, but will consider submissions of manuscripts rejected from other Nature Publishing Group journals.
Click to expand...
 
Deuce said:
Go ahead and tell us what is so "sensationalist" about the idea that it takes time for earth to reach a new equilibrium? Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

:roll: Have you read the thread title I referenced?
 
Deuce said:
So, your claim is that three goofs is a journalist?
Click to expand...

Sad though they are, I respect journalists more than that. You understood what I meant. You just didn't like it that you made a statement that's disproven by that thread title from an AGW true believer like you.
 
humbolt said:
Sad though they are, I respect journalists more than that. You understood what I meant. You just didn't like it that you made a statement that's disproven by that thread title from an AGW true believer like you.
Click to expand...

I think your goal is to just obfuscate and pretend you didnt actually mean what you really meant.. that the other thread was a news story (when it was actually a scientific study).

You can hang your head in shame and slink away now - its probably best if you cut your losses anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom