The sun is growing colder
Hmmm.. some people have been suggesting this is coming, and yet, even when science gives in and says "Well, OK" they have to put their "Climate Change" spam into it : “The cooling effect of a grand minimum is only a fraction of the warming effect caused by the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,” a statement from the research team reads."
"The cooling effect of a grand minimum is only a fraction of the warming effect caused by the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,” a statement from the research team reads."
Can't do a study with out throwing in the co2
Fiction.
Seems to me, Global warming is dead and burried!
Me dino bets that a lot of flaky snowflakes don't know we've always had those.
Gosh, it feels like I am at the supermarket checkout line - except I always use the computers to checkout and avoid the propaganda rubbish.
I was afraid if these MORONS discover the warmth comes from the sun, they would try BLOWING UP THE SUN to "Save us all".
Now, you tell them to get rid of the moisture in the air. OMG... If these idiots find a way to do that, we will all die of dehydration, which they will label as SUCCESS because the SAND won't be HOT!
I wish this were a sarcastic reply... I really do!
Oh...and they never bother to mention the snow in the tropics and the 2' of snow in the Sahara desert!...and not to mention, our weakened magnetic shields and cosmic rays causing more clouds or the many, many volcanic eruptions.
The Grand Solar Minimums have been identified going back 8K years or more and are more reliable than a timex watch.
First the annual 0.01C increase they are talking about means in 100 years, 1C overall average higher temperatures. (Now they assume a non-linear ramping, which has not been experienced).
But even funnier. When looking into the calculations used. The Margin of Error was: 0.1C
That's right. The Margin of Error, on the calculations, due to the limited accuracy of any readings, is 10 TIMES the anticipated RESULT.
In what scientific world does one speculate about numbers that are ONE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE below the MoE???? Any result significantly smaller than the MoE could be induced by changing the order of doing some of the operations!
So, we have a WILD Cold Snap. Record setting cold weather. But that 0.01C ...
THAT is going to COOK US. (but keep in mind it could be a -0.99 C drop and still be within the MoE)
This is stuff we learned in like 6th or 7th grade. Clearly by 9th grade we could do this in our sleep. WTF is wrong with these people.
==
Funny story, in my Intro to Physics class, we were talking about spinning electrons around a super collider. And a young lady asked "How do they get the Electron to move around? Do they tie it to a string?" I have NEVER laughed so hard in my entire life. I bet she is a Climate Change believer today!
with one another: E.g, short and long term sun intensity cycles, earth axis cycles, and earth revolution cycles. When the sun is in a hot cycle and the earth is in a revolution placing it closer to the sun and the axis is tilted in a certain way, things heat up...and vica versa.
Let one schools of thought contend."
Mao
Let all of them get voluntary contributions only.
Other than the suns reduced irradiance the entire article is false...ya gota laugh at their stupidity if not their shear boldness of bullshit.
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease...
Add cosmic rays and atmospheric compression.
The planet is more vulnerable as far as humans are concerned because of our weakend shield As you know plasma events are suspect in the formation of water as oxygen races up to meet hydrogen in the ionosphere creating rivers of rain and serious if not epic floods. Indoor farming is what is needed and if the weather stays warm no harm no foul.
WTAF?
Everybody knows it's the phlogiston leaking off into the cislunar sphere. Moron!
"The unequal sharing of electrons gives the water molecule a slight negative charge near its oxygen atom and a slight positive charge near its hydrogen atoms. When a neutral molecule has a positive area at one end and a negative area at the other, it is a polar molecule."
The sky is falling and up until now, I wasn't aware it was comprised of acorns.--Chicken Little
And so it goes. A new scare every year. When one is proven false, a new one pops up. My prediction: When and if a world -wide disaster occurs, mankind will cope with it and succeed in overcoming it until everything gets better.
The word acidification is intentionally misleading being part of sophistry not of chemistry.
The world’s oceans are alkali. (alkali. alkaline. base. as appropriate)
If all the world’s atmospheric CO2 was put in the oceans (and life on earth thereby extinguished) the oceans would still be alkali. 98% of all the world’s gaseous CO2 is already in the oceans.
No increase in atmospheric CO2 can change ocean pH to acidic.
CO2 in the atmosphere is converted in the oceans to calcite (limestone) and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths CO2 + CaO => CaCO3 (exothermic).
The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure, a dynamic equilibrium-seeking mechanism.
Oceans contain dissolved CO2.
The amount deceases with temperature, see Henry's Law.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/W...
http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification
https://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
http://www.epoca-project.eu/index.php...
Are these unbiased? I don't know, but they do seem to have some facts to support that it is an issue.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/W...
- noaa.gov is a government agency website.
Look at the mission statement-
to show that 'rising atmospheric CO2 and climate change'. etc.
That is there is no search for truth, the objective is politics.
"Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic."
My comments-
1. the usual models..
2. a thing that is not acidic cannot become more acidic.
The sea butterfly- photos show the shell dissolving after 45 days "in sea water with pH and carbonate levels projected for the year 2100".
more projected guff. Yet there is also strong evidence that decreasing alkalinity benefits ocean dwelling organisms.
The final para has the usual words of- problem, acidification, impossible to predict, blah, that is, a great example of how to get grant money by supporting scares and covering the backside.
----------------------------------
http://www.epoca-project.eu/index.php...
Possibly, EPOCA got only EU tax money.
Q and A from this paper-
Q. 'The ocean is not acidic, and model projections say the oceans won’t ever become acidic. So why call it ocean acidification?'
A. Yes but if the pH keeps on going etc.
This answer is provided by James Orr, Senior Scientist .. ..
(My comment- So, imagine you are a college fresher, you get an av of 8 propositions a week from the opposite sex. Last week you only got 5. You may have become less attractive last week. James Orr, Senior Scientist .. .. says you became unattractive. )
Q. Would dissolving all the CO2 released by burning all the world’s fossil
fuel reserves ever make the seas acidic?
A. No. The fundamental chemistry of the ocean carbon system, including the presence of calcium carbonate minerals on the ocean floor that can slowly dissolve and help neutralize some of the CO2, prevents the oceans from becoming acidic on a global scale.
You want more?
You did not say yes but I comment- why use the words acid/acidic when that usage is wrong- it is because of the emotional impact. Fact is that alkalinity can be just as or more harmful as acidity but the word not as good for generating fear.
In Victorian England there was a big scale murderer, Dr Crippen, who dissolved victims' bodies in acid. Many alkalis would have been effective. Carbonic acid would not.
------------------------------
https://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
There was a time, 2 decades back, when I was a regular reader of Scientific American. I recall many references to research on illegal drugs, all claimed that money was only available for studies that showed harmful effects, a paper that had an insufficiently strong negative conclusion would cause funding for that institute to cease. Law, order, government and the do-gooding classes knew what they wanted and were prepared to pay for it. (With your money). When the carbon climate scare ramped up, the link became clear in my mind, but not in the pages of Scientific American or most of the other so-called science journals.
"Climate change caused by rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is now widely recognized." This statement is correct but the proposition is wrong, typical of a religious belief.
"We are acidifying the ocean" Basic scare technique, no such effect is happening.
"balance" The alarmist case claims millennia of stability, the word 'balance' is a favorite with greens/viros/alarmists/progressives.
"That careful balance"! Who was careful- Gaia or .. .. ?
Then along came the white male capitalist who burns fossil fuel putting out enormous amounts of carbon emissions/pollution. Before, there was harmony between unicorns, amazons and Atlantis, lions and lambs would 'lie down' together. Then the sacred balance was broken, the Earth's climate was disrupted.
Fact is, in nature there is no such thing as balance, climate, weather, geology, ecology, species fluctuate and come and go. Nature has a multitude of facets, if one is held constant it will not guarantee the survival of any species.
The article is weak/lacking on presenting evidence that would support their alarmist proposition of a 'problem', there is no problem.
------------------------------
http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification
The Smithsonian.
Gulchers may recall some discussion here about two years ago when the NY Times ran a scurrilous article accusing scientist Willie Soon of corruption. Soon had while at the SI published an article questioning the carbon change scare. The outcry was viscous and widespread, Soon received no support from the SI.
This ref is all the same, some downright wrong, most misleading, some- not even wrong.
You may think this is a scientific paper, it seems to be 'educational'.
I note there is a reviewer who is - Jennifer Bennett (NOAA).
When you go to the last para- What You Can Do- you see it is of course propaganda.
"You" are told to reduce your energy" etc. We know that certain big names that skip across the globe in jets, helicopter and limos for conferences are exempt.
------------------------------
Common to all the above-
High standard of erudition and presentation.
Sufficient weasel words and get-outs so it is hard to show they are wrong,
no, ' you will never see snow again' type of statement.
The same person pays for it all - you.
---------------------------------------
Thank you for the above comment as it reinforced a lesson,
anything important must be kept short.
A summary, the Epoca article that you quoted, squelches the scare.
The big problem is not mendacity, it is mushy thinking.
If people could think they could resist the scaremongers.
Big news on this subject was made by Professor V. Zharkova who's team has analyzed the underlying patterns and can apparently do a good job of predicting the intensity of solar cycles. This is the source of the prediction of a Maunder minimum in solar cycle 26.
Interestingly if you backward from the Maunder minimum about 375 years you get a cold period that marked the end of the Medieval Warm Period and ended with the Black Death.