Solar and Wind Will Not "Save" the Climate

[Personal Coach + 16]

Hi Red.  My evidence is the fact that Mother Nature is ALWAYS in a natural cooling or warming cycle.  Mother nature does not do horizontal temperature histories on any scale, day, weeks, months, etc, etc. Look at you local weather chart this week...up and down. 

Here are 3 Climate 101 temperature history charts from Wikipedia to put this in a clear perspective.  

- The Vostok and Epica Ice Core studies (2 independent projects) both produced the exact same historical climate patterns for the last 450,000 years.  Long Ice Ages, separated by comparatively brief warm intervals like our current Holocene Interglacial (right side of chart).  Note the previous Eemian Interglacial (125,000 years ago) was waay hotter than today.  No "unprecedented warming" right now according to both of the Ice Core studies.

-The 2 close-ups of our current Holocene Interglacial. 

 

Peace

 

[Red + 252]

18 minutes ago, Personal Coach said:

My evidence is the fact that Mother Nature is ALWAYS in a natural cooling or warming cycle.

Evidence of millennia-level variations in temperature without an anthropic footprint does not cut it.

WRT to your posted charts, look at one which incorporates the period which led to AGW theory, as yours do not show it. 

[Personal Coach + 16]

As far as all those recent "Hottest Years Ever"... ...it's all based on extremely manipulated thermometer data. Not real. 

Raw (untampered/true) thermometer histories never show global warming.  They have to be edited with multiple softwares called "Cold Bias Removal", "Temperature Homogenization", etc, etc. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html   

The University of Alabama - Huntsville SATELLITE temperature (attached) shows only ONE hotter year recorded since 1998.  I only trust the satellites for temperatures and sea ice.  Both show no problems.   

[Personal Coach + 16]

And the Sea Ice is 100% back to normal as well.   None of our coastal cities will be going underwater.  That was another fake scare story.  The Danish Met Office keeps a very close watch on this because it directly affects them at their location. They need 100% accurate data.  

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php

 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

15 minutes ago, Personal Coach said:

As far as all those recent "Hottest Years Ever"... ...it's all based on extremely manipulated thermometer data. Not real. 

Raw (untampered/true) thermometer histories never show global warming.  They have to be edited with multiple softwares called "Cold Bias Removal", "Temperature Homogenization", etc, etc. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html   

The University of Alabama - Huntsville SATELLITE temperature (attached) shows only ONE hotter year recorded since 1998.  I only trust the satellites for temperatures and sea ice.  Both show no problems.   

Are you aware that Booker is one of the most discredited Journalists in the UK who has no scientific background whatsoever. For years he has been telling everyone that White Asbestos is harmless. Other favourites include passive smoking is harmless 

I recall he is good mates with Monckton - the swindler who claimed to have cured Graves disease. Despite this he continues to show quite profound symptoms of graves disease!

[Red + 252]

27 minutes ago, Personal Coach said:

As far as all those recent "Hottest Years Ever"... ...it's all based on extremely manipulated thermometer data. Not real. 

Raw (untampered/true) thermometer histories never show global warming.  They have to be edited with multiple softwares called "Cold Bias Removal", "Temperature Homogenization", etc, etc. 

You are clueless on the requirement for data homogenisation.  A requirement to adjust for inconsistencies in TOD is one of many apparently eluding you.  There are hundreds of scholarly papers explaining this and you would do well to read one or two.

27 minutes ago, Personal Coach said:

The University of Alabama - Huntsville SATELLITE temperature (attached) shows only ONE hotter year recorded since 1998.  I only trust the satellites for temperatures and sea ice.  Both show no problems. 

Ok, so you are telling me that temperatures at the surface of the planet can keep rising because you live in the clouds?  Seriously, I guarantee you cannot tell me the height above ground that UAH data is measured from.

WRT Arctic sea ice, your posted charts show variations at greater than 2 standard variations in several recent years.  I suppose you do not understand what that means.

Perhaps this shows the trend more clearly for you...

 

Edited February 9, 2019 by Red
deleted doubled-up quote

[NickW + 2,714]

17 minutes ago, Personal Coach said:

And the Sea Ice is 100% back to normal as well.   None of our coastal cities will be going underwater.  That was another fake scare story.  The Danish Met Office keeps a very close watch on this because it directly affects them at their location. They need 100% accurate data.  

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php

 

 

You seem to have missed one point. This is for Sea Ice. Sea Ice displaces the equivalent volume of water so sea ice itself melting makes no difference to sea levels. It has other impacts but nothing directly concerning sea levels.

Secondly if you have loads of fresh water pouring off Glaciers in Greenland then this has the effect of lowering salinity. This means that sea ice can form more easily. However the effect is temporary as once all your land based glaciers have melted then the supply of fresh water dwindles. 

[Personal Coach + 16]

High tide where I live is the same place it was 100 years ago. 

As far as the cold weather crop losses are concerned it has already started here in Canada. Also Europe, Russia and Asia. Here are some news headlines from Canada.  I could go on all day showing you crop loss data due to a summer that started late and ended early. That's the new reality as winters intensify.  The intensification is just starting. Winters getting colder. Lots of new "coldest ever recorded" temperatures.  

See:   https://www.agweb.com/article/snow-plagues-canadian-farmers-in-the-heat-of-harvest/

 

 

 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

5 minutes ago, Personal Coach said:

High tide where I live is the same place it was 100 years ago. 

As far as the cold weather crop losses are concerned it has already started here in Canada. Also Europe, Russia and Asia. Here are some news headlines from Canada.  I could go on all day showing you crop loss data due to a summer that started late and ended early. That's the new reality as winters intensify.  The intensification is just starting. Winters getting colder. Lots of new "coldest ever recorded" temperatures.  

See:   https://www.agweb.com/article/snow-plagues-canadian-farmers-in-the-heat-of-harvest/

 

 

 

 

I believe Canada had 3-4km of ice sitting on top of it during the last ice Age. 

[Billyjack + 58]

Wind and solar can produce as much energy as fossil fuels. However the reality is the technology. A trillion fleas can produce as much work as one horse to pull your wagon. However the cost of the harness for 1 horse versus a trillion fleas might be a problem.

[Chris Wells + 54]

On 2/8/2019 at 12:40 PM, Wastral said:

Bull Shit: http://www.co2science.org

Rice, wheat, etc LOVE it at 1000ppm.  Grow 100%-->300% and more than today, using less water, fertilizer, bigger grain of higher quality over a much wider temperature range.  Vegetables go Bananas at higher CO2 levels. 

It's the same as more oxygen makes us feel better and heal faster.  Green houses with elevated CO2 is like a hyperbaric chamber for plants.

[Chris Wells + 54]

Don't forget the lies about greenland and antarctica melting. This reports show fighter planes buried in 300 feet of ice in 70 years.  That amounts to 30 feet of snow per year to make that much ice.

 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a22575917/wwii-p-38-discovered-under-300-feet-of-ice-in-greenland/

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, Chris Wells said:

Don't forget the lies about greenland and antarctica melting. This reports show fighter planes buried in 300 feet of ice in 70 years.  That amounts to 30 feet of snow per year to make that much ice.

 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a22575917/wwii-p-38-discovered-under-300-feet-of-ice-in-greenland/

When you make a claim and cannot support it with something relevant, let alone evidence, you cease to be credible.

Antarctica, for example, experienced a sixfold increase in yearly ice mass loss between 1979 and 2017, according to the most recent study published. 

Meanwhile, these charts show definitively that your claims are nonsense.

[Chris Wells + 54]

What do you believe, a UN controlled media or unrelated facts like the war planes under 300 feet of ice.   The world is awash in propaganda.

[Red + 252]

3 minutes ago, Chris Wells said:

What do you believe, a UN controlled media or unrelated facts like the war planes under 300 feet of ice.   The world is awash in propaganda.

I follow climate science.  

Your claims are fanciful.

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 hours ago, Chris Wells said:

It's the same as more oxygen makes us feel better and heal faster.  Green houses with elevated CO2 is like a hyperbaric chamber for plants.

...  too much oxygen for a long time is very bad. It essentially rusts your insides (oxidative stress). 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5467109/

Athletes do the reverse (altitude training)

Edited February 10, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Chris Wells + 54]

21 hours ago, Red said:

You are clueless on the requirement for data homogenisation.  A requirement to adjust for inconsistencies in TOD is one of many apparently eluding you.  There are hundreds of scholarly papers explaining this and you would do well to read one or two.

Ok, so you are telling me that temperatures at the surface of the planet can keep rising because you live in the clouds?  Seriously, I guarantee you cannot tell me the height above ground that UAH data is measured from.

WRT Arctic sea ice, your posted charts show variations at greater than 2 standard variations in several recent years.  I suppose you do not understand what that means.

Perhaps this shows the trend more clearly for you...

 

Alarmist attack Skeptic because that all they have. no proof.  Emotion and slander.  Gas lighting.

[Chris Wells + 54]

3 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

...  too much oxygen for a long time is very bad. It essentially rusts your insides (oxidative stress). 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5467109/

Good thing CO2 doesn't oxidize.

[Chris Wells + 54]

Red, rebut my water vapour argument.  The UN models are flawed.

[Chris Wells + 54]

The fact that the IPCC uses water vapour as the main feedback mechanism of their climate models shows how desperate they are to push global warming.  The slight warming caused by CO2 is said to start the moisture feedback running.  More water vapour in the atmosphere will cause more warming causing more water vapour causing run-away warming.   The folly in this is that more moisture will cause more cloud formation causing more reflection of the sun's radiation.  I don't need to tell you this but the sun's radiation is much stronger than the long wave radiative capture of moisture in the atmosphere. 

Studies have shown that cosmic rays agitate water vapour and encourage condensation into droplets.  When cosmic rays are prevalent, earth's weather turns wetter and cooler.  Another thing the IPCC stays clear of.  The gist is that the IPCC models do not include cloud formation in the run-away climate predictions.  Another reason why the IPCC is currently panicking is that sun spots are at an all time low.  High sun spot activity deflects cosmic rays from the earth so the earth will be getting a full dose of cosmic rays for the next few decades resulting in significant cooling.  Naked as a jay bird!

[Chris Wells + 54]

Weather balloon data also,  If CO2 captures more long wave radiation the the atmosphere should be warming.  No sucj warming has been found.  Why.

[Red + 252]

1 minute ago, Chris Wells said:

Red, rebut my water vapour argument.  The UN models are flawed.

Water vapour is definitely a feedback and, sadly, even some scientists do not understand the mechanism.

Warmer air can carry more moisture, and water vapour will therefore reduce the amount of IR leaving the planet.  However, water vapour cannot of itself cause the air to warm at the outset - there must be another driver.  So water vapour levels are a response a warming planet, not a cause.

[Red + 252]

4 minutes ago, Chris Wells said:

The fact that the IPCC uses water vapour as the main feedback mechanism of their climate models shows how desperate they are to push global warming.  The slight warming caused by CO2 is said to start the moisture feedback running.  More water vapour in the atmosphere will cause more warming causing more water vapour causing run-away warming.   The folly in this is that more moisture will cause more cloud formation causing more reflection of the sun's radiation.  I don't need to tell you this but the sun's radiation is much stronger than the long wave radiative capture of moisture in the atmosphere. 

Studies have shown that cosmic rays agitate water vapour and encourage condensation into droplets.  When cosmic rays are prevalent, earth's weather turns wetter and cooler.  Another thing the IPCC stays clear of.  The gist is that the IPCC models do not include cloud formation in the run-away climate predictions.  Another reason why the IPCC is currently panicking is that sun spots are at an all time low.  High sun spot activity deflects cosmic rays from the earth so the earth will be getting a full dose of cosmic rays for the next few decades resulting in significant cooling.  Naked as a jay bird!

Haha, that gets a fail in every science class in the world - maybe not in the USA (my bad) 😖.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

3 minutes ago, Chris Wells said:

Good thing CO2 doesn't oxidize.

CO2 does oxidize (carbon in +4 oxidation state is a powerful electrophile), it doesn't get oxidized.

Pedantic chemist...

[Chris Wells + 54]

You totally ignored the part of cloud formations reflecting solar radiation back into the cosmos which has much more energy than long wave emittance from the earth.