62

WHY DO YOU KEEP REPEATING THIS [edited] ASSERTION THAT IS NOT BASED ON TRUTH AND YOU CAN’T PROVIDE A SINGLE CITATION WHERE AN ACTUAL SCIENTIST HAS SAID THAT!?

63

The sunspot activity forecast was generated through computer modeling. Would you like to see an exhaustive list of the posts on here that scoff at computer modeling in climate science?

1 Like
64

By the experts on the matter. Climate scientists have factored in the research from solar scientists.

1 Like
65

Don’t yell me. It’s rude. :wink: The names are in the articles. They have quotes read em and weep. They actually used the term “mini ice age” That didn’t come from me.

All bickering aside. I do believe that this is about to become a bigger topic of discussion. And we can’t do anything to stop it. That’s a good thing. Agreed?

66

The “names”… I only see one name in the article… Valentina Zharkova…

Have any others?

67

…only one name who coincidentally isn’t quite saying what @altair1013 says she is.

However, Zharkova ends with a word of warning: not about the cold but about humanity’s attitude toward the environment during the minimum. "We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn’t happening. “The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions,” Zharkova says. The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming.

68

Not a single article you linked to had the scientist using the term ‘mini ice age’.

1 Like
69

What, @altair1013 ignoring the follow-up article to his OP article?

1 Like
70

Dude, what reality are you living in? Literally every response so far has indicated that scientists do, in fact, incorporate solar cycles as a predictor in climate models. Yet here you are, continuing to make this unsupported assertion that “libs seem to prefer that scientists be ignored.” (More on that in a minute…) How does one do that exactly? You’re literally dismissing the responses so far out of hand and creating your own false narrative. It’s truly bizarre to watch.

Now a few things. First, you seem to be striking out here bad lately, rushing to link to your click-bait climate articles from obscure publications across the web. I noticed your last thread on the matter posted an article that was subsequently retracted for failing to support some of the assertions initially made in the article. Comedy gold. Now in this thread, you’re attempting to link this article with the notion that AGW is a hoax… something the article’s own author refutes. In the follow up linked in that article, the author states “We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn’t happening”. So are you intentionally disregarding the authors own advice? That would be truly bizarre too, though not surprising.

Then again, in the Forbes article, the scientist is careful to note “that even a Maunder Minimum would still not be enough to counter the warming effects of anthropogenic climate change.” It’s odd… you’re literally posting articles that refute your position, yet somehow holding them up as in support of your position.

Lastly, this line of yours concerning “libs seem to prefer that scientists be ignored” is just ironic beyond belief. Your entire position, e.g. that AGW is a hoax, flat out disregards the consensus that has existed for some time within the scientific community that anthropogenic CO2 is resulting in an accelerated warming trend. And very curious… why do you believe the legitimacy of this author’s solar cycle model, yet disregard the multitude of climate models that have been used in contemporary and historical climate predictions? I mean, what about the data, right? You’re always concerned with the fact that historical temperature records rely on reconstructions from ice cores, tree rings, etc. Yet, that’s precisely the source of the data used in this solar cycle model. Why is it different for this model, as compared to the numerous climate models you disregard?

5 Likes
71

If Canada heats up it will be a bread basket, so would Siberia. I guess that’s why they don’t mention wheat…

72

" “Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace: ‘The whole climate crisis is not only Fake News, it’s Fake Science. There is no climate crisis, there’s weather and climate all around the world, and in fact carbon dioxide is the main building block of all life.’ @ foxandfriends Wow!”

" Patrick Moore ‏ @ EcoSenseNow

FollowFollow @ EcoSenseNow

More

@ AOC Pompous little twit. You don’t have a plan to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels, or get food into the cities. Horses? If fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating. You would bring about mass death."

73

Altair, that is not data. That is yet another obscure “scientific” website that has an editorial on the exact same study you linked to in the very first article. It’s the very same author. And so I’ll remind you again that the author directly refutes what you’re saying. If you had any true respect for the author/scientist, then you would stop attempting to twist the results of their study into supporting a conclusion that they flat out DO NOT SUPPORT. You’re on an island here buddy…

74

Is this a Hail Mary attempt to save face by posting to an article in 2012 about the supposed 16-year pause? Lol… Cheese and fries, don’t get me started…

75

It’s already a part of the discussion. That you continue to not acknowledge this fact is entirely irrelevant…

76

By scientists. Why do you feel so strongly that politicians need to be aware? And secondly, please provide evidence of this continued accusation that “a lot of solar scientists believe that this will trigger a mini ice age”.

77

Literally none of the articles you’ve posted have scientists making that claim.

78

The hottest years on record globally were not back during the 1930s.

79

It’s sad you think they actually had the global data to make that map in 1934… Try reasoning for yourself.

80

It’s sad you continue to make such easily refuted arguments.

There were plenty of stations present in the areas shown as being cooler in the 1934 map.

1 Like
81

How many stations were there is Siberia in 1934. How about Antarctica? How about the entire pacific ocean… in 1934!..or 1880 the usual start of gw graphs.