As long as the rain falls and the wind blows, I’ll have electricity … belch that CO[sub]2[/sub] suckers, I dare you.
I read one of them, and they are the same as what is raised in the NAS report, etc. However, I added more points in my response.
Yes, and I was reminded of that by the mention of how record breakingly hot it was in **Kunda **the previous year, in the following piece. Because when one has to mention the record breaking extremly over the top cold and snow, when it should be hot, you have to mention how hot it was the year before. It’s actually required.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=283
Not that is presented as breaking news, the way a heat wave would be, but still, lots of people are sick of the global warming this year. It just doesn’t seem to stop.
**
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=283
They would have mentioned the record heat the previous year, but there wasn’t any. In fact, these snows mean it has been snowing in Montana now for 9 months.
Meanwhile, another story about global warming comes from Russia.
http://rt.com/news/siberia-june-snow-kemerovo-130/
Yes, they actually are sick of this global warming at this point.
I just read about this growing realization that the earth’s magnetic field (which is currently shifting) has a much larger impact on climate than previously believed:
Prediction:
Climate scientists will continue to discover significant variables like this one (not just fine tuning, but major impact variables) such that today’s models will be considered substantially inaccurate.
The article refers to climate change at high altitudes, with the last five paragraphs showing how the magnetic field and CO2 affect the same.
I would have to agree with that. Especially since it’s not even known what caused the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period.
You are way behind the times. There are all kinds of things you just don’t pick up on when you hang out with denialists. And it took me all of about 5 seconds to find on google. I know you won’t read this (because you’re an incredibly stupid and petty twit who has half the forum on ignore - the smart half, I might add), but hey - maybe someone else is reading this cesspit and could learn something. :rolleyes:
Yes, I read the article.
I don’t think I understand your point, could you explain please?
That wiki article lists seven … count them … SEVEN different possible causes. Why would a alarmist think that’s a very narrow range?
“How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?”
The page also has a link to an NAS report.
Congrats, FX! Over 1,000 posts in one thread alone. Each one better than the next.
According to the chart in the article, the area referred to is the thermosphere. I think surface temperature measurements involve lower layers.
The fourth-to-the-last paragraph of the same article might also help.
It’s mostly volcanic activity according to the most recent research.
http://www.rtcc.org/2013/12/23/scientists-dismiss-solar-link-to-medieval-little-ice-age/
There are numerous possible causes that may have had an impact; it’s certainly not some huge unsolvable mystery as Brazil would imply. The point being that the science is moving forward. There are answers out there, and every year our understanding improves. We have a pretty good idea of what caused the little ice age. We know pretty much exactly what caused the medieval warm period, and that it wasn’t some massive global warming event, but rather regional warming primarily driven by heat distribution. This shit ain’t news, just like it ain’t news that RaftPeople’s stipulation is bullshit.
Nonsense.
I couldn’t have done it with out people like you. So the credit is yours.
Meanwhile, another fuckhead alarmist meme raises it’s ugly little head.
http://www.rtcc.org/2013/12/23/scientists-dismiss-solar-link-to-medieval-little-ice-age/
This latest affront to science, reason and logic, doesn’t even raise an eyebrow among the true global warmers. Like any good true believer, they accept anything that confirms their belief.
But it has a far different effect on actual scientists, especially ones who spent a lot of money time and energy on climatic history, and actually doing research on the matter.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/234/4774/361.short
In their never ending effort to change the past, revise history and remove the drastic climate changes that occurred in the last thousand years, all to support the crazy ass current fuckhead great belief, they do things that just keep making more and more scientists reject their crazy ass beliefs.
Taking ice cores, and looking at what actually happened, like with Huaynaputina, it’s what actual scientist do, have done, will do. Or taking cores from old reefs.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5559/1511.short
“The global Little Ice Age glacial expansion”, that’s one of those facts that the alarmists just wants to get rid of. Same for the very warm (much warmer than now) periods of the last 6000 years. (sea level was 10 feet higher, globally, something they just hate to talk about)
All of this fuckhead bullshit to change history is because the big picture seems to removes the fear and urgency from the global warming merchants of doom. And they know it. Anybody who actually has studied the past knows it.
They just can’t grasp that there are people smarter than they are. And their bullshit won’t work in our modern world. OK it might work on some people. But seriously, just stop with the idiot attempts to change great chunks of established science with just a single paper, based on modeling you did on your computer.
It’s embarrassing.
tl;dr
Global alarmists have tried to change the known history of global climate. They want to remove the MWP and say the little ice age was localized to Europe, and caused only by volcanoes. (hockey stick)
They also want to remove any reference to the sun having anything to do with climate change. All these efforts are doomed to fail, since they are complete bullshit.
My first thought was, he lied in every word,
That hoary cripple, with malicious eye
Askance to watch the working of his lie
On mine, and mouth scarce able to afford
Suppression of the glee, that purs’d and scor’d
Its edge, at one more victim gain’d thereby.
(Robert Browning, 1855)
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Poetry … please … stop … I beg of you
I think what you typed in has merit. Just a quick point that a scientific paper about volcanoes causing the Little Ice Age is going to be about volcanoes causing the Little Ice Age. If you read what Brazil posted: “Especially since it’s not even known what caused the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period.” … I’m just not finding the inference that this is unsolvable.
Your citation states:
Except their citations states:
Which in turn uses the IPCC reports as a citation that uses information from the citation you gave.
It doesn’t matter how big the circle is … it’s still begging the question. I admit, it was quite clever to just make a tiny change at each node, with enough nodes you can get anything to say anything you want.
Is the idea “overturned”, or is it a “minor effect”?