Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The E...

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

There are 73 comments on the Free Republic story from Feb 3, 2013, titled Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling. In it, Free Republic reports that:

Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Free Republic.

Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#42 Feb 8, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Erratum:
I obviously meant "...2nd warmest January EVER..." in the 2nd paragraph.
I find more substantive material to respond to, commenting on typos or making derogatory statements are for those who have nothing to say.
SpaceBlues

United States

#43 Feb 8, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
1792 was a very warm year during the LIA, as warm as our current period. It's weather. China and Russia had some very cold weather in January.
There is a lag time between solar energy and weather. Estimates vary, but 10 years is commonly cited. Our solar energy went into a minimum in 2002. Cycle 24 started after a long cycle 23. The longer the solar cycle the cooler the activity of that current cycle and the longer the following cycle will be.
NASA is now predicting a 14 year cycle 24. According to most data sets, it appears that cycle 24 has hit it's max. If that's true, then we will experience 10.5 years of reduced solar activity before cycle 25 starts. Because of the length of cycle 24, cycle 25 is expected to produce even lower levels of activity.
Combine the low solar activity with negative oceans oscillations and you get the recipe for lower temperatures. The less heat energy the oceans capture, the less heat there is available to distribute.
Less heat to distribute means less heat for CO2 to trap.
blah blah you are WRONG.

More CO2, more greenhouse gas effect unless worse is triggered.
SpaceBlues

United States

#44 Feb 8, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I find more substantive material to respond to, commenting on typos or making derogatory statements are for those who have nothing to say.
Passive aggressive manner, fake facts.
litesong

Everett, WA

#45 Feb 8, 2013
fun farts wrote:
Our solar energy went into a minimum in 2002.
You often say that, which is true. You never say that it was a record 100 year minimum TSI. You never point out that Earth temperatures went back to the temperatures of the early 20th century....... because they never did, of course.

Yeah, you could be right the TSI determines overall Earth biosphere temperatures, except the last 100+ years prove you wrong.

Why you can't see the obvious is because you aren't 'fun facts', but 'fun farts'.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#46 Feb 8, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
You often say that, which is true. You never say that it was a record 100 year minimum TSI. You never point out that Earth temperatures went back to the temperatures of the early 20th century....... because they never did, of course.
Yeah, you could be right the TSI determines overall Earth biosphere temperatures, except the last 100+ years prove you wrong.
Why you can't see the obvious is because you aren't 'fun facts', but 'fun farts'.
In addition, you think topix does not know what you publish. Attacks on me will not delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#47 Feb 8, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
1792 was a very warm year during the LIA, as warm as our current period. It's weather. China and Russia had some very cold weather in January.
There is a lag time between solar energy and weather. Estimates vary, but 10 years is commonly cited. Our solar energy went into a minimum in 2002. Cycle 24 started after a long cycle 23. The longer the solar cycle the cooler the activity of that current cycle and the longer the following cycle will be.
NASA is now predicting a 14 year cycle 24. According to most data sets, it appears that cycle 24 has hit it's max. If that's true, then we will experience 10.5 years of reduced solar activity before cycle 25 starts. Because of the length of cycle 24, cycle 25 is expected to produce even lower levels of activity.
Combine the low solar activity with negative oceans oscillations and you get the recipe for lower temperatures. The less heat energy the oceans capture, the less heat there is available to distribute.
Less heat to distribute means less heat for CO2 to trap.
Let's etch that in stone, OK? You're predicting proximate cooling that will last 2 or 3 decades if I'm understanding you correctly. So we'll see.

My prediction is that you're wrong, very wrong. Temps will continue to rise.

Again, IF there's been any recent slowdown, it's due not to reduced solar activity but to reflective aerosols due to Chinese pollution. This will decrease as China passes anti-pollution laws. Temps will rise further.

Anyway, the definitive work on solar forcing has been done by Usoskin.

http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen...

The Sun's radiant energy correlates well with temps in the past, but this breaks down after 1975. THE CURRENT WARMING IS NOT THE SUN. Period.

This means that coming Maunder (or even Spörer) minima won't be associated with cooling. Sorry, you're wrong. I submit it'll only take a few years to prove it.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#48 Feb 8, 2013
Prediction, forecast, could be should be and my opinion all scientific science fiction.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#49 Feb 9, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's etch that in stone, OK? You're predicting proximate cooling that will last 2 or 3 decades if I'm understanding you correctly. So we'll see.
.
You can take the time to etch that in stone, but many scientist have already put it on paper and a quick google search will give you many 'results'. The minima is expected about 2030.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#50 Feb 9, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyway, the definitive work on solar forcing has been done by Usoskin.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen...
The Sun's radiant energy correlates well with temps in the past, but this breaks down after 1975. THE CURRENT WARMING IS NOT THE SUN. Period.
This means that coming Maunder (or even Spörer) minima won't be associated with cooling. Sorry, you're wrong. I submit it'll only take a few years to prove it.
Usoskin's conclusion states that the last 30 years of activity was not studied. Usoskin also has a study that calls the last half of the 20th century a grand solar maxima. Higher than at any time in the last 400 years of recorded data and in the top 10% of all data collected in proxy studies.

http://www.aanda.org/index.php...

Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: new observational constraints
I. G. Usoskin1 - S. K. Solanki2 - G. A. Kovaltsov3

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#51 Feb 9, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Usoskin's conclusion states that the last 30 years of activity was not studied. Usoskin also has a study that calls the last half of the 20th century a grand solar maxima. Higher than at any time in the last 400 years of recorded data and in the top 10% of all data collected in proxy studies.
http://www.aanda.org/index.php...
Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: new observational constraints
I. G. Usoskin1 - S. K. Solanki2 - G. A. Kovaltsov3
Very slick, trying to confuse us like that. The increase in sunspot activity was in the FIRST half of the 20th century, not the 2nd. Insolation hasn't changed significantly over the past 60 years (except for ~11 year sunspot cycles) because we've been measuring it by satellite. Yet it's clearly warming.

Usoskin most assuredly HAS studied solar activity since 1975; it does not account for warming. Anyway, we know it's not the sun because of the following:

1. If it were the sun, the equator would be warming more (Lambert's cosign law); instead, the poles (especially the north, as predicted) are warming more.

2. If it were the sun, days would be warming more than nights; instead, nights are warming more.

3. If it were the sun, summers would be warming more; instead, winters are warming more.

4. If it were the sun, the stratosphere would be warming along with the troposphere; instead, the stratosphere is cooling (& the tropopause, the boundary between the troposphere & the stratosphere, is rising), as predicted by radiative forcing (AGW/CC theory).

If you're right, we'll see cooling now, over the next few years. We won't because you are wrong. Warming will continue.

Only an idi0t would wait 30 years to take action. Unfortunately, you & a lot of oil money want to delay action as long as possible, & you have succeeded in confusing people about the science.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#53 Feb 9, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Very slick, trying to confuse us like that. The increase in sunspot activity was in the FIRST half of the 20th century, not the 2nd. Insolation hasn't changed significantly over the past 60 years (except for ~11 year sunspot cycles) because we've been measuring it by satellite. Yet it's clearly warming.
.
The higher TSI values are in the last half of the 20th century.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data....

We've been measuring TSI since 1978. Several different sources of the measurments.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/images/instrum...

NASA puts them together like this
http://www.astronomia.com/wp-content/uploads/...
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#54 Feb 9, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
1. If it were the sun, the equator would be warming more (Lambert's cosign law); instead, the poles (especially the north, as predicted) are warming more.
.
Put Lambert's cosign law together with precession and obliquity. Solar insolation is not a direct hit to the equator, in fact in NH summer the arctic is exposed to solar insolation and in SH winter the antarctic is exposed. The most direct hit at this time would be either 23.5*N or S depending on the season.

Obliquity is decreasing, so the tilt of the earth will decrease putting the sun's direct insolation closer to the equator further from the poles.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#55 Feb 9, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
The higher TSI values are in the last half of the 20th century.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data....
We've been measuring TSI since 1978. Several different sources of the measurments.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/images/instrum...
NASA puts them together like this
http://www.astronomia.com/wp-content/uploads/...
Actually, the raw data show NO significant trend since 1960, only the expected ~11 year cycles. So you have NO explanation for the current warming.

Not to mention - there was an increase in solar activity in ~1700 - why didn't the LIA break until ~1850, when CO2 began rising? Hmmm?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#56 Feb 9, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Put Lambert's cosign law together with precession and obliquity. Solar insolation is not a direct hit to the equator, in fact in NH summer the arctic is exposed to solar insolation and in SH winter the antarctic is exposed. The most direct hit at this time would be either 23.5*N or S depending on the season.
Obliquity is decreasing, so the tilt of the earth will decrease putting the sun's direct insolation closer to the equator further from the poles.
Puh-leeze! You think we're THAT stupid???? Milankovitch obliquity & precession effects are way, way, way, way, way, WAY too small to overcome Lambert's cosign law effects. And the seasons average out. Increased insolation would fall between 23.5º N & 23.5º S. The tropics would warm more if the sun were the cause of warming.

Instead, the poles are warming. It's due to radiative forcing, as predicted by AGW/CC theory, since heat is more evenly distributed that way.

Speaking of Milankovitch cycles, though, we CLEARLY "should" be slowly sliding back into another ice age (or "glaciation" to be more precise). The Little Ice Age "should" never have ended, regardless of solar activity.

Instead, human CO2 emissions "rescued" us, preventing the slide down in temperatures. Unfortunately, we've overshot - by a LOT - & are now causing excessive warming.
SpaceBlues

United States

#57 Feb 9, 2013
C-O-S-I-N-E
C-O-S-I-N-E

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#58 Feb 9, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
C-O-S-I-N-E
C-O-S-I-N-E
Thanks, Space B. That misspelling got past me...
SpaceBlues

United States

#59 Feb 9, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, Space B. That misspelling got past me...
np.

When fakefacts kept it, it was sos ..
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#61 Feb 10, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>np.
When fakefacts kept it, it was sos ..
Another example of the spced out spacedoutblues dazed and confused.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#62 Feb 10, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
You can take the time to etch that in stone, but many scientist have already put it on paper and a quick google search will give you many 'results'. The minima is expected about 2030.
So we should cool steadily till 2030? Just trying to get it down. BTW, "minima" is plural. I think you meant "minimum" in 2030.

In any case, I believe it's WAY more likely we'll keep warming. We'll see.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#63 Feb 10, 2013
Wow someone was really desparate to give PennyHD a check up vote. Fun Facts, was that you??

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 min Brian_G 62,877
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 2 hr Lips9431 35,839
News Prominent climate-denying politician gets schoo... 2 hr Grinder1373 65
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 2 hr Into The Night 4,812
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 2 hr Into The Night 10,654
News Trump meets with Princeton physicist who says g... 6 hr The Real Donald T... 2
News The NASA data conspiracy theory and the cold sun 8 hr 1st Grade Math Wiz 1
More from around the web