No, I am not aware of any people that claim we are in an ice age. (looking outside) Does not look that way around here.

As for the "article I pointed to", I pointed to the logical fallacy of your argument, based on YOUR ARTICLE.

As for "global cooling," of course it can exist, and does exist historically. It is no more than another term in any simplified linear equation of climate. It may be a weak or a strong term, with high or low uncertainty, still, the summation of the equation rules. (I'm simplifying a bit here, but likely you get it). For example, the Earth has radiative input factors, but also radiative output. Generally, that would mean outflow of watts from the lower stratosphere outwards. A global cooling factor, obviously.

You responded again, implying my evidence isn't trustworthy because climate science is biased and providing essentially false information. You did not provide any evidence of that. Your example was Al Gore, which we can both agree is an alarmist and a doofus.

Not exactly. Gore worked with Dr. James Hansen, and used Michael Mann's "hockey stick." Those are / were well published and known researchers. He did not come up with his alarmist ideas by himself. Well, maybe the idea of using the scissors lift was his. And maybe the idea of breaking the AC system in August 1988 when Hansen did his seminal report to the Senate, insuring they were all unbearably hot while the subject of the presentation was "global warming..." maybe that was Gore's work.

So Gore presented alarmist concepts but he wasn't the origin of them.

Also, you have closed with a variation of this, several times, so it deserves a reply.

(A)Besides, to elaborate on what I said, a sustainable society would be one that relies less on fossile fuels for well, fuel and energy, opting instead for renewable sources that cause the least environmental impact; governmental agencies to incentivize sustainable measures by companies & heavily monitor and punish activities that are detrimental to the environment; more robust measures to increase natural vegetation & other type of measures considered by studies to be beneficial for achieving a human-ecosystem relationship; immediate measures to mitigate climate change impacts in society (for instance, more robust catastrophe systems, overhaul in cities to be prepared for droughts, incentive for walking/biking/public transportation over personal vehicles); companies gradually changing to less wasteful products & bottles, etc. This type of stuff are the measures usually proposed to mitigate climate change, and I think regardless whether or not you think it doesn't exist you'd be willing to back them up.

Honestly, whether or not you believe or not in modern science is disregardable, as long as you support such a more "eco friendly" lifestyle

Let's just call (A) Beliefs, for a moment.

The argument now becomes "Agree with Beliefs," and you "Are a good person." I'll point out the fallacies in that.

The propagator of the argument is free to modify "Beliefs", while those subscribing to them still must adhere to the Dogma. This is pseudo-religion and has no scientific basis and no basis in any rational mode of life. Each of those sub-arguments in list (A) should be considered on it's merits or lack of. Essentially this is a power play, an attempt to gain control of people through word arguments and propaganda tactics.

Oh, and if you want to learn about eco-friendly habits, take a look at Singapore.

So we just toss out your initial argument as based on a poor choice of an example? No problem. In logic, you would be said to have set up a straw man argument, easily defeated. But the article doesn't support even your straw man argument, so I thought to bring that to your attention.

Obviously the primary mover of climate is the Sun. Astrophysicists vary in their work, but many certainly can and do talk about the Sun as it affects planetary atmospheres. Others may be concerned only with internal solar dynamics, etc. Still others focus on cosmic rays, solar wind, space weather, many things. Primary evidence of sun affecting climate is night and day, winter and summer, and the periodic ice ages and such.

There was a semi-political attempt starting maybe in the 1990s to minimize the effects of the sun on earth's climate, so that the effect of man's emissions could be brought into the forefront and seem more "alarming." For example, Al Gore's initial movies and presentation of the "hockey stick" did not show the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm period. This was an attempt to box in "natural climate variability" as fairly insignificant. That's pretty much debunked today. Although this is best expressed with phrases like "high or low uncertainty," rather than absolute certainty.

You can't go wrong being skeptical when someone is absolutely certain of something, particularly in a mathematically chaotic environment like climate.

Bolded above, isn't that a sort of rhetorical statement that assumes a stereotyped "enemy?" You don't know anything of what I oppose or not. But to respond, ambiguous, feel good phrases like "Sustainable society" really obscure the platform rather than explain it. Same with "environmental friendliness." Recycling is fine when it's not totally ridiculous, which isn't infrequent. Is Recycling an unqualified good? No, of course not. We're on the same page on the need for increases in productive nuclear energy.

Darn, I thought nothing could possibly be creepier than Tinder!

When the question is data, and someone "promises something" the promise is not to be believed.

Evidence, and proof is required.

This is pretty basic.

What I did was simply correct your mistake, using your link. Actually the scientific link in the popular article. I assume that's okay right? You said this...

This is the (incorrect) hypothesis called global cooling, the concept the globe's actually cooling (I assume you believe the Earth is a globe at the very least, right?). Essentially, people misusing the geological time scale and large-period climatic oscillations to justify beliefs for a short-term climatic oscilation.

And you were wrong. The article and the article it linked to didn't say that.

I really actually laughed at this...

Lastly, I have serious doubts whether these guys are climatologists given they're analysing sun activity pattern, so it's not like their prediction of climatic impacts have the same validity as those operating in that field.

Last I heard there were people who specialized in glaciers, some on historical glaciers, some on sedimentary deposits on the ocean floors. There are people who use boreholes to read climate from thousands of years ago. Others that look at isotope fractions in the air, and on the ground, and in rocks. Plus the guys that wonder about correcting satellite sensors' data streams. And a hundred other areas of science related to climate. This idea that there is a single species, no doubt created by global warming, a sort of human creature who is a climatologist, is a new one.

So you don't trust astrophysics? Or those that work in the field? I assume then you don't want your climatologists messing around with astrophysics? But that makes no sense. Seems to me like an astrophysicist certainly could tell you something about the direct and indirect effects of the Sun on Earth's climate. More watts in, less watts in. Watts out. Effect on clouds, high or low. Who do you want to trust? The climatologist that just knows bugs?

Of course not. They CAREFULLY print more money whenever they feel like it.

Because we want those people working and making/growing beer, whiskey, hot cars, nice clothes, big OLED televisions, swimming pools, airplanes, chocolate, Christmas trees, and AR15 assault rifles.

You likely know this, but I'll say it anyway.

The DC police dept. cannot be trusted to prosecute, or even investigate these things.

Add Cuba and Venezuela to the list.

It's the clamp down after the subjugation where the truth emerges.

Probably she would be looking pretty attractive ... to those in prison.

They are not. If you read the linked paper...

 Singh, A.K., Bhargawa, A. Prediction of declining solar activity trends during solar cycles 25 and 26 and indication of other solar minimum. Astrophys Space Sci 364, 12 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-019-3500-9

Their assertions are not based on the Milankovick cycles, but on periodic sunspot activity and what climate has seemed to correlate with that in the past.

This of course cannot be an incorrect hypothesis. But one may argue whether the sum of cooling and warming effects leads to a net of cooling or warming, or whatever.

So the Democrat candidates are all disconnected with the American people ... why?

As previously stated (apparently not understood)

We (much later) conceptually tag 1300-1800 or 1500 - 1800 whatever with LABEL. Then we look for CAUSE of LABEL.

That's not the way it works in natural systems with chaotic behavior. That's our brains trying to understand things.  That's you trying to fixate on single CAUSE-->single EFFECT.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128045886/evidence-based-climate-science

Do you understand the relation between cosmic rays, cloud cover, the solar wind variations and weather on Earth? I had earlier noted the CLOUD experiments at CERN, but maybe you did not see the connections? These were only speculative theories in 2010 and 2012, but the CLOUD experiments provided some definitive data. That is why I noted that you cannot disregard solar influences by focusing on TSI as only changing very slightly during the LIA. That is junk science.

What I am saying is that virtually nobody argues that the TSI change during any solar cycle, including GSM, causes significant weather or climate change on the Earth. Thus any that argue against this made-up theory have only created a straw man to knock down.

From the abstract and chapter summary noted above.

The solar irradiance was almost constant during the Maunder minimum and about 0.24% (or about 0.82 W m−2) lower than the present value (see Panel (a) in Fig. 5), but CR intensity and air surface temperature varied in a similar manner – see above sections; with increasing CR intensity there was a decrease in air surface temperature (see Panels (b) and (c) in Fig. 5). The highest level of CR intensity was in 1690–1700, which corresponds to the minimum of air surface temperature [49] and also to the coldest decade (1690–1700).

...It is well known that many internal and external factors influencing the climate are unstable, for example, decreasing the Earth's temperature leads to an increase of snow and the decreasing of the solar energy input into the system leads to a further decrease in the Earth's temperature. From this it follows that even energetically small factors may have a major influence on climate change. From our point of view, cosmic rays and cosmic dust, through their influence on cloudiness, are important factors in understanding climate.


The simple fact is that the creation of a 500 year more less period of cold requires an energy balance to accommodate that reality. The only way that can be accomplished is the aggregate joules of heat on the Earth are less than in "normal times."

Sunspots are not a cause, but a visual symptom of tremendous changes in the Sun, internally. Cosmic rays are particles, each single one with an energy about equal to a hardball thrown by a professional player. Clouds exist only because nucleation media in the atmosphere promotes them.


That's nice, but not relevant to the physical reality of these events, and the known effects of major EMF.

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-would-happen-if-solar-storm-wiped-out-technology-geomagnetic-carrington-event-coronal-mass-ejection

It sounds like something out of a disaster movie, but it's not the stuff of fiction. Conservative estimates suggest we could be looking at up to US$2 trillion of damage in the first year of such a calamity, with a recovery effort that could take a decade for the world to pull off.

On the more extreme side, others say US$20 trillion is a more reasonable figure – an inevitable damage bill that should perhaps make us reassess the risk factors of space-borne destruction.

"In terms of risk from the sky, most of the attention in the past was dedicated to asteroids," astrophysicist Abraham Loeb from Harvard University explained to Universe Today last year.

"But a century ago, there was not much technological infrastructure around, and technology is growing exponentially. Therefore, the damage is highly asymmetric between the past and future."

Not a chance. Democratic behind the scenes power moguls will not allow it.

Category: "Garbage in, Garbage out?"

Have you reviewed any of the articles you have been provided? Yes or no. What was not clear?

Would you like me to quote directly from them, so that there is less of a need for you to read?

Also, have you completely tossed out your silly ideas that solar flares, and the atmospheric events known as Carrington events, are not a huge threat to our modern world?

Yes or no please.

Well, you guessed wrong (not the first time, either). You made a claim as to a way people could stop a pandemic that seems to kill 2-5% of those that get it, a claim that has no basis in reality and which has serious side effects. I called you on it.

https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-claim-real-impeachment-has-never-been-tried

“What the people don’t understand,” Pelosi continued, “is that real impeachment, like real socialism, will solve all of their problems. The common people can’t be trusted to own things or to elect a President I like. It’s just better for everyone if we in Washington seize the means of election.”

When asked for her definition of real impeachment, Pelosi described it as a fair and unbiased process that would always give her the predetermined outcome she wanted.

“We’re going to keep trying until we get it right,” she declared ominously.

It's virtually impossible for persons without special and rigorous training to get anywhere near correct dosing when attempting to self-medicate. In many cases, they make mistakes and take too much, orders of magnitude too much.

There are many analogs to this. Industrial chemicals may be sold at 35-50% concentration in water, but for consumer use are sold at 1-5%. Reason: Safety. And it makes perfect sense.

We've had discussions before. You have no understanding of basic chemistry and in some cases, are advocating things that are outright dangerous. This is one of them.

https://www.livescience.com/65568-licorice-overdose-high-blood-pressure.html

A good friend of mine believed this kind of garbage, thought he could take natural remedies, then was admitted to hospital with similar symptoms, bp > 200. He had a stroke and now is half paralyzed for life. The stroke was the result of the "natural remedies."

So yeah, on some stuff you really should STFU.