Despite the lies of grifters like Dubyne, Ice Age Farmer, DiamondDave et al.

Certainly, temperatures have not declined, the temperature map looks like this:

---

Some blue, but a lot of orange and red. Only a complete idiot or a liar like Dubyne would say it is cooling!

Seasonal distribution is interesting:

---

Quite a departure from previous years, eh? Dubyne’s lie about record low Arctic ice, huge Greenland melt and European heatwave “not being significant” was obviously made out of desperation, like the thermometer on a roof that turned out to be a rain gauge ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

That sets the scene—a rapidly warming world. Some cold but a lot more heat.

Dubyne says the sun has gone into a GSM in 2016. Nonsense, of course—cycle 24 has given way to Cycle 25.

Say the sun DID go into a GSM, as it likely will some time, then what, new ice age finally?

Not, I am sorry to say. There is one fact Dubyne is keeping quiet about:

A GSM cools by 0.2°C, no more!

Evidence:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321495462_The_Maunder_minimum_and_the_Little_Ice_Age_An_update_from_recent_reconstructions_and_climate_simulations

and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251431109_Are_the_most_recent_estimates_for_Maunder_Minimum_solar_irradiance_in_agreement_with_temperature_reconstructions

AGW is warming the globe by 0.205°C per decade (RSS) while the least of the temperature series, the most adjusted/manipulated, least robust series UAH6 has AGW warming by 0.15°C per decade. So what the hell is a GSM supposed to do? Pretty much nothing is what it will do, no ice age. BTW Milankovitch Cycle is cooling us—yet we warm.

Talking about ice ages, regular major ice ages (due to Milankovitch forcings) only started once CO2 fell below 300ppm. CO2 is now 415ppm and, unfortunately, rising. So there will not be any more regular major ice ages. IMHO anyhow, not that I will live to find out  :)

You mean even the Southern Hemisphere, where Phil Jones, CRU, has said was mostly made up until the 1950's. Although others say the 70's.

perhaps the ten stations in the Southern hemisphere making up the entire longterm temperature?

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 14^th, 2019 at 5:51pm:

AGW is warming the globe by 0.205°C per decade (RSS) while the least of the temperature series, the most adjusted/manipulated, least robust series UAH6 has AGW warming by 0.15°C per decade.

well it has been warming. How much is anyone's guess as well as to any AGW component. ;)

We have been warming, lee, well spotted!

That warming has taken place despite natural factors cooling us:

1. Milankovitch cycles are cooling us

2. The sun has been a bit quiet since the 1980s and that is cooling us.

3. Anthropogenic aerosols are cooling us

Despite that, we have warmed 1°C since 1880, 0.6°C of that since 1990—AGW is responsible for > 100% of observed warming.

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 7:48am:

We have been warming, lee, well spotted!

That is what we are told.

And yet there is nothing except models that show it as catastrophic, even harmful.

Even Arheenius said that and you like to quote him:

"” He eventually made the suggestion that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels could be beneficial, making the Earth's climates “more equable,” "

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Arrhenius/arrhenius_3.php

But then of course we know the Southern Hemisphere wasn't well represented in GLOBAL temperature until sometime after the 1950's. As per Phil Jones CRU.

Now that is an enormous bias right there, that you want everyone to ignore. So the models up until the 1960's are really useless for determining How much, if at all. And even now there is a huge bias where there are no temperature stations - Australia, Africa and Asia come to mind as well as the poles.

And the sea ice has not disappeared yet. ;)

lee wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 12:06pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 15th, 2019 at 7:48am: We have been warming, lee, well spotted! That is what we are told. And yet there is nothing except models that show it as catastrophic, even harmful. Even Arheenius said that and you like to quote him: "” He eventually made the suggestion that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels could be beneficial, making the Earth's climates “more equable,” " https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Arrhenius/arrhenius_3.php But then of course we know the Southern Hemisphere wasn't well represented in GLOBAL temperature until sometime after the 1950's. As per Phil Jones CRU. Now that is an enormous bias right there, that you want everyone to ignore. So the models up until the 1960's are really useless for determining How much, if at all. And even now there is a huge bias where there are no temperature stations - Australia, Africa and Asia come to mind as well as the poles. And the sea ice has not disappeared yet. ;)

Monk always ignores all those predictions of no ice at the North Pole.   :-[

Arrhenius (note the spelling, dickhead) was writing in 1896 and 1905, he may have thought a bit of warming good and who could blame him? Did he foresee the vast industrialisation, the huge fleets of motor vehicles, the huge increase in population etc etc?

You are a fool, lee. Booby you are too bloody gullible.

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 12:31pm:

Arrhenius (note the spelling, dickhead) was writing in 1896 and 1905, he may have thought a bit of warming good and who could blame him?

Poor petal Can't even ignore a typo. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

And that bit of warming hasn't. ;)  The catastrophe is always somewhat in the future.

Even Arctic ice isn't following the meme. Or sea level rise.

"A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000."

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

Not even close.


Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 12:31pm:

Did he foresee the vast industrialisation, the huge fleets of motor vehicles, the huge increase in population etc etc?

No but he also didn't foresee the anticipated problem of horse poo drowning cities worldwide.

"By the late 1800s, large cities all around the world were “drowning in horse manure”. In order for these cities to function, they were dependent on thousands of horses for the transport of both people and goods."

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Great-Horse-Manure-Crisis-of-1894/

But as far as I can tell no-one aid he was a seer. ;)
Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 12:31pm:

ou are a fool, lee. Booby you are too bloody gullible.

Poor petal. Al lot of failed climate prophesies and he calls everyone else gullible. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Globe is warming

The warming is faster than happened naturally in the past.

Ice is melting—Antarctica is melting half a century earlier than was thought likely—a failed prediction there but not in a good way.

The hockey stick is alive and well with just short of 50 confirmations of the rapid warming forming the blade of the hockey stick.

The models are doing well;

---

Put this into context—temperatures over the past 8000 years. We see the cooling due Milankovitch cycles starting, then the rapid warming from burning of fossil fuels:

---

You can see how much we have warmed since the LIA, how can a new LIA happen? A GSM only cools by 0.2°C tops!

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321495462_The_Maunder_minimum_and_the_Little_Ice_Age_An_update_from_recent_reconstructions_and_climate_simulations

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251431109_Are_the_most_recent_estimates_for_Maunder_Minimum_solar_irradiance_in_agreement_with_temperature_reconstructions

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 1:50pm:

The warming is faster than happened naturally in the past.

Really over the top hubris. We don't know. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 1:50pm:

Ice is melting—Antarctica is melting half a century earlier than was thought likely—a failed prediction there but not in a good way.

You mean climate phenomena are not dynamic? It should have been getting colder? It should have precipitated more?

Aah Marcott 2013. Realising that the Southern Hemisphere is largely made up.

"Tom,
        The issue Ray alludes to is that in addition to the issue of many more drifters providing measurements over the last 5-10 years, the measurements are coming in from places where we didn't have much ship data in the past. For much of the SH       between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.

Whatever causes the divergence in your plot it is down to the ocean.

You could try doing an additional plot. Download from the CRU web site the series for SH land. It doesn't matter if is from CRUTEM3 or CRUTEM3v (the former would be better). If that still has the divergence, then it is the oceans causing the problem. What you're seeing is too rapid to be real.

Cheers
Phil"

part of email 2729

http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2729.txt

So about 80% of the SH was poorly sampled. and yet you want to hang your hat on those predictions.

But i digress -What was it he said on that interview on real climate? -

"Yet if we plot temperature anomaly data since 1880 at the same locations as the 73 sites used in our paleotemperature study, we see that the data are scattered and the trend is unclear. "

But if they mash merged together they find what they want.

" Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

Can I have veg with that? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yes, “petal” we should be cooling right now:

1. Milankovitch cycle reducing TSI a bit

2. Sun went a bit quiet in 1980s

3. Man made aerosols are cooling us

Yet we are warming, warming more rapidly than the globe has warmed in the past.

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 3:17pm:

Yes, “petal” we should be cooling right now: 1. Milankovitch cycle reducing TSI a bit 2. Sun went a bit quiet in 1980s 3. Man made aerosols are cooling us Yet we are warming, warming more rapidly than the globe has warmed in the past.

Monk - what are you going to say if the coming winter
in the Northern hemisphere is the worst & coldest in recorded human history?
I'm talking about going back for 10,000 years.

Booby, a GSM will, at most, cool by 0.2°C.

AGW is warming us about 0.2°C per decade. Exactly what do you think a GSM will do?

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 3:17pm:

Yet we are warming, warming more rapidly than the globe has warmed in the past.

only with the hokey (sic) stick. ;)

We are warming and we are warming more rapidly than has happened naturally in the past. We are warming despite two natural and one anthropogenic forcings that are cooling us.

AGW is not only real but powerful.

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 3:21pm:

Booby, a GSM will, at most, cool by 0.2°C. AGW is warming us about 0.2°C per decade. Exactly what do you think a GSM will do?

Monk - listen up -

they say in boxing - when someone gets knocked out -
it happens!


If it's true that mankind has altered the climate
it may not warm up at all -
if you would have bothered to read the closed loop weather system papers
that I linked to you one time you'd find out
that it's more complex than your simple mind can cope with.

If you would have read Robert Felix's book -
not by Fire but by Ice -
you'd see it happens - it's happened before many times.

Within a short period of time -
no more than 3 years - the world can enter an ice age
of catastrophic proportions.
Maybe man will trigger it?
The closed system will go in the opposite direction if you try to warm
the climate & head into an ice age -
I hope not - but it happens.


https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/512CXDAE7TL._SX302_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

AGW is warming the globe despite:

1. Milankovitch cycle acting to cool us

2. The sun going a bit quiet in the 1980s is acting to cool us

3. Anthropogenic aerosols are cooling us.

Despite that we are warming faster than has happened naturally in the past.

Have a look:

---

Poor petal clinging lovingly, despairingly at Mann et al. Despite the lack of SH data for much or the period. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Poor Princess Leea, beset with so many sorrows. Dear old wise FD told the Princess “At least two dozen other studies support the hockey stick” (or closer to 50 studies that do but let that go.)

So Princess Leea is a Lyah.

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 5:27pm:

Dear old wise FD told the Princess “At least two dozen other studies support the hockey stick” (or closer to 50 studies that do but let that go.)

So consensus is now science. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

But tell us more about your Marcott graph that you are so proud of. And how the "hockey stick end is not "robust." ;)

*

*

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 9:25pm:

This was predicted:

"NASA – Next solar cycle will be weakest in 200 years"

https://www.iceagenow.info/nasa-next-solar-cycle-will-be-weakest-in-200-years/

lee wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 9:52pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 16th, 2019 at 9:25pm: This was predicted: "NASA – Next solar cycle will be weakest in 200 years" https://www.iceagenow.info/nasa-next-solar-cycle-will-be-weakest-in-200-years/

Monk doesn't know.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 10:00pm:

lee wrote on Sep 16th, 2019 at 9:52pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 16th, 2019 at 9:25pm: This was predicted: "NASA – Next solar cycle will be weakest in 200 years" Monk doesn't know.

Who cares? Did NASA also state that the whole planet is going to cool as a result? No.

The notion that we are heading into an ice age is garbage science put forward by:
Youtubers
Bloggers
Non-qualified people who speak to the subject matter.

I am yet to see a peer reviewed scientific study that agrees / demonstrates that we are going to enter a new ice age as a result of the current GSM. When you or anyone has a credible source please come back to me.

Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 17^th, 2019 at 1:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 16th, 2019 at 10:00pm: lee wrote on Sep 16th, 2019 at 9:52pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 16th, 2019 at 9:25pm: This was predicted: "NASA – Next solar cycle will be weakest in 200 years" Monk doesn't know. Who cares? Did NASA also state that the whole planet is going to cool as a result? No. The notion that we are heading into an ice age is garbage science put forward by: Youtubers Bloggers Non-qualified people who speak to the subject matter. I am yet to see a peer reviewed scientific study that agrees / demonstrates that we are going to enter a new ice age as a result of the current GSM. When you or anyone has a credible source please come back to me.

Hi Monk,
what about Robert Felix?

Bobby. wrote on Sep 17^th, 2019 at 2:43pm:

Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 17th, 2019 at 1:42pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 16th, 2019 at 10:00pm: lee wrote on Sep 16th, 2019 at 9:52pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 16th, 2019 at 9:25pm: This was predicted: "NASA – Next solar cycle will be weakest in 200 years" Monk doesn't know. Who cares? Did NASA also state that the whole planet is going to cool as a result? No. The notion that we are heading into an ice age is garbage science put forward by: Youtubers Bloggers Non-qualified people who speak to the subject matter. I am yet to see a peer reviewed scientific study that agrees / demonstrates that we are going to enter a new ice age as a result of the current GSM. When you or anyone has a credible source please come back to me. Hi Monk, what about Robert Felix?

Definitely not Monk.

What about him? One person who claims we are heading into an ice-age does not equate to peer reviewed scientific studies. Oh, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that he as been discredited and debunked time and time again.

Again, once you have credible peer reviewed scientific studies that show we are entering a mini ice age please share them.

You did not answer my question regarding NASA - did they also claim the entire earth will enter a new ice age as a result of the pending GSM?

"CHINESE SCIENTISTS WARN OF IMMINENT GLOBAL COOLING"

"The paper, which has been accepted for publication by the online Journal of Geophysical Research, found that winds from Arctic Siberia have been growing weaker for thousands of years, the conifer tree line has been retreating north, and there has been a steady rise in biodiversity in a general warming trend that continues today. "

"“Driving forces include the sun, the atmosphere, and its interaction with the ocean,” Wu explained. “We have detected no evidence of human influence. But that doesn’t mean we can just relax and do nothing.” "

"After more than 13 years of dedicated research across volcanic lakes in the wilderness of the Greater Khingan Mountain Range in Inner Mongolia, the scientists collected and crunched climate data spanning as far back as 10,000 years.

And their findings confirmed an earlier study by a separate team of Chinese scientists, published in 2014, which first detected the 500-year cyclical pattern of China’s summer monsoons and linked it to solar activity.

The 2014 paper, which drew on 5,000 years’ worth of proxy data, suggested the current warm phase would end within the next several decades, ushering in a brutal 250-year cooling phase."

https://electroverse.net/chinese-scientists-warn-of-imminent-global-cooling/

lee wrote on Sep 17^th, 2019 at 3:51pm:

"CHINESE SCIENTISTS WARN OF IMMINENT GLOBAL COOLING" "The paper, which has been accepted for publication by the online Journal of Geophysical Research, found that winds from Arctic Siberia have been growing weaker for thousands of years, the conifer tree line has been retreating north, and there has been a steady rise in biodiversity in a general warming trend that continues today. " "“Driving forces include the sun, the atmosphere, and its interaction with the ocean,” Wu explained. “We have detected no evidence of human influence. But that doesn’t mean we can just relax and do nothing.” " "After more than 13 years of dedicated research across volcanic lakes in the wilderness of the Greater Khingan Mountain Range in Inner Mongolia, the scientists collected and crunched climate data spanning as far back as 10,000 years. And their findings confirmed an earlier study by a separate team of Chinese scientists, published in 2014, which first detected the 500-year cyclical pattern of China’s summer monsoons and linked it to solar activity. The 2014 paper, which drew on 5,000 years’ worth of proxy data, suggested the current warm phase would end within the next several decades, ushering in a brutal 250-year cooling phase."

Nice quote now lets analyse it shall we?

Firstly, the "scientists" mentioned do not have their full names listed, no credentials listed and no link to their "study" - please provide these.

Secondly, the "online journal of geophysical research" does not appear to exist, a simple google search yields no results - please provide a link to this journal.

Thirdly, Electroverse is a known junk science regurgitator that cherry picks "cold" events to suit their narrative of a pending ice-age.

Fourth, you're taking your news from a BLOG and not actual scientists.

lee wrote on Sep 17^th, 2019 at 3:51pm:

"CHINESE SCIENTISTS WARN OF IMMINENT GLOBAL COOLING" "The paper, which has been accepted for publication by the online Journal of Geophysical Research, found that winds from Arctic Siberia have been growing weaker for thousands of years, the conifer tree line has been retreating north, and there has been a steady rise in biodiversity in a general warming trend that continues today. " "“Driving forces include the sun, the atmosphere, and its interaction with the ocean,” Wu explained. “We have detected no evidence of human influence. But that doesn’t mean we can just relax and do nothing.” " "After more than 13 years of dedicated research across volcanic lakes in the wilderness of the Greater Khingan Mountain Range in Inner Mongolia, the scientists collected and crunched climate data spanning as far back as 10,000 years. And their findings confirmed an earlier study by a separate team of Chinese scientists, published in 2014, which first detected the 500-year cyclical pattern of China’s summer monsoons and linked it to solar activity. The 2014 paper, which drew on 5,000 years’ worth of proxy data, suggested the current warm phase would end within the next several decades, ushering in a brutal 250-year cooling phase." https://electroverse.net/chinese-scientists-warn-of-imminent-global-cooling/

Thanks Lee -
it also says

but now the prospect of a sudden and severe bout of global cooling
is on the horizon and poses a serious danger.

Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 17^th, 2019 at 3:04pm:

Definitely not Monk.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck
then it's most likely a duck.

How did you come up with this new name?

Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 17^th, 2019 at 4:23pm:

Secondly, the "online journal of geophysical research" does not appear to exist, a simple google search yields no results - please provide a link to this journal.

Some deep searching obviously -

"The Journal of Geophysical Research is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It is the flagship journal of the American Geophysical Union.[1] It contains original research on the physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to the understanding of the Earth, Sun, and solar system. It has seven sections: A (Space Physics), B (Solid Earth), C (Oceans), D (Atmospheres), E (Planets), F (Earth Surface), and G (Biogeosciences). All current and back issues are available online for subscribers."

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

"AGU publishes 22 highly respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals covering research in the Earth and space sciences; Eos.org, an online news site (accompanied by a monthly magazine); and award-winning books."

https://publications.agu.org/journals/

That really must have been a comprehensive search you partook. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You do understand "online" was not capitalised, it didn't form part of the publication name. ;)

lee wrote on Sep 17^th, 2019 at 6:50pm:

Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 17th, 2019 at 4:23pm: Secondly, the "online journal of geophysical research" does not appear to exist, a simple google search yields no results - please provide a link to this journal. Some deep searching obviously - "The Journal of Geophysical Research is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It is the flagship journal of the American Geophysical Union.[1] It contains original research on the physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to the understanding of the Earth, Sun, and solar system. It has seven sections: A (Space Physics), B (Solid Earth), C (Oceans), D (Atmospheres), E (Planets), F (Earth Surface), and G (Biogeosciences). All current and back issues are available online for subscribers." "AGU publishes 22 highly respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals covering research in the Earth and space sciences; Eos.org, an online news site (accompanied by a monthly magazine); and award-winning books." That really must have been a comprehensive search you partook. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You do understand "online" was not capitalised, it didn't form part of the publication name. ;)

As the poster it is incumbent upon YOU to provide sources and not those who are reading it.

I note that you did not provide any links to the "published" study, nor any biographies of the  "scientists" / their full names / other credited works / their credentials.

I also note that the link you provided is from wikipedia (highly reputable) and the following link to AGU has nothing at all in common with your original referred journal "American Geophysical Union"

Seems to me that you're not doing very comprehensive searches and if it were not for me asking questions, none of this would have been unearthed.

Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 17^th, 2019 at 7:20pm:

As the poster it is incumbent upon YOU to provide sources and not those who are reading it.

poor petal. here's a hanky.


Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 17^th, 2019 at 7:20pm:

I note that you did not provide any links to the "published" study, nor any biographies of the  "scientists" / their full names / other credited works / their credentials.

I see you have diminished capacity for cognitive reading. Do you understand the phrase "has been accepted for publication"?  Do you understand the difference between that and "has been published"?


Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 17^th, 2019 at 7:20pm:

I also note that the link you provided is from wikipedia (highly reputable) and the following link to AGU has nothing at all in common with your original referred journal "American Geophysical Union"

Perhaps you should Google AGU or American Geophysical Union publications. But perhaps you can't find it, you do seem to have troubles.

You don't even understand the journal was named "Journal of Geophysical Research" not  "American Geophysical Union", that is the publisher.



Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 17^th, 2019 at 7:20pm:

Seems to me that you're not doing very comprehensive searches and if it were not for me asking questions, none of this would have been unearthed.

Seems to me you don't have a clue. Are you sure you are not a Jovial Monk  sock. perhaps a bit more Port.

lee wrote on Sep 17^th, 2019 at 8:23pm:

Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 17th, 2019 at 7:20pm: As the poster it is incumbent upon YOU to provide sources and not those who are reading it. poor petal. here's a hanky. Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 17th, 2019 at 7:20pm: I note that you did not provide any links to the "published" study, nor any biographies of the  "scientists" / their full names / other credited works / their credentials. I see you have diminished capacity for cognitive reading. Do you understand the phrase "has been accepted for publication"?  Do you understand the difference between that and "has been published"? Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 17th, 2019 at 7:20pm: I also note that the link you provided is from wikipedia (highly reputable) and the following link to AGU has nothing at all in common with your original referred journal "American Geophysical Union" Perhaps you should Google AGU or American Geophysical Union publications. But perhaps you can't find it, you do seem to have troubles. You don't even understand the journal was named "Journal of Geophysical Research" not  "American Geophysical Union", that is the publisher. Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 17th, 2019 at 7:20pm: Seems to me that you're not doing very comprehensive searches and if it were not for me asking questions, none of this would have been unearthed. Seems to me you don't have a clue. Are you sure you are not a Jovial Monk  sock. perhaps a bit more Port.

LOL Seems to me that you:
Have no idea who the "Scientists are"
Cannot provide their full names
Cannot provide their credentials
Cannot provide previous published peer reviewed studies
Cannot provide the study your blog mentions

You had to refer to wikipedia to find your so called source

You can't link their "peer reviewed journal"

Poor little petal, come back to us when you have some real proof yeah? Till then, perhaps have a nice cup of tea and take a break - all this thinking must be hard for your tiny little mind.

Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 18^th, 2019 at 7:52am:

You had to refer to wikipedia to find your so called source

And then corroborated with the AGU.  You have heard of checking sources? That was done. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 18^th, 2019 at 7:52am:

You can't link their "peer reviewed journal"

I did. You just can't find it. ;)

here is a link to Google Scholar -

https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?user=nXBPO9YAAAAJ&hl=en

Enjoy

Google is your friend, ;)

Bobby. wrote on Sep 17^th, 2019 at 6:10pm:

Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 17th, 2019 at 3:04pm: Definitely not Monk. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's most likely a duck. How did you come up with this new name?

I have changed my mind. Seems to have less brain cells than Momk.

lee wrote on Sep 18^th, 2019 at 12:43pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 17th, 2019 at 6:10pm: Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 17th, 2019 at 3:04pm: Definitely not Monk. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's most likely a duck. How did you come up with this new name? I have changed my mind. Seems to have less brain cells than Momk.

He thinks can turn up and whip me
when all I do is balance the ledger
with both sides of the argument.

lee wrote on Sep 18^th, 2019 at 12:16pm:

Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 18th, 2019 at 7:52am: You had to refer to wikipedia to find your so called source And then corroborated with the AGU.  You have heard of checking sources? That was done. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 18th, 2019 at 7:52am: You can't link their "peer reviewed journal" I did. You just can't find it. ;) here is a link to Google Scholar - Enjoy Google is your friend, ;)

Amazing! See now, was it really that hard to do the work that you should have done in the first place when providing opinion without data sources?

none the less it's garbage science that has been debunked time and time and time and time and time again.

Can't wait for no mini ice age to happen.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 18^th, 2019 at 12:54pm:

lee wrote on Sep 18th, 2019 at 12:43pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 17th, 2019 at 6:10pm: Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 17th, 2019 at 3:04pm: Definitely not Monk. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's most likely a duck. How did you come up with this new name? I have changed my mind. Seems to have less brain cells than Momk. He thinks can turn up and whip me when all I do is balance the ledger with both sides of the argument.

What balance?
You actively silence other users when they don't agree with your views?
You actively quote bloggers/youtubers over scientists

You're about as balanced as a 300kg man standing on a pogo-stick.

Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 18^th, 2019 at 2:13pm:

See now, was it really that hard to do the work that you should have done in the first place when providing opinion without data sources?

Sorry. I could not find an eye dropper small enough to feed you. ;)
Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 18^th, 2019 at 2:13pm:

none the less it's garbage science that has been debunked time and time and time and time and time again.

And of course YOU have peer-reviewed references? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 18^th, 2019 at 2:15pm:

You actively silence other users when they don't agree with your views?

You have actively been silenced? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Debunking David Dubyne wrote on Sep 18^th, 2019 at 2:15pm:

You actively quote bloggers/youtubers over scientists

Whereas you actively quote... no-one. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D