The media screwed up again.

First, the facts: global temperatures are rising, and research shows that while the Sun may soon slow that rise, climate change remains a reality — and a threat. But you wouldn’t learn that by reading recent news coverage.

Of course, climate deniers have jumped on this story:

Yes, during the Maunder Minimum, Earth got colder. England’s River Thames froze over. Arctic sea ice crawled south. But this mini ice age had many causes: given where other climate variables stood, a drop in solar activity chilled parts of the world.

Those other variables (volcanic eruptions, carbon emissions, etc.) matter. If they change, then falling solar activity — even a decrease on par with the Maunder Minimum — won’t necessarily result in another mini ice age.

Nope. It won’t happen. A big solar minimum would pull temps down by around 0.13°C from where they’d otherwise be, the Nature Communications study explains. That’s tiny compared to the expected 2°C to 6°C global temperature rise — a rise caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.

The study states that “this offsets or delays the global warming trend by ~2 years.” A mere two years. No ice age: global warming will briefly, barely stumble — then charge ahead again.

https://medium.com/@aurevig/media-failure-bad-journalism-behind-the-mini-ice-age...

And then you have David DuByne making local weather observations and trying to tie them into a change in global climate.

Complete unscientific nonsense

Thats assuming that the little ice age was global, which it wasn't

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period.[1] Although it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[3][4][5] but some experts prefer an alternative timespan from about 1300[6] to about 1850.[7][8][9] Climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of the period, which varied according to local conditions.

The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all separated by intervals of slight warming.[5] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the Little Ice Age suggested largely-independent regional climate changes rather than a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. At most, there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.[10]

Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population.

the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.... [Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late twentieth century levels

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

You are such a tiresome Persistent Debate Troll lee

Quote:


So in other words the cool spells in the south didn't correlate with the cool spells in the north, which is what you would expect if it was driven by decreases in solar radiation.

What about galactic cosmic rays?

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2018 at 9:41pm:



Yep - Barny thinks he can undo 332 pages of evidence
with a quote from one website.
He's got to be joking.

All this nonsense disproved here.

I can’t post this stuff here because Booby will censor it to fit in with his mystic belief that we are in an ice age.

STOP POSTING FACTS LEE...  YOU ARE UPSETTING BARNACLE.

I like this...  from Barnacle...
Quote:


Wow, what an admission....  so it's the SUN not CO2 that controls temperature here.  Who'd a thunk it eh?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 24^th, 2018 at 6:24pm:



Once again JM is forced to present the graph of ESTIMATES of Global Temperature, but without the uncertainties that are inherent in estimates.

OOPS. I was wrong.

"The blue uncertainty bars (95% confidence limit) account only for incomplete spatial sampling."

No other uncertainties will be entertained by the authors.

All the sceptics will be thoroughly entertained.

Looks like the uncertainties vary from about +/-1.5C in 1890 on very sparse data and down to +/-0.5c in about 2010. And even then with large data holes.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 6:42am:



Monk,
you ignored almost all of the evidence in 332 pages of the Ice Age thread.
You admit to not watching any of the videos -
the many 100s of videos -
and many of them not by David DuByne but full documentaries
with opinions & facts from environment scientists.
You're biased and you can't admit as I do that there
is strong evidence for both sides of this complex debate.

You don't admit that there were warmer times on this planet
when the CO2 levels were lower than now.
Your ideas follow in step with Al Gore who has had every
one of his predictions proven false.

You continue to debate on the other forum where I won't post
as Aussie is trying to steal this environment forum away from me.

You're so obsessed by global warming that you've moved to Tasmania to get away from the heat.
Your punishment will be 7 month long winters down there
& I hope you send us all the record snow & ice reports &
post them here - in full.

Good luck.

Bobby

When you have had a look at that chart of ice extent, with 2018 generally lower in ice extent than 2016 and 2017 come and talk sensibly.

Bombogenesis is the term for a storm where the barometric pressure drops 20 or more points very quickly. It happened before the three northeasters hit the US north east coast earlier this year.

The three northeasters travelled pretty much the same track because of a stuck pattern in the Jet Stream. The Jet Stream, especially in the northern hemisphere but also in the southern, has been affected by Arctic Amplification of AGW—the Arctic is warming 2-3 times faster than lower latitudes.

The storms were fed by an Atlantic 9°C warmer than normal in the part where the Gulf Stream travels.

Temperatures are increasing, polar ice is decreasing. The overturning ocean circulation is slowing down due to melting ice at both poles. That is what is happening.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 7:30am:




And you ignore the extreme record cold conditions from all over the planet.
I hope the cold will not be too much for you in Tasmania -
especially at your age -
you're walking right into where it will hit the hardest.
I wonder how high the snow you will get around & on top of your house?
Please post many pictures.
I can't wait.

Just posted that graph to Twitter to expose the ice ace fraudsters and liars!

Try & watch a report from a real scientist Monk:






Grand Solar Minimum Primer: Svensmark-The Cloud Mystery (Klimamysteriet) #6/10



Published on Jul 14, 2017

In part #6/10 of the Grand Solar Minimum Primer we focus on Galactic Cosmic Rays and their influence on global climate.
Recent studies and discoveries at CERN have proven that galactic cosmic rays cause cloud nucleation. Therefore galactic cosmic ray intensity can be correlated to global climate change. This is due to the albedo effect and increasing cloud nucleation resulting in global cooling. I have provided many provocative links to help you get started on your journey to understand the truth about climate change and eliminate the dogma.

The Cloud Mystery is a documentary by Danish director Lars Oxfeldt Mortensen. It explores a controversial (until now) theory by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark on how galactic cosmic rays and solar activity may affect cloud cover, and how this might influence global warming.

Henrik Svensmark is a fraud. He does not follow the scientific method but tortures data—just excludes data that does not fit his theory—until he finds a weak correlation and says “Theory proved!”

GCRs do cause some nucleation in the atmosphere but those nuclei are too small to have water vapor condense on them. Do some Googling—I am right. In a fantasy video earlier this year a commenter explained at length that GCRs do NOT cause clouds.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 9:07am:



Henrik Svensmark is a scientist  - not an internet troll like Jovial Monk

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 6:42am:



NSIDC says different.

Currently showing the data for April 23 2018 13.552 Million sq kms

April 23 2017 was 13.554 Million sq kms

April 23 2016 was 13.550 Million sq kms.

So between 2017 and 2018 showing a drop of 0.015%. Oh so scary. But larger than 2016.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 11:33am:



"Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei"

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2

peer-reviewed science.

Cooler conditions globally since El Nino year 216 yet decrease in Arctic ice destroys my argument? Really?

Does blow the ice age nonsense out the water tho.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 12:52pm:


You are the one stating  that it should be better by now.

But of course your version of the Arctic includes Southern Greenland.

Lukewarm support at best for GCRs causing condensation. None at all for GCRs causing any change to the climate. Nuclei are just too bloody small!

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 1:15pm:



Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 12:55pm:


Oh, It was only YOU who thought it was lukewarm.

No, not at all. I have known about cloud chambers for longer than you have been alive.

I post in Relationships now purely because you cannot be trusted with my posts.

The world is warming and ice sheets and glaciers are retreating and those facts have not been rebutted in the slightest. At least Lees tries, a bit desperately and pathetically, to defend his denialist stance, you are too pissweak to do the same with your ice age crap and Dubyne videos.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 1:15pm:



Monk,
apologise for posting the above lie.
I've proven that cloud chambers were discovered in 1911.

JM just loves to start the ice loss at 1979, an anomalous high. 

tell us about Kilimanjaro. - Oh that's right that's because of the natives taking all the timber.

Look at those poor glaciers retreating - revealing tree stumps, old Roman mines, roads.

Do you think Hannibal crossed the Alps at a time of high glacial activity or low?

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 6:24pm:


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 6:33pm:




Monk - apologise or cease posting on this forum.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 9:03am:

missed the point again as usual no wonder you have never understood the arguments.

Booby, just shut up.

You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 11:03am:


Does condensation happen adiabatically in the atmosphere?

Still relying on the models slowing the Gulf Stream I see.

Grendel wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 2:13pm:


Wrong Grendel. Over the past 100 years pretty much all glaciers have retreated. This is irrefutable evidence that the earth is warming.

Also can you please answer my question about which planet is the hottest in the solar system.
Google is your friend

lee wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 3:39pm:


No lee, stop deliberately obfuscating. The VAST MAJORITY have receeded over the past hundred years. More than 50% = warming.

lee wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 3:39pm:


So you concede that it is warming 

Bobby. wrote on Apr 25^th, 2018 at 6:48pm:




Monk - you didn't apologise for the blatant lie above.

That is not acceptable on this forum.

Cloud chambers have similar conditions to the upper atmosphere
& small nuclei can cause clouds.
That information has been known about for over 100 years
yet you deny it - proven science that can be proven again
with any simple experiment.

I'll let you off on this occasion but expect to be called out on
every lie you post from now on.

Galactic Cosmic Rays do NOT cause condensation in the atmosphere. The nuclei they create are too small.

The increase in clouds is due to more evaporation from warmer waters into warmer air. Dubyne is just covering up for the extra clouds due to AGW. If you knew any science you would know that but then again if you knew any science you would not be sucking down the bullshit Dubyne puts in his lying videos.

You are also a crap Mod who has destroyed this board. Please resign so Environment can be salvaged.

No they don’t and there are any number of studies that say they don}t.

You show your scientific ignorance more every day.

I posted graphs:

1. Temperatures increasing

2. Arctic ice decreasing, so is Antarctic ice and so is Himalayan ice

The globe is warming and you make yourself look stupid by persisting with this ice age crap. That crap really belongs in Fringe! Mystic nonsense is what it is.

Oh, but NOAA fiddles the data you cry desperately. Fairy tales for children. We have seen Trump and Pruitt remove AGW data from government websites so THEY are fiddling the data.

The temperatures are increasing, the ice is melting and the sea levels are rising. Sensible people draw the obvious conclusions, children like you seek assurance it isn’t happening. Bah!

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 6:33pm:

I posted the FACTS on Glaciers...  YOu and Barny as usual ignore them...

No, roach it is really VERY simple.

1. Almost ALL glaciers are retreating. They are retreating because the world is warming.

2. A very few glaciers, in high latitudes or high altitudes and favorably oriented with respect to prevailing winds benefit from the increased precipitation, as snow, caused by increased evaporation caused by AGW.

Some of the glaciers retreating are massive: Jacobshavn and Petermann on Greenland, Pine Island and Thwaites on West Antarctica and Totten on East Antarctica. Also some in the Himalayan ice sheet. Sea level rise will continue accelerating.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 6:44pm:



Monk - can you try to be unbiased like me and
admit that there are strong arguments on both sides of this debate?

JM has implict faith in the Model fairy.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 6:33pm:



So when are you going to tell us about 1997 62.45ºF being somehow cooler than 2016 58.69ºF.

That is what NOAA data shows.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 6:47pm:



You mean like CNN, The Atlantic, The  Garudian?

lee wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 6:48pm:


Yes and we had whole posts about fake NOAA & NASA data
all fudged to make it look like it was warming when it was cooling - of course Monk ignored every article.


We had articles where scientists explained that they were there
to prove global warming not normal climate variation or global cooling.
They would lose their funding if they found that so what did they do?

answer

they fudged the figures.
Scientific fraud is all around us.

Monk gets sucked in by it - as though he was a little child.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 6:59pm:


Wow. One on one day; a new world record. even if it is wrong.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 6:59pm:


Well at 70 years of age it had better happen faster than your predictions.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 6:59pm:



Guess what? Even if we adapt we still die. We are not immortal.

Jeez your drivel is not of this world.

Have you looked at ushcn raw data versus adjusted data? Or isn't that part of your world?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 7:09pm:



But JM is going into his second childhood so he can claim 21st century status.

No lees, I can see what happens around me and adjust and adapt. You are the 19th century fossil. Poor fossil.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 7:17pm:


But you are also over 70 and the climate doesn't seem to be changing that fast. Even if you do go and hibernate in Tasmania.

So why won't you tell us about the discrepancy in the NOAA data? Each time you are asked you either skulk off or get your tits in a tangle and get the rags on. Not a good look.

Surely a man of your scientific integrity can answer the question.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 7:57pm:


And you still won't answer the question. Now is that cowardly or what?

So your fairy tale, that does not include any dis-conformities in the data, how do you convince yourself that it is all the fault of "deniers"? That it is all a chimera?

Or perhaps you have no scientific integrity.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2018 at 8:36pm:


Still dodging the question. You are a fraud.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2018 at 6:26am:



What about the contrary evidence?

332 pages of such evidence posted on this forum.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2018 at 7:13am:



No way - in a warming climate we wouldn't be having record cold
events all over the world.

This figure is from the BoM “State of the Climate 2016” report:



Have a look and a think, if you can think.

NOAA produced a similar chart for world temperatures.

Cold events are still possible—no one has ever said they aren’t—but hot events are more possible and occur more often. But the distribution of temperatures has shifted to the warm side and that is why ice is melting and sea levels rising and more evaporation-precipitation is taking place.

If we really were in an ice age then the temperature distribution would have moved to the cold side.

A statistical test for the difference between means, Student’s t-test for example, would find the difference between the means is significant, that is, temperatures really have shifted to the warm side.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2018 at 7:36am:




Yes we do  - what about the bombogenesis?

That's just one of 1000s of record cold events that haven't just affected
one tiny town but entire continents.
You don't even listen to the evidence.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 27^th, 2018 at 8:28am:



Oh look A bell curve. Bell curves are used when something is normally distributed. Weather stations do not fit the criteria.

Oh dear, Lees thinks that it is weather stations that are normally distributed. Nope, the curves are the curves of temperatures and the temperatures are, at first glance, normally distributed.