Kansas Crimson

Another very interesting (not so frightening) perspective:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/29/ ... g-by-2020/


http://notrickszone.com/2014/06/29/germ ... g-by-2020/

At the 6:00 mark Lüning shows a chart from Bob Carter, also showing nothing unusual is happening, Co2 playing only a minor role.


Climate driven by solar activity

Starting at the 9:45 mark, his charts show that solar activity correlates well with temperature, which Lüning calls “a surprisingly good match”. He then presents the various solar cycles that the sun undergoes, going into the works of Gerard Bond, who made temperature reconstructions using layers of ice-rafted material in the North Atlantic. Lüning calls the synchronicity between solar activity and temperature found by Bond “stunning”. See chart 13:20 mark below)

Lü_4
Ocean cycles responsible for the 1980-2000 warming

At the 30:00 mark Lüning says the natural oceanic cycles have been responsible for the recent decadal temperature fluctuations, and at least for half of the most recent 1980 – 2000 warming. The remaining half has to be responsibly assigned to the other factors. At the 31:20 mark, he believes that cooling is ahead for the 20 years:

science has nothing to do with belief

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:37 pm science has nothing to do with belief

What tha?

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:37 pm science has nothing to do with belief

Tell that to Evangelicals

seahawk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:44 am A couple of years ago, I read an article which said that the greatest costs in the future would not be for national defense but for dealing with the disasters from climate change. Driving around and looking at the debris, damaged houses and businesses, and the large pine trees snapped in two in Panama City yesterday, I fear the author may be correct.

After Katrina it was predicted that there would be an increase in hurricanes and an increase in their intensity. Then from 2005 to 2017 not one major hurricane hit the United States. Please explain. Also please explain how SUVs caused the hurricane that destroyed Galveston in 1901.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... nsen-obama

On January 17, 2009, James Hansen of NASA said that Obama “has four years to save Earth.” In 2005 Al Gore said we only have 10 years. In 1989, the U.N. IPCC said we only have 10 years. Gore said that the Arctic Circle would be free of ice by 2013. We were told that we’d seen the end of snow about 10 years ago.

The left has no end of excuses for wanting to control every aspect of people’s lives. Remember The Population Bomb? I do. Remember global cooling? I do. Remember Peak Oil? I do. After so many failed predictions, how can so many people fail to question their own assumptions? I don’t get it.

When the climate computer models can take unmassaged data from pre-2000 decades to correctly predict what happened from 2000-2018, let me know. Until then color me skeptical about man made, catastrophic, global warming.

kubandalum wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 5:01 am https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... nsen-obama
I don’t get it.

^^^

Very insightful!

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:37 pm science has nothing to do with belief

Turns out, our climate is more impacted by solar activity than by CO2 emissions. But okay, if people want to believe junk science...

Galveston 1901?

Galveston is a barrier island--as in a big sandbar. I think even in biblical times there was some perspective about the wisdom of building on sandbars.

seahawk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 9:24 am There has been no greater intensity of hurricanes or length of the season?

Nope.

https://twitter.com/NoTricksZone/status ... 4888480768

Re: frequency and intensity:

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uplo ... h-2018.jpg

I brought up Galveston because EVERY TIME there’s a hurricane these days, it gets blamed on catastrophic manmade global warming.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 9:24 am

A lot of those scientists in that 97% figure are “social scientists.” Of those who are not, they know that lefty bureaucrats control their research funding, and they know the political climate on their campuses. They certainly don’t want backlash for stepping out of line.

I see you made no mention of the predictions.

kubandalum wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 2:20 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 9:24 am

A lot of those scientists in that 97% figure are “social scientists.” Of those who are not, they know that lefty bureaucrats control their research funding, and they know the political climate on their campuses. They certainly don’t want backlash for stepping out of line.

I see you made no mention of the predictions.

You clearly have no idea how scientific research works. Please stop posting about it.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 4:22 pm

kubandalum wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 2:20 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Dec 22, 2018 9:24 am

A lot of those scientists in that 97% figure are “social scientists.” Of those who are not, they know that lefty bureaucrats control their research funding, and they know the political climate on their campuses. They certainly don’t want backlash for stepping out of line.

I see you made no mention of the predictions.

You clearly have no idea how scientific research works. Please stop posting about it.

Ssshhhhhhhh. I am trying to watch someone try to sound smart.

"SOCIAL SCIENTIST".

Sounds like the newest Fox News catch phrase.

Harvey doesn't seem to rank up there on the chart, but the highest rainfall level in Cat 3-4 Harvey was 60 inches and that in Cat 5 Andrew was 15 inches.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/s ... hange.html#

this is what the deniers conveniently forget...science rarely deals in silver bullets. there is a wealth of evidence from varied sources that indicate increasingly dramatic weather patterns. just because hurricanes aren’t necessarily the most indicative, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

if I may ask: is there any advantage to doubting climate change?

maybe if you're making a killing in oil and gas, and just wanna keep the gravy train going?

if that's not the case, then what? just spiting the libtards?

no, there isn’t

most of the major overhauls just make sense anyway...but, profits and all that

the thought that we still can’t have a successful economy is just foolish. growing pains will happen, but that’s all they’ll be...growing pains