/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14999961
Damn the globe sure is warm!
t. Eurocuck freezing to death because of Zelensky

>>14999964
I too oppose current thing

>>14999961
Is than one of those AI merchants? I can't even tell anymore.

>>14999961
i miss it

>>14999964
When you kiss Putin's ass, do you aim at the cheeks or go for the hole?

>>14999961
>Tucker Carlson was right
He usually is.

>>15000298
>When you kiss Putin's ass, do you aim at the cheeks or go for the hole?
Not that anon, but Puting and Zelinsky are actual lovers in the past. They are both playing the USA for billions, minus the 10%, and getting rich. TOP KEK!

>>15000298
Who? I just like being warm and toasty in my house.

>>14999961

umm they changed it to 'climate change' to cover everything.

>>15000330
It's called "global climate chaos" now.

>>15000340
Soon it will be "trans-alt-binary-climate" and you better learn the proper pronouns it prefers or else the world will end.

If you equate cold with snow you've never lived in a truly cold place.

>>15000535
t. has no idea what a lake effect storm is, or how cold it gets

>>15000538
>New Yorker thinks he knows what cold is
lol
lmao even
If you've got snow falling out of the sky, it's not that cold. I get the logic, that snow is cold, therefore lots of snow must mean lots of cold. That's what a simpleton thinks. In reality, lots of snow means lots of evaporation, and that happens because of warmer temperatures. 6 feet of snow falling in Atlanta is a sign that things are colder than normal. But for a place that regularly freezes over, 6 feet of snow means a mild winter. When it's so cold that the great lakes freeze over, lake effect snow can't even happen. That process is driven by warmth.

>>15000578
>lmao

>>14999961
Sir, this is a science board. Don't you need a three-digit IQ to post her?

>>14999961
>why are there days when things are cold if the average temperature is increasing?

>>15000330
Both are valid terms, frequently used in scientific literature (2021 example attached). Why are you lying?

>>15000324
>vote blue 2022
did they rig the yank election again?

>>15000330
But the climate is always changing?

>>15001047
>changing

>>15001038
>science is papers
one day your cult will remembered in history as the human language monument

>>15001044
Yeah they did.

>>15000330
"climate change" was popularized by right wing propagandist Frank Luntz because global warming sounded bad.
"Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe global warming as climate change since "climate change" was thought to sound less severe."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming

>>15001732
>wuz bombardill

>sandwhitch gun

>>14999961
I didn't know you were on 4chan, senator Inhofe.

>>15001843
straw man

>>15001829
Are we still pretending those people are right wing?

Yes, global warming fucks up the climate and in many cases makes it really cold when it shouldn't be. This is just the beginning. Don't worry, you can't do anything about it anyway, unless maybe you're a billionaire or some shit.

>>15002660
Yes, that's the joke. Let me give another example of a strawman, it's here-----> >>14999961

>>15002691
Fuck it, I'll burn another tire to warm things up.

>>15002702
Coldest string of winters and summers ever = global warming. Got it.

>>15002713
>local climate = average global climate

>>15002719
>climate

>>15001047
The climate doesn't just change without some impetus

The seuss effect proves that climate change is anthropocentric in nature unless you want to suddenly argue that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas.

>hurr it snowed here so global warming is fake

>>15003771
>ignores solar effects and magnetic field weaking because it isnt the impetus you want

>>15004019
>the Sun
How many times are you going to repeat the same bullshit?

>>14999961
weather =/= climate

>>15004036
Solar irradiance is less than 20% of the energy given off by the sun you mongoloid. When irradiance drops we know that solar particle forcing and electromagnetic forcing rise precipitously.

>>15004065
So why do they always falsely claim weather == climate when it benefits the Green Party?

>>15004004
At times they insist loudly that climate is not weather and that it is instead an average over decades.
And then they make diagrams like this, analysing one single day. Nice.

>>15004256
Anomaly are against an average i.e. climate here

>>15004036
As >>15004121 says, you are a retard.

You are ignoring the main source and that the magnetic field of earth has dropped by atleast 15% in that time period.

>>15003701
>noooo you can't just believe the climate exists!!!
is that where we're at?

>>15004256
How retarded do you have to be not to understand a simple concept like a daily anomaly? On a yearly average it’s now 1.20C above the baseline, pic related and the map are the anomalies on this date from all the years in the 1979-2000 baseline.

>>15004531
And you believe stupid stuff like this uncritically, even when it's obvious they're presenting you with misleading and falsified data?

>>15004550
>it’s fake because I say so
Truly amazing arguments here

>>15001044
>did they rig the yank election again?
They did in quite a few of the elections this time in 2022.

The Democrats always rig elections in blue cities, but this time even some of the GOP got involved and helped the Democrats defeat the populist candidates.

The US government is corrupt AF now with all the entrenched live-long politicians who don't want to let go of their country-club rich easy lifestyles and scams.

>>15004121
>Solar irradiance is less than 20% of the energy given off by the sun you mongoloid.
Source?

>When irradiance drops we know that solar particle forcing and electromagnetic forcing rise precipitously.
Source? Solar activity is used as a proxy for both, so that sounds like bullshit

>>15004551
>it's real because the government drew a drawing
Fascinating.

>>15004877
>Source? Solar activity is used as a proxy for both, so that sounds like bullshit
TSI is the only measured quantity put into global warming calcs, but if you check the NASA satellite metrics during times of low TSI, charged particle density skyrockets. It's observable in real time during solar flares. If you don't know that then you're LARPing.

>>15004913
>>it's real because the government drew a drawing
>Fascinating.
kek
Climate Change Cult be like "But muh TV media and gubment sez soo! Thetz sciencey!"

>>15004297
Main source of what? The magnetic field dropping means more cloud seeding and cooling. The energy from cosmic rays is negligible.

>>15004927
>The energy from cosmic rays is negligible.
Yes it's so negligible that it makes the entire upper atmosphere fluoresce and causes massive weather pattern changes and heating on every planet in the solar system. Congrats you were filtered by basic environmental science.

>>15004916
>charged particle density
You said forcing. The forcing is basically nonexistent. The only effect that might be significant is cloud seeding, but that causes cooling when particle density goes up, not warming. Plus, none of these factors have a long term trend that can explain the warming trend. And this is all moot since CO2 is directly observed to be the cause: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091585

>>15002713
>Coldest string of winters and summers ever = global warming. Got it.
What do you expect from obvious liars licking and living in government ass and don't care about anything that touches morality and decency?

>>15004946
>The forcing is basically nonexistent.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/jupiters-aurora-triggered-a-planet-wide-heat-wave-a-map-animation-reveals-solving-a-mystery-thats-puzzled-scientists/ar-AA13ZUc0

>>15004963
Don't bother anon, these guys can't accept it no matter how many studies you provide regarding their terrible models.

Just sit back and enjoy the fireworks come the reversal. They won't accept reality right up to the end

>>15004971
It's not bleak. Once a while back I did end up convincing someone on /sci/ of something. He didn't believe that the Carrington Event happened, and thought it was just made up. I showed him newspapers from the library of congress with articles about the electrical damage the CME caused and he actually agreed it was real.

>>15004974
There's hope for some. Another study about climate models massively underestimating flux events here if you are interested.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.14589

>>15004933
>Yes it's so negligible that it makes the entire upper atmosphere fluoresce
This is pretty funny. If you're impressed by that then you should be even more impressed by this thing called the Sun. It's many orders of magnitude stronger than an aurora borealis, and you see it every day. So if direct sunlight isn't causing the warming, how can you say weak cosmic rays are??? Maybe you need to be a little more nuanced than "hurr pretty lights mean warming."

>causes massive weather pattern changes and heating on every planet in the solar system
You mean on planets that don't have a strong magnetic field protecting them, unlike Earth? LOL. And again, solar radiation has a much bigger effect.

>>15004994
>You mean on planets that don't have a strong magnetic field protecting them, unlike Earth? LOL. And again, solar radiation has a much bigger effect.
No like Jupiter retard.
>>15004963

>>15004963
>Jupiter
You forgot what planet we're on?

>>15004994
Where do you think the vast majority of cosmic rays come from you absolute retard. A giant fucking magnetic portal directly from the sun to the earth.

Please read.

>>15004999
following your line of logic i shouldn't accept any evidence that wasn't produced in my room in the moment.

>>15004999
>earth is the only planet in the solar system where flux heating doesn't happen because........ IT JUST DOESN'T OKAY????!?!?!?!?!
You got filtered. Hard. Go back and study and maybe you'll earn a degree one day.

>>15004994
>>15004999
The forcing from the cosmic rays is small when compared to the directly measured increased radiative forcing from CO2 radiating in the IR

>>15005013
>>15005003
Jupiter has a completely different atmospheric composition, and it’s not that the sun doesn’t have an effect, but it’s measurably smaller than the greenhouse effect

>>15005053
Never measured outside a lab BTW. The experiment is one of the casualties of the replication crisis.

>>15005063
Direct surface measurements by the way

>>15005058
I'm glad you finally agree that auroral heating exists. Thank you for admitting you were wrong.

>>15005064
Based on unreliable lab estimates of CO2's forcing, retroactively applied to temperature data.

>>15005063

>>15005074
That’s not even remotely true. You’re just denying basic spectral measurements

>>15005068
Sure and no one says it’s doesn’t exist however it’s demonstrably small compared to greenhouse forcing

>>15005085
>basic spectral measurements
>spectral
Spectral = ghostly = non-existent.
kek

>>15005092
Wow what an intellectual giant

>>15005094
Recognizing genius is your first step to enlightenment. You are on the path now, finally.

>>15005091
You claimed it didn't exist at all, then that it only existed on Jupiter, then later you had to admit actually it did exist on Earth but it wasn't major. When you find out proof that it actually has the same effect, you'll move to some other inner bailey in your argument.

>>15005115
You’re confusing people though. The increased greenhouse effect is directly measured by continuous surface readings of the bar radiation of the atmosphere, confirmed by the spectral signature of said radiation. Likewise the forcing by either solar irradiance or particle fluxes has also been measured.

>>15005119
>Likewise the forcing by either solar irradiance or particle fluxes has also been measured.
And that's why NASA scientists were shocked and amazed to find out that the phenomenon exists. Because it's very well studied!

>>15005133
Surely you’d be able to find some data that correlates CMEs like that of the Carrington event with temperature anomalies there’s several that have happened and it would be plainly visible for you to point out in temperature data

>>15005137
>‘The heat of this month [July] is stated by the Greenwich authorities to have been unequalled during the period over which trustworthy records extend (about 100 years). In Scotland it was not so great, but in the south of England, Ireland, and even as far as Spain, this excessive heat prevailed. A large number of cattle died from coup de soleil, or sunstroke, and our readers will doubtless remember that the newspapers mentioned several cases in which human life was sacrificed to the same cause. From the 16th to the 22nd, the country was visited by very violent hail-storms. The destruction was great in all parts, though fortunately not often to what it was at Wakefield, where “in the houses, conservatories, and stables of four gentlemen, the large number of 150,000 squares of glass were broken by the hail on the 18th.”’

Recorded during the solar storms that culminated in the Carrington Event. The summer of 1859 set heat records in some parts of America as well which have not been broken even to this day.

>>15005145
Damn If only the data would show some huge spikes on those dates. I also took the liberty of pointing out other notable CME's that disrupted electrical grids and surprise also no spikes.

>>15005206
>>15005145
You can even zoom in and see that there's no anomalous large heating during the CME in the UK let alone global temperature

>>15005206
Temps before 1970 are artificially cooled by a constant input to create the hockey stick. The raw data shows the spike.

>>15004983
This paper says nothing about climate models. Why are you lying?

>>15005249
If you can't understand that paper, you're too stupid to tell if someone is lying or not and should just quit this thread.

>>15004997
Jupiter is constantly bombarded by charged particles from Io and is 5 times as far from the Sun, there is no comparison. Forcing from cosmic rays is negligible on Earth, and you know it. Purveyor you would be talking about Earth, not Jupiter.

>>15005003
>Where do you think the vast majority of cosmic rays come from
How does this respond to anything I said? Cosmic rays are nothing compared to sunlight. Where is your source showing any significant cosmic ray forcing?

>>15005010
How does that follow from anything I said? Are you going to provide any evidence of cosmic ray forcing on Earth or not?

>>15005013
>>earth is the only planet in the solar system where flux heating doesn't happen because
of strong magnetic protection from the Sun. Jupiter is bombarded primarily by particles from Io, not the Sun. This was already explained to you a while ago but you still repeat the same lies. Why?

>>15005228
You know these records, even the raw data are easily found right? Where's the giant spike?

>>15005063
Why are you lying?

>>15005115
>You claimed it didn't exist at all
Thats someone else. And no I didn't claim it doesn't exist at all, I said it's negligible on Earth. No one was talking about global warming on Jupiter. Are you pretending to be retarded?

>>15005228
Surely such a large event would cause an appreciable warming in the NH data

>>15005228
>Temps before 1970 are artificially cooled
Why are you lying?

>>15005252
>If you can't understand that paper
I understand that the paper says nothing about any climate models. Quote where it mentions any, or expiration why you lied.

>>15005307
"For the selected FTEs, the linear force-free model underestimated the flux content by up to 40% owing to the continuous reconnected flux injection"

Which is incorporated into current climate models to estimate the effect....

How do they know it's negligable when models have been shown to under estimate it by such a massive margin, and there is evidence of solar activity warming up the earth by as much as 15 degrees in just a few years at the end of the pleistocene.

>>15005307
Honestly if you aren't even going to read the papers abstract where that is clearly visible or do any historical research before even 1700 you deserve what's coming.

>>15005271
Just one example of how retarded you are.
https://www.space.com/auroras-blast-hole-ozone-layer

>>15005302
I dont know walt, the suns been actin kinda sus lately...

(Ofcourse with the models climate scientists use only counting solar irradience, a full CME actually shows as decreased activity...)

>>15005815
Again, where is the cosmic ray forcing? Do you even know what the words you use mean?

>>15005809
I read the entire paper. No mention of climate models. Explain why you lied.

>>15006243
>no mention of climate models, only the models that are used in the climate models
>>15006240
You are lucky all the studies trigger 4chan spam filter so I cant send it. If you are retarded enough to count a CME as "low solar output" then its over for you already though.

Just ignore the 400km wide ozone hole though caused by solar particles and an incredible increase in sunspots and solar particle output because it doesnt fit your narrative.

>>15006259
Hopefully it allows atleast one...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0273117713007606?via%3Dihub

>>15005806
>Which is incorporated into current climate models to estimate the effect....
Source?

>>15005282
It's right there you idiot. lol.

>>15006275
If you knew anything about climate science, you would know that the model the paper critiques is one used in climate modeling.

>>15005806
>there is evidence of solar activity warming up the earth by as much as 15 degrees in just a few years at the end of the pleistocene.
Source?

>>15006280
Where?

>>15006293

Just one example, along with the dramatic increase in sunspots during the period.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305971138_Evidence_for_a_Solar_Flare_Cause_of_the_Pleistocene_Mass_Extinction

Maybe try zooming out a bit in your shitty 100 year temperature charts.

I would also recommend opening your eyes.

>>15006054
>I dont know walt, the suns been actin kinda sus lately...
Not really, your reconstruction ends around 2000 AD. Solar activity has dropped since then and is near a global minimum. When is the temperature going to stop rising if the Sun controls it?

>a full CME actually shows as decreased activity
Because it has even less effect than solar irradiance. I'm still waiting for anyone to prove any significant cosmic ray forcing. Meanwhile the forcing from CO2 is directly observed. So what are we even talking about?

>>15006259
>only the models that are used in the climate models
Source?

>You are lucky all the studies trigger 4chan spam filter so I cant send it
You could just give me the citation. I'm sure they will be more irrelevant papers you didn't read or understand.

>If you are retarded enough to count a CME as "low solar output"
Prove CMEs have significant forcing.

>Just ignore the 400km wide ozone hole though caused by solar particles and an incredible increase in sunspots and solar particle output
Just explain how it's relevant instead of demanding I accept whatever random thing you posit is the cause for warming.

>>15006270
OK, so it's clear you don't know what forcing means.

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

>>15006288
Then it should be easy for you to prove. You aren't lying again, are you?

>>15006329
It's very easy for you to look up the name of the model. Go on, do it.

>>15006308
You claimed "it's right there" and then you showed a completely different graph of a completely different time frame. LOL. You got caught lying.

>>15006407
The one who lies at all hours accuses his opponent of what he does.

>>15006382
I did, that's how I know you lied. lmao

>>15006407
I am not the person who said right here. I was showing you a clear example of the change you asked for with the 15c one in the Holocene.

The guy who said "right here" Was referring to the very obvious bump in even your dodgy no axis information chart you pulled out your asshole.

>>15006412
Where have I lied?

>>15006417
In all your posts, especially when you use motte and bailey arguments to avoid admitting you were wrong or lying.

>>15006293
In the summer of 1859 retard. The spike is abrupt and represents a huge departure from the average. Why do you keep lying?

>>15006413
Why are you lying? Everyone can see it but you still pretend like nobody caught you.

>>15006259
You know charged particles mostly interact with the very upper atmosphere right?

>>15006439
Auroral heating has been shown to radiate through all levels of the atmosphere and cause extreme temperature anomalies, as shown in experiments on other planets in the solar system.

I have full confidence that if NOAA or NASA ever grew the courage to perform the same experiments on Earth that they would find the same thing- especially since the Ontario Blackout and Carrington Event prove that the interactions actually cause electromagnetic induction at and below ground level.

>>15006439
So now its gone from no effect, to only the upper atmosphere, while ignoring even the most visible evidence of a 400km wide hole in the ozone layer?

>>15006427
Wait a second so you’re saying there’s a tiny spike there in the Greenwich local station but at the same time claim that cosmic particles cause cause global warming of an excess of 1.2C globally? You’re so full of shit. There’s no evidence in the data of any major spike as you claim yet are still lying

>>15006448
Yet again you are lying... Nobody here is claiming cosmic rays are causing that entire change. Its a mix of magnetic field change (decrease of 15% field strength), increased Solar activity over the last 200 years to where the last comparable point was over 10,000 years ago, auroral heating and other effects of cosmic rays on albido etc.

You just lie by straw manning everyone in the thread,

>>15006448
So now you've gone from saying there's no spike, to there is a spike but it's small, to there is a spike but it can't ramp up over time? I guess that means that CO2 forcing can't cause global warming either, because energy input isn't cumulative.

>>15006461
>>15006462
Literally lying when the data doesn’t support any of your claims. There’s no widespread warming caused by large solar events and I showed you the fucking data from global, regional and from a single station, pointed out other CME events where there were no heating, solar irradiance has dropped, the magnetic field changes only mean that there’s more particle flux in the upper atmosphere with a measurably small effect. You keep ignoring the simple direct measurements of the greenhouse effects because you’re a malicious liar

>>15006483
I am not arguing with someone so deluded and backtracks so hard. Every single time I try and post a DOI I get "Error: Our system thinks your post is spam. Please reformat and try again."

In any format unless I post 1 at a time. You are not worth 10 minutes of me waiting 30 seconds per post to send you articles you will lie about reading like the last one anyway.

>>15006308
Do you even read what you post? That paper says the extinction was amplified by exposure of the animals themselves to cosmic rays. You’re even so retarded that the younger dryas is a massive cold anomaly yet yo say this would have caused major warming

>>15006515
>doesn't have the IQ to put together the times, it was just a coincidence there was a 3-6SV solar flare and massive sunspot activity at the exact same time as a huge climate shift

>>15006509
I’m still waiting for the data showing that particle fluxes cause heating. I’ve posted the direct measurements of co2 forcing and the temperature graphs which you ignore and show now warming you’ve posted articles that don’t say what you claim and outright lies

>>15006520
You love the word lie yet you lie about ever having researched anything outside of spectral measurements

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045010/pdf

Just one article because it wont let me post more

>>15006558
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028328

>>15006416
>I am not the person who said right here
Then why did you respond to my question?

>I was showing you a clear example of the change you asked for
That's not what I asked for. I asked for the spike that was "right there."

>The guy who said "right here" Was referring to the very obvious bump
Where?

>>15006425
>In all your posts
No I haven't. Show just one example.

>motte and bailey arguments
Where?

>>15006427
>In the summer of 1859 retard
There no spike there, just typical variation.

>>15006429
>Why are you lying?
About what? You've had numerous chances to show that paper is talking about anything related to climate models and failed every time. You lied.

>>15006599
>>15006593
>>15006589
>>15006641

You sound like you have alzheimers at this point.

>"what? Where? I cant see that? Show me an example? Where? You're lying!(x23)"

take your meds.

>>15006558
>This figure reveals, that for January, the ionization for the HS case has a statistical significant warming of up to 7 K over Europe and Russia whereas the ionization for the SS scenario shows neither a statistical significant increase nor a decrease over the above mentioned area. The southern hemisphere, however, shows for both ionization scenarios a negligible decrease north of Antarctica in January. The right side of the panel, showing February, shows still a significant increase over Russia for the IR for the HS whereas the ionization rate for the SS scenario has no statistical significant area over this part of he northern hemisphere. The southern hemisphere still shows just a negligible decrease for the soft spectrum ionization rate.

So in a single model setup run it shows a modest temporary and regional warming, how is that inconsistent with the argument that these events have small effects on surface temperatures in comparison to CO2? Didn't you say that you don't trust climate models? why do you trust this one?

>>15006573
Another one where you either didn't read or purposely misrepresent. This is another model where they found very modest temperature increases (at 95km altitude), again nothing inconsistent with the rest of the data that says these events mostly interact with the upper atmosphere.

>>15006444
>Auroral heating has been shown to radiate through all levels of the atmosphere and cause extreme temperature anomalies, as shown in experiments on other planets in the solar system.
Should be even easier to show it has an effect on Earth's climate then. Too bad other planets have completely docent different levels of cosmic rays and magnetic shielding or you might have a point.

>>15006647
So now you admit it shows "temporary and regional warming" from a CME?

Your backtracking is hilarious, take your meds.

>>15006445
>So now its gone from no effect
No one said no effect. They said no forcing.

>>15006653
In one paper the model shows it, out of 4 configurations, not the direct temperature data that I have posted. Even at the most charitable case, using a single station, the one from the description of the Carrington Event that I found for you, there's not even quarter of a degree difference between the summer of 58 and 59.
You should more than able to find a massive consistent warming after solar flares.
You also ignored why you're trusting a single iteration of a climate model when you have previously stated that they're all false.

>>15006653
You didn't even read the papers that you post
lol
lmao

>>15006647
>>15006666
I can't deal with the backtracking, we will end up back at your motte and bailey spectral graph.

You literally just wrote:

>>"I’m still waiting for the data showing that particle fluxes cause heating."

And have pretended you didnt write that. I am not writing to a schizo who cant remember what he wrote not even an hour and a half ago.

>>15006412
this post is not as intelligent as you think it is

>>15006685
You’re posting a single model run of a climate model which you had previously said were garbage. Decide wether they work on not because those same models also show the vastly greater effect that greenhouse forcing causes, in addition to empirical measurements. So no there’s no empirical data that particle fluxes cause surface heating beyond a tiny amount.
I’m still waiting for that data by the way, you should be able to give me an instrumental dataset that correlates particle flux with heating. All of those parameters have been carefully measured over several decades. I already did it with UK temperature and CMEs and proved you wrong

>>15004531
>a simple concept like a daily anomaly?
And yet when it happens to be colder than the average, it is written off as a freak incident not worthy of diagrams.
People like you are the reason why the climate debate is so dysfunctional.

>>15006648
>Should be even easier to show it has an effect on Earth's climate then. Too bad other planets have completely docent different levels of cosmic rays and magnetic shielding or you might have a point.
It should be. One wonders then why such experiments are not funded by NOAA or NASA. I suppose the science is settled.

>>15006722
It’s not a freak incident, it’s a local event, even in the northern hemisphere it’s overall warmer.

>>15006722
No, it's people like you who make the climate debate dysfunctional because you try to use anecdotes as data. Any individual event can be written off as statistical variation and that is why we use averages to track these things instead of highlighting any particular event. Citing a heat wave as evidence for climate change is just as stupid as citing a snowstorm as evidence against it and if that's the kind of discourse you like to participate in you need to go back to twitter.

>>15006844
>No, it's people like you who make the climate debate dysfunctional because you try to use anecdotes as data.
He doesn't even see the irony when he says this.

>>15006855
No, I don't,. Explain what is ironic.

NASA/NOAA US Data Tampering—"If the present refuses to get warmer, then the past must become cooler"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWBZhd5Yc2g

>>15006844
>this debate is dysfunctional
>therefore i insist on participating in it
ID10t error

>>15007020
Who are you quoting?

>>15006984
Global Scamming is all about misinterpreting anecdotes as scary predictions of the future while ignoring actual historical cycles.

>>15006999
Checked and true. Warmists will never engage with this. Every time I tell them to cite the real temperatures they try to fob off the altered middle set as the actual taken temperatures.

>>15006685
>I can't deal with the backtracking
What backtracking?

>>>"I’m still waiting for the data showing that particle fluxes cause heating."
That wasn't me, and so what? You still didn't read what forcing means?

>>15006729
>One wonders then why such experiments are not funded by NOAA or NASA.
What experiments? We have plenty of data on cosmic rays on Earth, much more than any other planet. Yet you can't give a single piece of evidence for your entire claim. Sounds like you're full of shit.

>>15006999
>Tony Heller
LMAO, you're a gullible retard.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/08/usa-temperature-can-i-sucker-you/

>>15007093
Global temperature data sets are the opposite of anecdotes and show global warming clearly. What historical cycles are ignored?

>>15007127

>>15007125
>some blog
Imagine being this deluded.

>>15007121
There has never been a holistic study of the effect of auroral heating on Earth's energy budget such as has been done on other planets. It is simply unknown and climatologists merely assume it's low because they want CO2 to be the main cause of climate change.

>>15000340
Mexifornia here, a lot of our periodic heavy rainfall events are some variation of a warm wet atmospheric river colliding with a cold front. That prescedented phenomenon is now called a "bomb cyclone" and sold as something new.

>>15007275
Here in Oceania they're claiming we're having more and worse hurricanes because of "global climate chaos" but if you look at the data it's actually never been more mild than it is now in recorded history. The last really devastating hurricane occurred 30 years ago.

>>14999961
We have been "ten years from the point of no return" with Glubble Wubble since 1988.
Liberals have ZERO ability to learn from past experiences.

>>15007290
Since 1960 if you count global cooling, and since 1900 if you count the first global warming scam.

>>15007277
The media is literally hyping up cat 1's here.

>>15007319
They're hyping up Tropical Storms too (category 0). It's so deluded.

>>15007290
They have actually taken a cue from the JWs and are moving Armageddon up to 40 or 50 years from now because of the 30 plus years of "8 to 12 years to save the planet" schtik getting old.

>>15007163
Fake graph. That reconstruction is from ice cores so the data ends before current warming. The label that says "Current" is a lie. It's also not even global temperature (45N to 80N latitude).

>>15007232
>>some YouTube channel
>Climate scientists BTFO!
>>some blog
>Imagine being this deluded.
Are deniers really this stupid?

>>15001047
cool it with the anti-semitism bro

>>15007233
>There has never been a holistic study of the effect of auroral heating on Earth's energy budget such as has been done on other planets.
There's no "holistic study" of many things in science because there's too much data to compile into one study. Other planets require a specialized telescope or spacecraft, which gathers a small amount of data that produce a singular result. We've been studying cosmic rays on Earth for far longer and with much more detail than any other planet, and found no significant auroral heating. Get over it.

>>15007290
>We have been "ten years from the point of no return" with Glubble Wubble since 1988.
Source?

>>15008074
>Climate denier refusing to accept historical cycle right infront of his eyes

https://youtu.be/WcWM_1hBu_c?t=55

>>15007163
>Heritage foundation showing data that ends in 1750 as if it were modern
What a surprise from a conservative think tank

>>15008307
>"What historical cycles are ignored?"
>Shows ignored historical cycle
>NOOO NOT THAT HISTORICAL CYCLE, THE GRAPH IS MISSING THE LAST 3 PIXEL JUMP!

>>15007277
kek, leftists are some of the dumbest faggots that exist. They believe whatever twitter tells them

>>15008149
What historical cycle was denied?

>>15008372
>>Shows ignored historical cycle
Milankovitch cycles are not ignored, you're a liar. Any climatologist will tell you current warming is completely against the cycle, both in timing and in speed.

>>14999964
>buy russian gas
>become dependent
>surprised when you are dependent on russian gas
dumbass, why didn't you just use a wood heater?

>>14999961
>there's snow in Buffalo so global warming can't be real

Snow in snowiest place on earth. who'd have guessed
Meanwhile half the country is in a drought so bad that hydro electric dams are shutting down.

>>15008092
>We've been studying cosmic rays on Earth for far longer and with much more detail than any other planet, and found no significant auroral heating.
You can't find what you never looked for. You got BTFO'd, get over it.

>>15008550
>Any climatologist will tell you current warming is completely against the cycle, both in timing and in speed.
Some will, but they're liars.

>>15008615
What did we never look for? There's plenty of data about cosmic rays on Earth. There's no forcing. You lost.

>>15008617
Wrong, see >>15008074

We should be cooling at this point in the cycle. Instead we're warming 25 times faster than the last interglacial warming.

>>15008666
>he thinks a 100,000 year cycle can be predicted to the decade
>>15008550
>"NOO, STOP BELIEVING YOUR EYES, LOOK AWAY FROM THE CART"

>>15008666
>We should be cooling at this point in the cycle. Instead we're warming 25 times faster than the last interglacial warming.
Nice Satanic trips. The cycle always ends with a precipitous warming period and then a huge plunge into the ice age.

>>15008664
Show me one study where the authors attempted to measure the auroral heating of Earth accurately from space like they've done on other planets. I'll wait.

>>15008673
This, conveniently they also ignore official sources when its convenient for them.

"Measurements of oxygen isotopes from the GISP2 ice core suggest the ending of the Younger Dryas took place over just 40~50 years in three discrete steps, each lasting five years. Other proxy data, such as dust concentration and snow accumulation, suggest an even more rapid transition, which would require about 7 °C (13 °F) of warming in just a few years.[16][17][30][31] Total warming in Greenland was 10 ± 4 °C (18 ± 7 °F).[32]"

Directly from wikipedia, the most bias site on the internet for this stuff.

>>15008671
>>he thinks a 100,000 year cycle can be predicted to the decade
What "decade" are you talking about? Interglacial warming ended 10000 years ago. LMAO

>>"NOO, STOP BELIEVING YOUR EYES
You're the one ignoring the obvious. Interglacial warming ended 1000 years ago and current warming is 25 times faster. They have nothing to do with each other.

>>15008673
>The cycle always ends with a precipitous warming period
Yes, that was 10000 years ago. We're warming again, on top of that, 25 times faster. Thanks for admitting I'm right.

>>15008711
You are literally too stupid to live. I hope global warming is real now just so you'll have to fight off hordes of feral bugmen for your onions.

>>15008708
>25 times faster than 7 degrees in a few years.

So you are faced with a completely basic chart not modified in anyway to fit your bullshit, that completely destroys your narrative

So you come out with a retarded "Temperature variation" chart, "relative to average for late 1900's" combined with "relative to early holocene" to make it look incredibly more than it actually is, and also a completely bullshit future projection?

How about you stop posting extremely doctored graphs with specifically chosen times to compare with and look at absolute temperature clearly displayed. >>15006308

>>15008675
>Show me one study where the authors attempted to measure the auroral heating of Earth
Show me one study where we attempted to find a teapot orbiting Jupiter. That's not how science works.

>>15008785
biggest cope so far in the thread.

>>15006855
>because you try to use anecdotes as data
OK, so >>15004004 is an anecdote? Thanks for agreeing with me, even though it took you much too long.

>>15008675
Well they have measured the cosmic ray energy flux and it's 8 orders of magnitude smaller than solar energy flux. That should give you a little hint.

>>15008676
What was ignored?

>>15008728
>You are literally too stupid to live
Not an argument. Thanks for conceding. Now explain why you lied.

>>15008936
"which would require about 7 °C (13 °F) of warming in just a few years"

>please sir, explain why you lied. This is not how science works. Thanking you for conceding.

Are you some sort of indian made IMF bot?

>>15008734
>So you are faced with a completely basic chart not modified in anyway to fit your bullshit, that completely destroys your narrative
How?

>So you come out with a retarded "Temperature variation" chart
LMAO, your own chart claims (incorrectly) to be temperature "relative to today." Not absolute temperature. So what are you sperging out about exactly? What's wrong with relative temperature?

>to make it look incredibly more than it actually is
How? What you label 0 on the y axis has no effect on the size of the temperature changes. It's still in degrees Celsius.
You're complaining about nothing. Hilarious.

>How about you stop posting extremely doctored graphs with specifically chosen times to compare with and look at absolute temperature clearly displayed. >>15006308 #
OK, what is your point?

>>15008957
>"which would require about 7 °C (13 °F) of warming in just a few years"
In one place in Greenland, yes. How does this respond to my post? You have no response. You know current warming is not part of the natural cycle.

>>15008957
You seem confused. Look at what the Younger Dryas looked like globally: >>15008711. It's nothing compared to current warming.

>>15008965
The chart you posted literally used 2 separate reference points and changed between them mid-graph. It even admits it changed climate models because it didnt fit.

As with >>15008728
I am leaving this thread though. You have yet again backtracked >>15008969

And for you a 7 degree change (15-20c over a slightly longer period) in a few years is not significant yet earlier in the thread you were saying it never even happened.

All you say is
>Why? how? Why? I cant see? What? What is your point? I can't see that?

And then when people get fed up and leave, you act like a 12 year old on a game who starts crying and calling the guy hes playing a coward when they disconnect after killing you 10 times in a row.

If you think your opponent walking away from a chess board after you shit on it is them conceding...

Wont be reading further posts but thanks for backtracking so hard.

>>15008983
Are you literally retarded? Modern warming is demonstrably much faster than the warming after the younger dryas

>>15008988
Reminder that the only evidence you posted about the effects of solar flares in temperature are based on a specific model parameter run and another from the top of the atmosphere. So what is it? Are climate models good or bad?

>>15009229
>So what is it? Are climate models good or bad?
Man your brain is so broken. You must really be hurting.

>>15009225
>Modern warming is demonstrably much faster
Cause aint nobody got time fo dat slow shit yo!
Winter coming on and the Democrats done charging more for heating gas! Gots to warm thangs up!

>>15009225
>Modern warming is demonstrably much faster than the warming after the younger dryas
That's what I said.

>>15008988
>The chart you posted literally used 2 separate reference points
Yeah... for two separate axes. It has no effect on the data. What are you sperging out about? Do you even know?

>changed between them mid-graph
LMAO, no it didn't. Both axes are applicable to all parts of the graph. You're seriously this retarded?

>It even admits it changed climate models because it didnt fit.
Where?

>I am leaving this thread though
You're leaving because you made a compete fool of yourself and have no defense.

>You have yet again backtracked
How?

>And for you a 7 degree change (15-20c over a slightly longer period) in a few years is not significant yet earlier in the thread you were saying it never even happened.
Where?

>All you say is
>>Why? how? Why? I cant see? What? What is your point? I can't see that?
Because you make vague statements and refuse to explain them. Because there is no explanation, you just continuously lie.

>>15008988
You must think it's some kind of trick that the graph has two different time axes too.

>What sorcery is this? How can they switch between thousands of years before present and years in European calendar in the middle of the graph???? You can't have two axes with different labels for the same thing!!!!11
I honestly can't tell if this is high level telling or severe mental deficiency.

>>15006644
You can't back up any of your vague claims. You lost.

>>14999961
Just another scam by the rich 1% to get more control and more money.

>>15011471
See >>15001038
Why are you lying?