Al Gore: ‘Bitter cold’ is ‘exactly what we should expect

There's definitely inertia. You see it everyday when the daily highs and lows lag behind the insolation. We saw this nicely with the 2017 solar eclipse. Reporting stations reported a lag of about 30 minutes (give or take) between the time of maximum eclipsing and the temperature drop. You also see this in air temperatures when seasonal highs and lows occur a few weeks after the summer and winter solstices. It's also why the Arctic sea ice minimum is in September instead of June. The 11 year cycle has atmospheric inertial responses as well. See Eleven-year solar cycle signal throughout the lower atmosphere for one such publication. So there's definitely inertia that is directly linked to solar behavior (both directly and indirectly due to the orbital and rotational characteristics of Earth). The Sun definitely impacts the climate...no doubt about it. And if we enter a grand minimum like what most are predicting then it will almost certainly suppress temperatures if not by transient cooling then almost certainly be mitigating the warming.

 

No, because we have overwhelming evidence.

Your subjective posts on a internet forum is not changing or challenging such evidence.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

You're essentially responding to the data with "nu uh".

 

This is true and its an outright tragedy that more people aren't aware of just how faulty these theoretical predictions are.

Hell, most of them don't even consider the words 'theoretical' and 'predictions' when they're made up their minds to believe the AGW claim.

They just see political party's standing on either side of a line.

The Democrats are very adapt at throwing around words like "study" and "research".

But in all of the hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of AGW articles written or cable news segments aired, how many of them actually take you to the studies, the research?

And the answer is, none.

Sure they'll throw up an info-graphic or a pie chart or some other mcnugget of information that has been dumbed down just enough to be useful in a 10 word or less sentence, but wheres the raw data?

And I've always maintained the belief that the reason they do this is because the "studies" and the "research" are a) theoretical, b) predictions, and c) flawed.

The AGW pushers of the world are basically acting as used car salesmen hyping the shine of the paint and hiding the serious mechanical issues behind it.

The dependency on the coding of the models is the ballgame and people don't understand why.

And the reason its the ballgame is because there is no actual empirical evidence driving these claims.

Its 100% theory, 100% prediction, and as the more aware of us know ...a lot of it it can change depending on trivialities.

But try to walk a liberal down this path and you'll be solo after the first step, amazing.

 

And CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere and the atmospheric response to a rising CO2 is natural as welll

Meanwhile while America suffers cold it is so hot here the bitumen is melting

 

Just how faulty are they? Is it 100%. 80% or only2%?

And how much are they inaccuratee by?

 

Garanteed the next weather event be it drought floods freezing temps or heat waves it will be exactly what we should expect because anthropogenic climate change delivers onto us the wrath of god. Pay heed so that this almighty climate catastrophe can be evaded. Sin not bretheren, burn not of oil and coal cut not of timber. Seek solice in the penance the government takes from you via taxes that this offering may sway the almighty.

It seems oddly farmiliar doesn't it?

 

Liberal logic:

When it is abnormally warm, that's proof of global warming
When it is abnormally cool, that's proof of global warming
And when everything is exactly where it should be, that's proof of global warming

 

I don't think its possible to make such a simplification of the math at work here; as to say "its only X% off".

And if it is I don't know it.

What is possible to say is that the variations on short term are minimal and that deviation increases as the protected amount of time does.

Think along these lines, various forecasting tracks that call for rain tomorrow will likely have a little variation and be accurate whereas track forecasts for a week out will be more varied and less reliable overall.

Now try to use them to predict the rain 100 years from now.

 

They need to prove them. That's how it works

 

Now that Exxon has weighed in the OP !

 

Good, then you can show the data and the mathematical calculations that demonstrate man made CO2 is responsible for global warming.

 

What is the mathematical representation of this enertia?

 

Why should we when Europeans will pay our way for us?

 

What caused the little ice age in Europe? Wasn't it a volcano? I don't think they are sure. I know they can't even predict the weather more than two days ahead without changing their forecast. How could they have any clue whether it's the earth's cycle or not? It's been through many cycles. I'm sure they were all somewhat violent. Giving them money won't fix it when they don't know how.

 

Coldest december in 50 years. It's global cooling that is the problem.

 

Source on Mediterranean plant claim? Even so, temperatures fluctuate over millennia. Late Devonian anyone?

Umm... the Indian islands are eroding, not being swallowed by the rising sea.

Coral has been bleaching since there was coral. Most of this research is done at the great barrier reef, which is being bleached due to phosphate runoff from agriculture.

 

Nice claims shame about the lack of science

 

So again your hypothesis is based on correlation is causation. You conveniently leave out that cutting down half of Earth's forest is also prominent in correlation of rising C02 levels. As far as rebuttals goes natural phenomenon is always the science baseline until proven otherwise.

 

Your original question was "what is the hottest decade on record?" I pointed out the fact that our records only date back approximately a hundred years which is a nano second of Earth's temperature records so it is completely irrelevant. It's equivalent to attempting to find a "normal" depth of the ocean based on measurements over the last hundred years.

The Sunken City of Baia
A submerged archeological park still holds the wonders of a Roman Sodom.


https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/the-sunken-city-of-baia

 

In case you don't know it's winter here and summer where you are and in case you don't know it the Earth is round not flat.

 

Peer reviews in this case means your peers are fellow true believers so it's an unreliable review.
Your link provided no evidence man is changing climate.

 

Umm... what would you like a link for?

 

Try your hyperbole about the barrier reef

Because if the main culprit is ag run off then it is news to James Cook Unoversity which is doing most of the research
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=Great+Barrier+Reef+coral+bleaching&btnG=

 

Hypothesis are just guesses. They can be educated guesses or you can pull them out your ass. It's how you falsify them that matters. And right now the lines of evidence tip heavily towards "current warming is primarily anthroprogenic" withstanding falsification and "current warming is primarily natural" is convincingly refuted by a combination of anthroprogenic causes. Decades of repeated tests have found no convincing natural mechanism that can explain the warming. But, we've known about CO2's EM spectrum properties for over 150 years and it's been confirmed time and time again. And we know with high confidence that humans are THE cause of the concentration increase. Physics laws predict that the atmosphere will warm under this regime, computer simulations support that predictions, and lo and behold we are seeing warming.

 

Why?