The Sun-Climate Effect

No, really.
Point to a single doomsday prediction made in the last 100 years that has proven true.
Then we can talk about how our slaves died.

 

1. This is the seminal paper, published in 2017.
Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud ...

Nature Journal
https://www.nature.com › nature communications › articles


by H Svensmark · 2017 · Cited by 119 — It is found that an increase in ionization results in a faster aerosol growth, which lowers the probability for the growing aerosol to be lost ...

2. Your Potsdam link was published seven years before Shaviv's 2012 paper attributing about half of 20th century warming to solar influence, so it's not part of that discussion. I believe you mentioned sloppy, wishful thinking?

3. No, TSI is cited for a variety of reasons, but it's unimportant to Shaviv's hypothesis.

 

All of your side's doomsday predictions have failed. That's why your side is correctly classified as cult clowns. Getting every single thing wrong for 50 years running has that effect.

In contrast, the predictions of mainstream climate scientistst have been excellent. Temperature, precipitition, sea level, hurricanes, everthing. That's why they have such credibility, because they've earned it by being correct with their predictions.

If anyone told you the predictions weren't accurate, they lied to your face, and you should ask them why they lied to your face. But that's only if you don't like people lying to you.

Is there any logically-deficient bad denier talking points that you won't repeat? You are running down the list, after all. You've clearly been programmed well.

 

Mamooth writes,

This is false since climate realists don't make doomsday prediction it is you warmist/alarmists who does that and my what a whopper list of failures it is:

Ice Free Arctic Forecasts LINK

Yet you can't post them......

Meanwhile here is the true story:

Storminess has not gone up, and there’s been no increase in hurricane strength or frequency … no “emergency” there.

First, the strength.



And here is the global hurricane frequency, both for all hurricanes and for the strongest hurricanes.



===

And there is much longer evidence to back that up. Here are the records of all hurricanes (left) and major hurricanes (right) that came ashore in the US in the last 150 years … NO increase. SOURCE: Nature magazine.



===

And here are the numbers of Pacific typhoons (hurricanes) from the Japanese Meteorological Agency.



And here are a century and a half of records of the number of landfalling hurricanes in Florida.



Finally, here are the declining numbers of both strong and average cyclones (Southern Hemisphere hurricanes) in Australian waters, from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM).



===

And here is the Rutgers Snow Labatory’s snow extent data from 1972 to April 2023 … basically, no change.



Strong tornadoes in the US are steadily decreasing over the last 72 years.



There’s no sign of the fabled “Sixth Wave Of Extinctions”.



===

Really you going to call my post a lie which are 100% based on the official data?

Actually, is YOU who is programmed to ignore official data and to avoid debate.

FACT:

No Positive Feedback Loop exist

No Lower Troposphere "hot spot" exists

No CO2 warm forcing effect is driving the warming trend.

 

A genuine tour de force.

 

Personal insults ignored, except to note you've exposed your stupid.

Those predictions?
Wheel em out here.
Is the arctic ice free?
Is new york buried in ice?
Is miami under water?
Is the world in famine?
Is lake mead dry because of drought or over allocation?

 

All the claims of accurate predictions by AGW liars are based on cherry-picking the lowest modeled temperature predictions and comparing them with the highest cherry-picked fraudulent temperature records.

 

Yes!! It's like claiming that two shotguns are sighted the same if the extreme upper pattern of one shotgun overlaps the extreme bottom of the other shotgun with both using a wide open skeet choke tube.

 

The importance of heat transport is well known throughout the study of climate.

It has long been carefully watched. The idea that ocean current heat transport is ignored is ridiculous. One of the big issues in climatology is the
Atlantic conveyor system.

 

This is atmospheric.

 

deleted

 

Yes and it has been proven not to have an appreciable effect on current warming. Your application of this to explain the current warming fails due to this

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

Soooo - where is the supernova? I mean they are pretty sodding obvious (Betelgeuse is slated to go nova in the next few centuries and will be visible to the naked eye in daytime)
When the star that formed the Crab Nebula exploded in 1054 it was recorded by Japanese and Chinese astronomers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_Nebula.
It is not enough that supernova are happening - they also have to be close enough to affect us
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova

 

And the oceans and the atmosphere interact

 

A cross eyed shot gun???

 

Proof?

All your answers are here https://www.ipcc.ch/

 

First YOU a post a prediction, made by scientists at the IPCC that has been proven wrong and we will debate it

 

Nope.

 

What are the predictions made by scientists at the IPCC that have come true? That should be easy for you.

How can models claim to be accurate when there is such a wide variation in results. Hence the shotgun analogy.

 

Lols! You HAVE to be joking - the current warming falls squarely in the predicted models and I will post links when you do

 

Be my guest. Show us all which of the models fits the existing data such as it is.

 

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
should be easy for you to prove it wrong

 

There is nothing there. Where is the plot of all models showing agreement with the temperature history? And where is the plot of all models showing agreement with the last 10,000 years temperature history? There isn't one - why, because the computer models cannot account for climate variability and if climate variability cannot be accounted for then any changes in global temperature cannot be assigned to the much loved CO2 control knob.

 

No link to made between CO2 and Temperature changes based on the HIGH resolution GISP2 data.

LINK

===

Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.



The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …

LINK

 

Ah, a Gish Gallup of garbage, an avalanche of crap, the usual defense of deniers who know how bad their science has been for 50 years, and how good mainstream science has been.

Yes, yes, that old dishonest collection of media spin and predictions by people who aren't climate scientists. Desperate and dishonest, that is.

An increase in frequency has never been predicted, which has been pointed out to you before, yet you still focus on frequency. That doesn't make you look good.

The increase in strength happened. That is, hurricanes are a fine example of how correct climate science has been.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-42669-y

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05326-4

https://time.com/6218869/why-atlantic-hurricanes-are-getting-stronger/

https://www.livescience.com/climate-change-hurricanes-stronger.html

That was senseless, given that there was no prediction of more or less snow. Warm air holds more moisture, so more snow will fall, but warmer temps will melt it faster, so it's a wash.

You keep claiming climate science predicted things it never predicted. Again, that doesn't make you look good.

And you do it again. AGW theory made no predictions about tornadoes.

And there it is again. Climate science makes no predictions about extinction rates.

You misspelled "Stuff my cult programmed me to say."

Of course there is. That's why observed ECS is around 3.0, just as theory predicted. And which it has predicted for a long time, contrary to big whopper denier cherrypicking lies. If you'd like to repeat those cherrypicked lies now, I'd be happy to rip that dishonest propaganda to shreds. Again. And yes, I know you'd ignore it again. The cult requires that.

The science says the opposite. Thus, your only defense will be to delcare that the science is faked, and thus destroy the last remnants of your credibility.

The directly observed stratospheric warming, increase in backradiation and decrease in OLR in the GHG bands says the opposite.

Thank you for proving my points so conclusively for me. I'll let you know if I ever want you to prove my points again.

 

Claiming one spot in Greenland represents the entire globe? Even for you, that's desperate.

Meanwhile, the earth keeps warming strongly. Reality seems to be paying no attention to your conspiracy websites.