Thread: Why is it so Hot Everywhere?

Originally Posted by Troy

Lots of theories but no hard evidence man is the cause of the current warming cycle. No clear way forward to stop the cycle.

still waiting for those "Lots of theories"

I guess you'll be waiting a long time then. When I said theories, I meant to say research, as in a lot of research being carried out and still no hard facts, just assumptions. The theories part was in reference to the independent models being used but the end goal seems to be the same, to show global warming is man made and as a direct result of burning fossil fuels. No doubt to get everyone to buy into the "green" forms of energy and fork out the dosh to fund it all.

Originally Posted by Troy

as in a lot of research being carried out and still no hard facts, just assumptions.

Wrong!

By the way,……it’s not the sun.

Diverting from the topic again.

Explain the discrepancies.

Originally Posted by Troy

Diverting from the topic again.

Wrong, again.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Wrong!

Hard facts

By the way,.........still not the sun.

Is Slando one of those nutters that thinks humans are responsible for rising temps?

there is absolutely no doubt

science

Originally Posted by S Landreth

science

Earth and natural climate change science.

I find the third reason put forward for the MWP to be a little weak. I couldn't find the link to the ocean current research that was carried out. Perhaps you can find a link for me.

Actually, I would have thought changing ocean current would be an effect rather than a cause. Coriollis has been pretty constant and certainly from that period so what suddenly changed the ocean currents. It was too vague and wishy-washy to be believed as a reason.

One other factor about the earth that NASA has ruled out without a full analysis is the earth's magnetic field. We know it's changing, both in locally and at the poles. That is, the position of the poles is changing and any airman will know mag variation charts are updated every 5 years. Yes, runway headings change and have to be updated.

However, there was a UK study circa 1976 that showed magnetic field changes in the NH and SH over a period and showed a cyclic variation. Interestingly, there was correlation between warm and cold periods. I'll dig it up when I'm on my laptop.

What is also interesting is that the magnetic field strength has fallen in the last 200 years. What effects this may have on weather should not just be thrown out, not unless a conclusion has already been defined.

^not the sun any longer?

Originally Posted by Edmond

Is Slando one of those nutters that thinks humans are responsible for rising temps?

Could be naturally evolved cycles that come and go. Not like such catastrophes have ever occurred before .
Nutters will nut.


Unnecessarily overthinking most everything, as it's been repeated long, often and loud enough - making it all real and true.

Originally Posted by Edmond

Earth and natural climate change science.

Highly profitable scams.

So far you have failed to successfully answer any of my questions or concerns about the 'facts' in your quoted sources.

I have no idea of the cause. I was hoping you would enlighten me. You haven't, just lols and c&p from articles you don't appear to have fully read or understood.

It would appear your thought processes have been forgotten in your eagerness to reply.

...and btw, I doubt it is one single cause but a number of contributing factors.

Originally Posted by Troy

I have no idea of the cause

I do and it's not the sun

Originally Posted by S Landreth

^not the sun any longer?

Well, if you had bothered to read you would have understood it is in combination with the Sun. More than one factor, remember?

Anyway I found the 1976 research paper I mentioned, here is a link:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/...9760007443.pdf

One thing I like about this paper is that it doesn't start at 1850 but much earlier, here is an extract from the article to whet your appetite:

If Earth's magnetic field influences' meteoro-logical phenomena, long-term changes in the geomagnetic field should produce corresponding changes in climate.
Figure 2 shows, in the upper section, the variation of the magnetic inclination at Paris since about 700 A.D. The lower section shows 50-yr averages of the temperatures prevailing in central England since about 900 A.D. These two sets of data exhibit similar variations. The "Little Ice Age" (Lamb, 1966) that occurred in Britain during the period 1550 to 1850 A.D. is
clearly associated with an epoch of high magnetic inclination.

Also of note in this paper is the Solar influence observation made:

Scotland appears to have been influenced by changes of solar radiation associated with the solar cycle during the period from 1916 to 1969 (King, 1973). This conclusion is based on an apparent association between the length of the growing season and the yearly mean sunspot number: on the average, the growing season is about 25 days longer near sunspot maximum than near sunspot minimum. A detailed comparison of the growing season and the solar data reveals the geophysically interesting fact that the growing season tends to be longest about a year after sunspot maximum

Note that is a 53 year period of solar activity on top of the more normal 11 year cycle and this anomaly does not appear in spamdeath's sources at all. Instead these sources claim the sun activity has been "stable".

I found another, more recent link, following further research here:

New perspectives in the study of the Earth’s magnetic field and climate connection: The use of transfer entropy - PMC

Interesting reading and raise doubts about the single source (and therefore single solution) to the current problem related to global warming.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

You are a climate denier.

What does that actually mean? That I don't believe there's a climate? Again, stop with your childish retorts.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Anyway, I am not here to answer your questions. But I have shown you facts and it's not the sun.

I have questioned those "facts" and you have failed to come up with any credible answers to justify them.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

National Library of Medicine?

Are you suggesting that medical science is not a science and it's scientists should be excluded from research?

In fact, if you'd bothered to read the box at the top of the html page you would have noticed the library 'provides access to scientific literature'

Further proof that you do nothing more than superficial reading and believe only what you want to believe. That is not a very scientific attitude.

I have shown you theories that have been ignored because they don't fit in with your desired conclusion.

Mind you, having said that the US should pay the world compensation for its disgraceful overuse of resources and energy wastage.

Originally Posted by Troy

What does that actually mean?

you don't believe the science

Originally Posted by Troy

I have questioned those "facts" and you have failed to come up with any credible answers to justify them.

Wrong. But then you're a climate denier and can't deal with facts.

Originally Posted by Troy

Are you suggesting that medical science is not a science and it's scientists should be excluded from research?

The authors should stay within their field.

And why did they publish their findings in a 3rd rate Medical Journal.

Do I need to tell you why?

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Anyway, I am not here to answer your questions.

Quite Marilyn-Monroenian.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Wrong. But then you're a climate denier and can't deal with facts.

It appears it's you who is in denial, not me.

Blinkered truth denier!

and again.......

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Wrong!

Super! There's loads of stuff in there, and the links, to pick apart piece by piece.

Spotted several inconsistencies on the first page alone.

As I said, you are just a C&P merchant that doesn't actually read and understand the material you provide.

Truth denying Spammer!