mini ice age could be on the way and it’s going to get very, very cold

Sometimes I wonder if it is even fair.... Clearly, you don't understand the difference between record highs and record low high temps... Which obviously are not the same as record low temps, are they?

 

You didn't

You cherry picked and then did not complete any discussion

 

fwiw the fish man used to come around with many tanks and species on the flatbed. He said you need 55 degrees minimum for tilapia.

 

LOL, go back and reread (assuming you actually read the threads the first time). I use the factual data from the FBI and AUS Bureau of Statistics, and wiped you out.

Early on you claimed to be a "great researcher". You are not.

 

No you keep claiming that on no basis

And yes I DO understand research much much better than the average person

Case in point

Have you ever actually READ the IPCC reports?

 

The cults Bible.

 

You try to jump from the gun control/crime data subject to something else - because you know I am correct.

Yes, I have read an IPCC report and looked at a couple more. They are put out by a political organization, and are no longer relevant.

 

No bringing the thread back on topic

And your analysis is exactly what I expected

Content free

 

Have you read the reports?

I mean if you want to know your enemy you should make yourself familiar with the material

 

I've read the books of all major religions including yours.

 

Have you read the IPCC reports?

 

As I said I've read all religions teachings and that includes yours

 

Ok, well the IPCC AR5 report is 5,000 pages long. And that's just AR5. AR1 through AR4 as well as SR1 through SR15 are available as well. You're probably looking at about 50,000 pages of official material published by the IPCC. I have to be honest, I haven't gotten anywhere near through all of it so you're doing better than I.

 

Don't blame me for your use of bizarre terminology. Nobody except you uses the term "absolute low high temperatures". You'll need to define that term, then show data supporting your claim about it, and then explain why it matters. You've done none of that so far.

That's some fine conspiracy gibberish. In the real world, there are these things called "thermometers" that directly measure the rising temperatures. You claim that it comes from models is at odds with reality.

Are you perhaps confusing "interpolation" with "model"?

 

Ok, chew your own smug. How many thermometers are there in Siberia? And yet, without installing a single reporting station, Siberia now has grid like temp projections. Of course you missed that. But, should you wish, you should travel there, and document just how many temperature reporting stations are actually there, and then compare it to how many points of data are being fed into models from other models that are predicting or otherwise just guessing what those temps were. You obviously have the time.

 

Well...there are people in Siberia so most likely they have thermometers.

 

There are a lot of surface stations in Siberia that are included in the GHCN network. I'm just saying...

 

A lot.

You might want to ask the people who misinformed you why they misinformed you. That would be the vertebrate thing to do. Thus, we almost never see deniers do it.

 

Meanwhile Greenland's ice shelf is melting atr a record pace raising ocean levels???

 

A mini ice age? Hmmm one word. Global warming.

So its impossible. Things are getting warmer as the earth gets closer to the sun each you, an ice age is against simple physics.

 

Of course they don't: there is no plausible mechanism whereby they could. But they do appear to be affected by something that does, as the correlation shows.

 

But not a very good one; and more to the point, sunspots are a better proxy for some deep solar process that ISN'T TSI.

No they don't -- but whatever causes them to vary certainly does.

But the Maunder Minimum in sunspots was merely the observable symptom of something much more profound going on in the sun, something we cannot observe directly and whose effect on global climate we do not yet understand AT ALL.

Wrong. The Modern Maximum continued until the end of the 20th century, at which time temperatures (but not falsified temperature data) stopped rising. Although the strongest known cycle peaked around 1960, anyone can see for themselves that the last three cycles of the 20th century were stronger than average, by historical standards:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File:Sunspot-bfly.gif

All three of the late 20th century cycles were visibly stronger than ANY of the five cycles from 1880-1935. Clear?

TSI is the wrong measure of the sun's effect on global climate -- indeed, has been chosen deliberately as the measure of the sun's effect on global climate BECAUSE it is wrong -- because it varies too little to explain the observed relationship of sunspot activity to global climate.

False. The data have simply been altered to create that impression, by both retroactively reducing historically observed temperatures and increasing more recent ones.

Refuted above. There is more to solar "radiation" than TSI. That's why the cult of anti-fossil-fuel hysteria always screams that TSI is the only permissible measure of the sun's influence on global climate: that's the curtain they don't want anyone looking behind.

 

Yeah exactly. There is a correlation between solar activity and total solar irradiation. Sunspots themselves aren't likely to affect the temperature directly, but we know total solar irradiation does. There is one caveat here. Sunspots are at least partially a product of the magnetism with the Sun. It has been hypothesized that the changing magnetic field may influence galactic cosmic rays on Earth and that these GCRs may influence cloud microsphysics. Most scientists think the link is tenuous and insignificant at best, but it is something that is being considered.

 

And another one between solar activity and global climate. They are not the same thing.

Obviously: it has to as a matter of basic physics. That doesn't mean it is necessarily the variable of interest.

We don't understand the mechanism. But anti-fossil-fuel hysteria rejects any measure of the sun's influence on global climate other than TSI as impermissible, because it has been established that TSI doesn't vary enough to account for the observed relationship. It's a way of preventing people from thinking about anything but CO2.

 

Wait... you mean, winter is coming...?