placeholder

Next thing you know, they'll have her speaking English instead of Greek or Egyptian. Nah...they wouldn't go that far because that would be truly unbelievable.

You mean to tell me that's not the real Queen Cleopatra? So disappointing.

You sure about that? Human-made climate change suppresses the next ice age Humanity has become a geological force that is able to suppress the beginning of the next ice age, a study now published in the scientific journal Nature shows. Cracking the code of glacial inception, scientists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research found the relation of insolation and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to be the key criterion to explain the last eight glacial cycles in Earth history. At the same time their results illustrate that even moderate human interference with the planet's natural carbon balance might postpone the next glacial inception by 100,000 years. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160113160709.htm Without human caused climate change the next period of glaciation was projected to occur in about 50,000 years.

I got some exciting news for you. Storage devices don't need sunlight or wind to work and their cost is rapidly heading downward.

That claim is BS. There is not even a definite date for the onset of the LIttle Ice Age but the latest is 1560. Systematic tracking of solar cycles only began in the mid 18th century. Even the earliest records used by Rudolf Wolf, which were not systematic, date back only to 1610. There was no systematic survey of solar activity until the mid 18th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Wolf

All you've demonstrated is that there are local climatological phenomena that can be long lasting. Nothing about the global phenomenon which is what is being referred to by the terms Anthropogenic Climate Change and Global Warming. In addition, your claims for the effect of solar activity, and particularly the Maunder Minimum,, on the climate are greatly overblown. The Little Ice age began hundreds of years before the Maunder Minimum and persisted well after it was over. I know that there's a logical fallacy called Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc., After This Therefore Because of This. But I've never heard of Ante Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, Before This Therefore Because of This UNUSUAL VOLCANIC EPISODE RAPIDLY TRIGGERED LITTLE ICE AGE, RESEARCHERS FIND New evidence from northern ice sheets suggests that volcanic eruptions triggered the multiple-century cool spell known as the Little Ice Age, and pinpoints the start of the climate shift to the final decades of the 13th century. Researchers have long known that the Little Ice Age began sometime after the Middle Ages and lasted into the late 19th century. But, estimates of its onset have ranged from the 13th to the 16th century. https://news.agu.org/press-release/unusual-volcanic-episode-rapidly-triggered-little-ice-age-researchers-find/ The Maunder minimum and the Little Ice Age: an update from recent reconstructions and climate simulations Using northern hemisphere surface air temperature reconstructions, the LIA can be most readily defined as an approximately 480 year period spanning AD 1440–1920, although not all of this period was notably cold. While the MM occurred within the much longer LIA period, the timing of the features are not suggestive of causation and should not, in isolation, be used as evidence of significant solar forcing of climate. Climate model simulations suggest multiple factors, particularly volcanic activity, were crucial for causing the cooler temperatures in the northern hemisphere during the LIA. A reduction in total solar irradiance likely contributed to the LIA at a level comparable to changing land use. https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/full_html/2017/01/swsc170014/swsc170014.html

You're right it wasn't you. But you did criticize my comments. And my defense of my remarks is still valid. All I have to do is change the pronouns. Thusly: No, I did have something to say. Namely, that they made an assertion of fact but offered no link to a credible source to back it up. And they still haven't done that. Which means that: They still have got nothing. And the same goes for your comments about what I wrote. Just empty words devoid of evidence or reasoning.

Once again making it personal. And even if the personal was relevant, you got any independently confirmable evidence to prove that you are making a real difference? Do you have a problem with the forum rule that requires assertions to be backed up by a link to credible sources? Maybe you should find a venue without such stipulations for you to haunt. In accordance with the rules of this forum I provide links to articles that are themselves from scientific organizations or fro articles that report on the science. The "evidence" you offer of your personal experience is unproveable and therefore worthless.

No, I did have something to say. Namely, that you made an assertion of fact but offered no link to a credible source to back it up. And you still haven't done that. Which means that: You still have got nothing.

Around election time I see a lot of extreme right wingers claiming that they used to be lefties or liberals but now they've seen the light because the left has gone crazy. Sure, it's the left that's alleging all kinds of lunativ massive conspiracy theories, whether it's election stealing or climate change or 15 minute cities. Give it up. You're not fooling anyone.

It's about as fair a question as asking Bamnutsak "So, it should be ignored because he's left wing". All Bamnutsak pointed out was the there's a lot of ridiculous rhetoric coming from the right about the "Biden crime family" Nothing in his statement about ignoring whatever crimes Hunter Biden may have committed.

Fantasizing much?

Are you claiming that David Weiss, the Trump appointed US attorney in charge of the case, is ignoring it?

No they don't. That would be a crime as it would be for a house member to accept the money.

From the landing page of the World News Forum "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source." You've got nothing.

You can keep on idly wondering or you can look it up using google or some other search engine.

What B.S. are you pushing now. He was trying to enter his property? Really. Is knocking on the door or ringing a doorbell "trying to enter the property"? And you know the old man was feeble how? And didn't a grandson of his say he was a racist? It's amazing how low some people can go.

Which enemies are those? You've still got nothing.

Which adversaries were those? You've got nothing.

That I'm aware of. But I don't mind if someone brings it up again. At least it's about the science.

Well, t nauseus posted links. He was addressing the scientific issues directly. I think he was misinterpreting what the those links showed But he wasn't making irrelevant attacks on the character or lifestyles of prominent people.

The problem with invoking the Little Ice Age is that it wasn't global. It was regional From your link: "The Little Ice Age was a period of regionally cold conditions between roughly AD 1300 and 1850. The term “Little Ice Age” is somewhat questionable, because there was no single, well-defined period of prolonged cold. There were two phases of the Little Ice Age, the first beginning around 1290 and continuing until the late 1400s." https://www.eh-resources.org/little-ice-age/ Modern Climate Change Is the Only Worldwide Warming Event of the Past 2,000 Years The authors of new studies in Nature and Nature Geoscience used evidence of ancient climates gathered around the world, from tree rings to coral reefs, to examine the pace and extent of well-known episodes of warming or cooling over the past 2,000 years. They report that events like the Little Ice Age and Mediaeval Warm Period, driven by natural variability, were actually more regional than global in scope. In fact, the only time in the past 2,000 years that nearly all of the Earth has undergone significant warming or cooling is the present period of change that began in the 20th century, according to the research of Nathan Steiger, an atmospheric scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, and colleagues. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/modern-climate-change-only-worldwide-warming-event-past-2000-years-180972719/ As for the Maunder Minimum A previous period of low sunspot activity, the Maunder Minimum, lasted 70 years in the late 17th to early 18th century and coincided with part of the ‘Little Ice Age‘ – a period of cooling affecting parts of the globe that lasted around 300 years. https://www.carbonbrief.org/maunder-minimum-solar-activity-and-the-little-ice-age-new-research/#:~:text=A previous period of low,that lasted around 300 years. But I'm glad you raised the issue of the Maunder minimum. The past several solar cycles have also seen a steep reduction in sunspot activity up to around 2020, as your 2nd link shows. In fact, scientists have, in the past, detected a weak direct correlation between decreased solar activity and global cooling, So, that should mean, that, if anything, this should be exerting a cooling effect on the climate. In fact, denialists were predicting that global warming would be reversed in the 21st century for this reason. Instead the oceans and troposphere are warming at very rapid rates.

A moon landing disbeliever. I thought that they were the stuff of fiction.

There were six lunar landings in all. All of the astronauts on those missions returned safely. So, it doeslook like "incredibly lucky" is way over the top as far as depicting the odds goes.

There is little doubt that the Milankovic cycles account for much if not most of the ice age temperature fluctuations. However, nothing in the record of these cycles has been found to match the abruptness and rapidity of the current situation. In addition, theories ascribing the current sharp rise in temperature to Malenkovic cycles or solar cycles fail to account for the fact that while the lower atmosphere, the troposphere, is heating rapidly, the stratosphere is actually cooling. If the Malenkovic cycles or solar cycles were responsible for global warming, then the stratosphere should be warming too. But, in fact ,the rise in CO2 and other greenhouse in the lower atmosphere is delaying infrared radiation from reaching the stratosphere. This is why the stratosphere is getting cooler while the troposphere gets warmer.