HighDesertOffgrid
Solar Addict
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2022
- Messages
- 628
It hasn't been totally ignored. The weather channel compared the event to the movie " The day after tomorrow". Beginning at 1:20 below.
Get ready for the coming little ice age!
- Thread starter Batvette
- Start date
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
Maybe I'm missing something.... well ... 20/2024 and not today? Okay... the airport reports a low of -15F for yesterday... still not -52.3°C
That URL isn't the weather channel, I'd be leery of it given what I'm googling (or rather not googling).
But the weather channel is a good idea! Checked the videos TWC has on youtube, but nothing on -52.3°C from China in the last few months.
I went to the weather channel web site and looked up the temperatures for January and February. I don't see anything near that cold, according to the Weather Channel the coldest has been -13°F. For today they report the low as -8, so it corresponds with the airport.
Reuter's did report Xinjiang's temperature as 52.2°C (126 °F) last July and the Weather Channel has done reports on how hot it's been there too.
I wonder if someone just got confused with the minus sign and it blew up into that?
Not an expert by any means on China, possibly I'm in the wrong location or something. But, that india report still looks fishy.
Update: In watching that video found a Reuter's headline I was able to Google .... says it's in Fuyun county... okay... this looks more interesting.....
January (low -15°F) and February (low -30°F) temperatures. That -52.3°C is probably the coldest recorded spot in the area rather than the average. Funyun is Northeast of the previous site so makes sense it was colder. Ouch, the day before it was 28°F. The lattitude is 47° N, about the same as Bismark North Dakota. FWIW, Google says the coldest it's been there was -60°F in 1936. @HighDesertOffgrid - thanks for sticking with me, I know it took me a while to validate your data!
Last edited:
Just remember the tit twister it is not “global warming” it is tada “climax change”. You will recieve the lecture from the minister of love until you repeat after him.
Next thing Tucker will go to china to check the weather and the climate worshipping ppl will have his plane crash ice on the wings like gander crash even though eye witness seen flash explosion as it took off as stated in some reports. Putin did it. Tucker helped.
Gates and Soros other WEF have spent small fortunes for things like covid and climax change. Religion of Man Made Science all stigma of questioning old traditional religions. “ Don’t question science. Trust the science.”
where did the Mayan and Aztec ppl go?
HighDesertOffgrid
Solar Addict
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2022
- Messages
- 628
That is certainly odd. I click on your February link and it shows -30 not -27. Are you seeing manipulated data that confirms your bias? Weird.
HighDesertOffgrid
Solar Addict
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2022
- Messages
- 628
It was at that moment Tony Fauci knew he had a check in the mail from Israel for $1 million dollars. Smiles and cheers all around USA Govt Employee took money from a Foreign Govt. Christmas Story"I am the science!" ~Tony Faucci.
Fauci as a child twisting puppy ears. They blamed climate change.for covid or tried to. The perma frost in Alaska thawed they dug down and got a sample of 1918 spanish flu and recreated it in a lab. Few years later out came covid …. There was a unique strain of pneumonia in it.
I think biggest problem ppl went full retard mode and stopped reading… they just Trusted the Science.
McKravitts
Solar Enthusiast
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2022
- Messages
- 534
If any of you morons bothered to read the opening post you'd realize that this discussion was meant to be about "The Approaching New Grand Solar Minimum and Little Ice Age Climate Conditions"
You all just went off on a tangent trashing global warming theories.
What would be worse; A long cold ice age or manmade global warming preventing an ice age. I’d prefer the later.
All the BS you guys posted referencing articles by highly skewed right wing publications that wouldn't even make good toilet paper are meaningless in this discussion.
History, which I assume you guys lend no credibility to, does indicate that there was a little ice age and that it corresponded to a period between the 16th and 19th century where very few if any sun spots were observed. It is called a Grand Solar Minimum.
It was not a global but a regional phenomenon.
The drop in solar irradiance is not substantial and I believe the regional characteristics of this “ice age” may have been caused by upper atmosphere air currents. Sun spots spew charged particles which ionize the upper atmosphere and affect the air currents.
The peaks in sun spot activity over the last few cycles led many people to believe we are on the verge of entering a “little ice age”. Ten years ago some people were even predicting it to start in 2020.
History may in fact show that the greenhouse gases emitted by industrial civilizations actually saved those civilizations.
This article correctly shows that surface temperature measerements are not an accurate way to determine overall planetary warming. A better indicator is ocean water temperature which have been rising;
You all just went off on a tangent trashing global warming theories.
What would be worse; A long cold ice age or manmade global warming preventing an ice age. I’d prefer the later.
All the BS you guys posted referencing articles by highly skewed right wing publications that wouldn't even make good toilet paper are meaningless in this discussion.
History, which I assume you guys lend no credibility to, does indicate that there was a little ice age and that it corresponded to a period between the 16th and 19th century where very few if any sun spots were observed. It is called a Grand Solar Minimum.
It was not a global but a regional phenomenon.
The drop in solar irradiance is not substantial and I believe the regional characteristics of this “ice age” may have been caused by upper atmosphere air currents. Sun spots spew charged particles which ionize the upper atmosphere and affect the air currents.
The peaks in sun spot activity over the last few cycles led many people to believe we are on the verge of entering a “little ice age”. Ten years ago some people were even predicting it to start in 2020.
History may in fact show that the greenhouse gases emitted by industrial civilizations actually saved those civilizations.
Stop spreading BS
2023 “Earth’s Hottest Year on Record” Claims Fail
These “hottest year on record” claims are based on misrepresenting the year 2023 obscure “global average temperature anomaly” outcome that is not applicable to any specific location or region…wattsupwiththat.com
The year 2023 flawed climate alarmist claims of “hottest year on record” are in the same vein as the flawed claims made by climate alarmists about the summer of 2023 being “the U.S. hottest summer ever” that was addressed here and shown below.
This article correctly shows that surface temperature measerements are not an accurate way to determine overall planetary warming. A better indicator is ocean water temperature which have been rising;
Rate of Ocean Warming Has Nearly Doubled Over Two Decades, Study Says
Checkthisout
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2021
- Messages
- 4,810
Depends, no one cares what you think, even if you agree with them.
McKravitts
Solar Enthusiast
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2022
- Messages
- 534
Well at least I got you to take the time to type something other than that stupid HaHa emoji
Checkthisout
Solar Wizard
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2021
- Messages
- 4,810
Little kids think the same way. Their perturbations go ignored so they throw hot coffee on your lap.
That is you throwing hot coffee on my lap little one.
How about we just let nature do its thing and not mess around in things we do not fully understand so that we dont fuck things up much worse?
Lets always remember the law of unintended consequences even if we take politics out of it.
Our glorified science is still an infant when it comes to things like the sun and its impact on planetary level phenomena. Lets give our science (without politics) a hundred years or so to get on its feet, maybe then we can start thinking about what we should and should not do.
And for sure, lets not allow the megalomaniacs in all fields to fuck around with things they hardly understand (geoengineering for example, followed by genetic engineering).
Lets always remember the law of unintended consequences even if we take politics out of it.
Our glorified science is still an infant when it comes to things like the sun and its impact on planetary level phenomena. Lets give our science (without politics) a hundred years or so to get on its feet, maybe then we can start thinking about what we should and should not do.
And for sure, lets not allow the megalomaniacs in all fields to fuck around with things they hardly understand (geoengineering for example, followed by genetic engineering).
You are in denial if you dont understand that solving overpopulation is critical in mitigating climate change.What money? Can you provide some context on this? The way I see it, a lot of people are angry about stuff that isn't even happening. Can't imagine you're upset with the pocket change spent on scientific studies when compared to the billions Congress wastes (e.g., Alaska's bridge to nowhere, see this link for Congress spending a billion on a trolley).
The way I see it, not spending money on it now is going to cost us a lot more later.
But, maybe I missed something? I would say, if you think trillions have been spent on climate change (federal tax dollars, not states or private investors like Bill Gates spending millions of his own money or people investing in solar farms to make money), make sure to look at the fine print as to where the money was actually spent ( I don't consider fixing lead pipes in Detroit or keeping the existing grid operational, repairing stuff after extreme weather, building natural gas pipelines, or funding Universities as fighting climate change (mainly because they don't address the root cause)).
BTW, just talking about the U.S. I know other countries have spent a lot on it (e.g., China spent $890 billion in 2023).
How much does it cost to NOT fix it?
One should always look at both sides.
For example, fixing roads is expensive. But not
fixing roads is more expensive as it hurts the
economy. That is we spend $1 to make $10.
How much does climate change cost? One way
to look at it is the increasing costs (adjusted for
inflation) to repair our existing infrastructure
from extreme weather events.
The image shown to the right shows "just" the
frequency of events exceeding a billion to fix,
the image is also a link to the source.
So the global temperature going up (regardless if human-induced or not) is costing us more every year to fix what we have. You say the alarmists are clueless, but maybe they just look at the existing facts and trends to make decisions rather than believe the Merchants of Doubt?
But obviously, it's not just about fixing our infrastructure after the fact. There are other factors that add to the costs such as increased healthcare costs, preventative infrastructure (e.g., keeping cities from flooding), disease, drought mitigation, international instability, and yes, border control.
Fortunately, the U.S. is a country that people want to live in (some countries build walls to keep citizens from escaping). In order to keep the population stable you need about 2.1 kids per family, the U.S. is about 1.6 ... meaning we're on the decline rather than overpopulation and some think it might soon be a crisis. Here's a video on it:
Great post. C02 is driven by temperature not the other way around. Ive believed that for years now but alarmists always shoot it down.'Pure Junk Science': Researchers Challenge Narrative On CO2 And Warming Correlation
'Pure Junk Science': Researchers Challenge Narrative On CO2 And Warming Correlation | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zerowww.zerohedge.com
Each year from 2023 to 2030, climate change sustainable development goals will cost every person in economies such as the United States $2,026, the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development estimates. In lower-income economies, the per-person annual cost ranges from $332 to $1,864
“CO2 does not cause global warming. Global warming causes more CO2,” said Edwin Berry, a theoretical physicist and certified consulting meteorologist. He called Royal Society’s position on CO2 “pure junk science.”
Ian Clark, emeritus professor for the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Ottawa, agreed that if all greenhouse gas emissions ceased today, the Earth would continue warming—but not because of CO2.
He said that contrary to popular opinion, temperature doesn’t follow CO2—instead, CO2 follows temperature, which, itself, is due to solar activity.
Temperature and CO2
One of Mr. Clark’s primary areas of research is paleoclimatology (the study of climate conditions using indirect records such as tree ring data, ice cores, and other proxy records), and in particular, Arctic paleohydrogeology, which is the study of the Earth’s water throughout history.
“During the ice ages, we had great temperature variations, and this has to do with, not straight-up solar activity, but the amount of solar activity that is hitting the Earth at certain important latitudes, all caused by celestial events,” Mr. Clark said.
“The Earth, in our solar system, is moving around and being jostled. And we have different orbiting patterns that affect solar input, and that creates ice ages and interglacial periods—which we’re in now. And CO2 tracks that. So we'll see enormous temperature changes, going from ice ages to interglacials, and CO2 gets very low during ice ages and very high during interglacials.
“And that gives the appearance that CO2 is driving the climate, but it’s actually following. It lags by about 800 years.”
Mr. Clark said that during ice ages, and particularly the past 10,000 years, scientists have a fairly good idea of the temperature, thanks to proxy records. He said those records show that the Medieval Warm Period was likely much warmer than today, and agriculture and civilization flourished.
But the Little Ice Age followed that from the 1400s to 1800s. “And that’s when we had difficulty with agriculture,” Mr. Clark said.
“The Thames froze over. We have all sorts of recollections about how cold, and some would say miserable, it was back then. But then it started warming up again. So, about every 1,000 years or so, we seem to have these fluctuations. This is due to solar activity, and that’s where we see the importance of the sun, which is the ultimate source of energy beyond geothermal and nuclear energy. Solar drives climate.”
Another peer-reviewed study, by scientist William Jackson, examined the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature over the past 425 million years.
Mr. Jackson is a distinguished research and emeritus professor for the department of chemistry at UC–Davis who specializes in understanding the role that molecules such as CO2, nitrogen, and carbon monoxide play in planetary atmospheres.
They also dismiss the residual effect of methane releases from melting polar ice.
svetz
Works in theory! Practice? That's something else
I write you a respectful post with easily verified information from a 3rd party and you send me back an opinion and denigrate me. If you don't want to discuss the topic with others why are you posting it? I'll add you to the ignore list since your anger at some spills over onto anyone with a differing opinion.
So you postulate we're going into an ice age and that warming is accelerated due to GHGs trapped in melting ice.
The two ideas seem to be at odds to me.
But climate scientists are not in denial nor do they dismiss the effect of methane in ice. It was predicted by climate scientists; it is one of the infamous "tipping points". You can read more about the tipping points here.
You think this statement is an attack upon you?
"You are in denial if you dont understand that solving overpopulation is critical in mitigating climate change."
Go ahead and put me on ignore, I dont need to waste time with people who play victim when their position is revealed to be indefensible.
Lets take it from real scientists, not pop-sci youtube wannabes
Their doubt is based on data showing that natural factors are very much at play, the warming is slower than predicted, the models are unreliable, that CO2 has great benefits and weather disasters have not increased. The media hysteria and weather hype are not supported by data.
Nobel Laureate in Physics Dr John F. Clauser also signed the manifesto.
The message is clear: there is no climate crisis. The number of critical scientists who no longer submit to the dogma of the alleged man-made climate catastrophe is growing.
“There Is No Climate Crisis”…1600 Scientists Worldwide, Nobel Prize Laureate Sign Declaration
1609 signatories recently signed a declaration that states there is no climate crisis, thus casting doubt over man’s alleged role in climate change and extreme weather.
Their doubt is based on data showing that natural factors are very much at play, the warming is slower than predicted, the models are unreliable, that CO2 has great benefits and weather disasters have not increased. The media hysteria and weather hype are not supported by data.
Growing skepticism
Nobel Laureate in Physics Dr John F. Clauser also signed the manifesto.
The message is clear: there is no climate crisis. The number of critical scientists who no longer submit to the dogma of the alleged man-made climate catastrophe is growing.