Forums

Within 15 years we will have another ICE age (a tiny one like In the 13-1400)

Within 15 years we will have another ICE age (a tiny one like In the 13-1400)

MitchP85D | 12/07/2015

Well, if the forecast of the solar cycle verifies, then I most certainly agree the earth will get colder this century. I have long believed (like most meteorologists) that the sun effects weather by far more than Man does. If there is a science to predicting these solar cycles, and if there is a good track record in these predictions, we should pay attention. But of course, like with many things, this is a big IF.

bb0tin | 14/07/2015

@rmitchell108
You said "Well, if the forecast of the solar cycle verifies, then I most certainly agree the earth will get colder this century."
Why? You are incorrect. Where is the evidence for your opinion.
Try reading these links:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/13/3679662/global-warming-speed...

science-isbetter | 14/07/2015

@rmitchell108

Lots of reasons why Professor Zharkova's model of the sun will not lead to a second mini ice age (some call it Little Ice Age or LIA). Nor did she claim it would.

bb0tin has a couple of links.

Here's another:
http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/mini-ice-age/?utm_s...

In short the LIA appears to only have affected Europe (we are discussing Global change. The postulated decrease in "solar activity" is a decrease is certain solar phenomena...not total energy output from the sun.

As to your statement that "I have long believed (like most meteorologists) that the sun effects weather by far more than Man does" here you are in total contradiction to 100% of your alma mater's (Texas A&M) atmospheric sciences department who clearly state that the climate is warming and most of the effect is man-made.

Watt fun | 14/07/2015

Ummm....no. Doing just the slightest bit of research about the Maunder Minimum and other 'Minimums' might reveal that the overall GLOBAL decrease in average temperatures due to them seems to have been in the range of -0.8C for the severe biggies down to only -0.2C. Mind you, there were -local severe- changes noted in certain regions (ice on the Thames in London in winter, skating in the Netherlands), due to changes in LOCAL WEATHER patterns (qv 'polar vortex' in the last two years, but a hoary old term actually over 150 years old)

Put those decreases in context of the 2C+ to 6C+ forecast for the next 50-100 years, and a 'solar minimum' will be lost in the noise. I suppose the runaway greenhouse hell that is Venus might also drop--according to these 'science-like' sources--- from 462 C (864 F to a balmy 460 C (860 F)...or maybe not.

Dramsey | 14/07/2015

Nobody who's not on psychotropic drugs is predicting warming of 2C+ to 6C+ for the next 50-100 years. Not even the IPCC, which has of late slashed its warming predictions.

Do you have any cites for the numbers you assert?

DougJohnson | 14/07/2015

science-isbetter wrote:
"As to your statement that "I have long believed (like most meteorologists) that the sun effects weather by far more than Man does" here you are in total contradiction to 100% of your alma mater's (Texas A&M) atmospheric sciences department who clearly state that the climate is warming and most of the effect is man-made."

There is no contradiction here. If the sun's flux were to halve, it would clearly overwhelm any man-made effect. But the sun's flux does not vary much, so the man-made effects are dominate.

See http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/wp-content/files/2007/05/solar_energy.jpg

Notice the scale. The total variation over 30 years is less than %0.2.

-- Doug

bb0tin | 14/07/2015

@Dramsey
You said:
"Nobody who's not on psychotropic drugs is predicting warming of 2C+ to 6C+ for the next 50-100 years. Not even the IPCC, which has of late slashed its warming predictions."
You are incorrect.
Please read this link which has a maximum (although not the most likely scenario) IPCC rise by 2100 of about 6.4C.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections...

You said "Do you have any cites for the numbers you assert?"
I just gave you one now.
You did not provde any evidence or numbers for your assertion, so your turn now. (PS: Please link to the IPCC and not to a denier blog)

bb0tin | 14/07/2015

@DougJohnson
You said "There is no contradiction here. If the sun's flux were to halve,"
What the heck? This is a ridiculous statement.

MitchP85D | 14/07/2015

Dr. Jerry North of Texas A&M discusses how the sun can affect the climate.

http://www.space.com/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate.html

So, that knocks two birds out of the sky with one stone.

It is just basic, fundamental Met 101 the sun is the dominant influence on our weather and climate.

DougJohnson | 14/07/2015

bb0tin wrote:
What the heck? This is a ridiculous statement.

It sure is when taken out of context.

bb0tin | 14/07/2015

@DougJohnson
You said "It sure is when taken out of context."
It was not out of context.

Your full statement was:
"There is no contradiction here. If the sun's flux were to halve, it would clearly overwhelm any man-made effect. But the sun's flux does not vary much, so the man-made effects are dominate."

The contradiction you were refuting was:
"... here you are in total contradiction to 100% of your alma mater's (Texas A&M) atmospheric sciences department who clearly state that the climate is warming and most of the effect is man-made."

1) I fail to see how the sun's flux has anything to do with the contradiction in question i.e. '...who clearly state that the climate is warming and most of the effect is man-made'. For your statement to have any validity the atmospheric sciences department would have had to posit that the climate could cool (which they did not).

2) Stating a halving of the sun's flux is also a strawman argument. Equally ridiculous would be to say 'If the sun's flux were to double, it would clearly overwhelm any man-made effect.'

bb0tin | 14/07/2015

@rmitchell108
Great to see you link to a non-denier blog. It seems that you either did not read, or did not understand the article. Or you are really careless with what you post. You insist on posting utter nonsense, and now don't even seem to realise what actually contradicts your opinion.

You said “So, that knocks two birds out of the sky with one stone.”
What are these two birds? Please tell me. I have no idea what the two birds could be.
As far as I can tell the article 100% supports man made climate change. Please quote those bits that you think do not support man made climate change. I am betting that cannot find a single one. I have listed a few which show the opposite at the end of this post.

You said “It is just basic, fundamental Met 101 the sun is the dominant influence on our weather and climate.”
Please indicate what part of the article related to the weather. I do not see anything myself.

Supporting quotes for mostly man made global warming:

“In fact, the sun could currently be on the cusp of a miniature version of the Maunder Minimum, since the current solar cycle is the weakest in more than 50 years.”

“the researchers note that solar variability may have more of a regional effect than a global one.”

“do not assume that it is causing much of recent climate changes. It's pretty stable,”

“the sun is mostly likely responsible for less than 15 percent of the global temperature increases we've seen over the last century”

Dramsey | 15/07/2015

Um, @bb0tin...that IPCC report you linked to is from 2007.

Things have changed rather a lot in the meantime. You should spend some time looking at current IPCC estimates. The current Fifth Assessment Report lists estimates for warming over the next 30 years to be in the range of 0.4 - 1.0 degrees Celsius from a baseline of 1986, with warming expected to be at the "lower end" of that range.

Extrapolating from that, global warming from now until 2100 could be well below 2.0 degrees Celsius.

Given the IPCC's terrible track record on warming predictions, though, I have to admit that I don't pay any attention to their pronouncements.

But if you do, you should keep up with the predictions du jour. They're all here on the interwebs.

MitchP85D | 15/07/2015

Hey bb0tin, since you are a bit dense, the two birds are:

1. Texas A&M scientists are 100% against what I believe.
2. The sun has very little to no effect on weather/climate.

Dr. Jerry North indicated how a small variation of solar radiation can affect the weather/climate. 1. Jerry North - Texas A&M. 2. His comments on solar radiation.

Get it now bb0tin? Ding ding ding ding...

bb0tin | 15/07/2015

@Dramsey
You said:
“Estimates for warming over the next 30 years to be in the range of 0.4 - 1.0 degrees Celsius from a baseline of 1986, with warming expected to be at the "lower end" of that range.
Extrapolating from that, global warming from now until 2100 could be well below 2.0 degrees Celsius.”
You are either deceptive or ignorant.
I note that you did not link to any relevant section of the report. I expect that is because you got your opinion from a denier blog, and did not bother reading the report to which you linked. Please get back to me after you have actually read the report. You may notice that on page 1058 they give the projection out to 2100. The highest prediction is 6C (which means to 2115 it would be 6C+)

You said “You should spend some time looking at current IPCC estimates.”
I do. You don’t. You read denier blogs. They are emphatically not the same.

bb0tin | 15/07/2015

@rmitchell108
You said “the two birds are:
1. Texas A&M scientists are 100% against what I believe.
2. The sun has very little to no effect on weather/climate.

Bird 1: Firstly, the Texas A&M scientists are 100% against what you believe. You believe the climate could cool rather than warm. They do not. Secondly, the article says nothing about what the Texas A&M scientists believe, so there is not even a bird there. You may as well have said there 3 birds with the 3rd being what is the world’s favourite ice cream.

Bird 2: No non-denier on this thread has said that the sun has very little to no effect on weather/climate. This is an absurd proposition. Of course it does. You know, like night and day. This is a classic strawman argument.
What is said is: The variation in the sun’s output, which does affect the climate (links have already been provided showing this), does not account for the warming which is being observed, which is mostly man made via greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, the variation in the sun’s output does not affect the weather (short term changes) but only the climate (long term changes).

science-isbetter | 15/07/2015

@DougRamsey

The quotation you attribute to me is not mine. I quoted rmitchell108.

However, it appears that we (DougRamsey and Science-IsBeter) are in agreement that while significant changes in total solar irradiation (TSI) can affect climate; it hasn't and is not predicted to, based on any phenomena now in place.

However, just to make the point clear rmitchell108 wrote:
"the sun effects [sic should be 'affects']weather by far more than Man does."

rmitchell108 is writing in the present tense and even if one were to give him three or four hundred year leeway, the TSI has not changed enough to affect climate more than humans.

science-isbetter | 15/07/2015

@rmitchell108

You state quite often that you have the credentials to refute Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and that others do not.

But, your posts fail of their essential purpose. Your citation of your credentials hoists you on your own petard.

I repeat, "you are in total contradiction to 100% of your alma mater's (Texas A&M) atmospheric sciences department who clearly state that the climate is warming and most of the effect is man-made." All members of the atmospheric sciences department of the institution granting you weather credentials are trying to continue to inform you. Indeed, you received that degree long before the faculty's statement.

Here is a snip of their statement "We all agree with the following three conclusions based on current evidence" [my emphasis].

What they all agree with is that mankind is responsible for more than half of the warming between 1951 and 2012.

You pull harder on your own petard when you quote Dr. Gerald R. North. The sun can affect the climate. No dispute here. But Dr. North is among the all who are teaching that most warming is a result of human activity.

You tug one more time on that petard: In an earlier post you said that the Texas A&M department head only hires those who agree with him. That, in itself, is quite an indictment of Texas A&M! When I asked you who that was, you did not respond.

Dr. North was department head from 1995 through 2003. Is he the one who only hires those who agree with him? And, if so, why do you reference him as if he agrees with you?

See: http://www.met.tamu.edu/about/weather-climate/climate-change-statement/i...

Your credentials would carry some weight if there were some evidence that the institution which gave you your degree finds a basis for your contradictions of all of their more than twenty distinguished scientists. I wonder if anyone who thinks that all of the faculty is wrong would do well on an exam.

MitchP85D | 16/07/2015

OK, for all of you AGW believers in this forum, I have a challenge for you. I asked bb0tin this, and he wussed out. Any of you care to predict when the Arctic ice cap is going to melt? Since you all believe so strongly that Man is causing global warming, go ahead and give it a shot. Since I've been forecasting weather and sea conditions in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas during the summer/fall seasons of 2007,2008,2010,2012, and now 2015, I can tell you the Arctic ice cap will NOT completely melt in our lifetimes, your children's lifetimes, and many subsequent generations afterwards. And I can say this with 99.999% confidence because I know AGW is bullcrap!

But I know the likes of you. You are all cowards, and will refuse to stick your necks out for the fear of being wrong and looking stupid. Al Gore entertained the thought of 7 years back in 2007, but of course the Arctic ice just blew up in his face!

I'll never forget the conversation I had with Dr. Lindzen. He agreed with me that storm tracks have much more to do with the melting ice cap that the imaginary AGW phenomena. Quoting him about 2007, "the wind blew the ice back towards the north pole."

You know my prediction. Somebody is going to be right, and somebody is going to be wrong. The prediction business is something I've been doing for 35 years. I'm not always right. And the times that I'm not right is usually because of a difficult synoptic condition that makes the weather forecast uncertain. But the Arctic ice cap completely melting? That's a slam dunk! I'll take that bet anytime, anyplace!

FREE ENERGY | 17/07/2015

Guys, You need to Google translate my ingress...
Pål Brekke is now running a 10 Year test at CERN.
Results, so far indicate, strongly, the impact from the Sun...due to its reduced activity.
Whats heading is something similar to the socalled little ICE age during the 13-1400...

bb0tin | 17/07/2015

@rmitchell108
You said "I asked bb0tin this, and he wussed out"
No I did not. I explained to you why science does not predict a particular year, but instead makes statistical predictions. I have also explained to you that my opinion on AGW means nothing, since it is the science that matters. You however, think that your ignorant opinion should be given credence.

You said "I can tell you the Arctic ice cap will NOT completely melt in our lifetimes, your children's lifetimes, and many subsequent generations afterwards" and "I'll take that bet anytime, anyplace!"
I happily take you up on that bet. How does $US10,000 sound? I am serious.

Grinnin'.VA | 17/07/2015

@ rmitchell108 | July 16, 2015

>>> ... Any of you care to predict when the Arctic ice cap is going to melt?

^^^
In a way I'm in a situation similar to yours. I'm not a climate scientist. The difference between me and you is that I know and acknowledge that I'm not an expert while you pretend that you are an expert with stupendous predictive powers.

I defer to the real experts. AFAIK, the climate science community hasn't reached a consensus answer to your question. Did I miss something there?

>>> I can tell you the Arctic ice cap will NOT completely melt in our lifetimes, your children's lifetimes, ... And I can say this with 99.999% confidence because I know ... !

^^^
Other than divine revelation from an omniscient god, you couldn't possibly "know" such a thing. You are claiming predictive power far in excess of what science can deliver. Simply put, you are just guessing and pontificating. B.S.

science-isbetter | 17/07/2015

@rmitchell108

I don't like the word "coward." I WILL NOT descend into name-calling! Your use of that word in this context is offensive.

I would just like to ask you to follow up on your statement to me that the department head of Texas A&M's atmospheric sciences department only hires those who agree with him. Who was/is it? Will you, as you put it, "stick your neck out" and verify/document your own statement?

And since all of the atmospheric sciences faculty of your alma mater also believe that Man is responsible for most of the recent global temperature changes (AGW), I also ask, Will you ask the Texas A&M atmospheric sciences faculty to confirm "[that] AGW is bullcrap?" Will you stick your neck out?

Watt fun | 17/07/2015

Gosh, its been many a decade since I might have been on 'psychotropic drugs' (it was the 70's. Like the old joke, if I knew for sure, then I wasn't there)

I do have this habit of reading entire books rather than twitter feeds, and 'just for s&g' I have been known to read such useless to me things as an entire on-line university peer reviewed study on the future of prices of natural gas at Henry Hub rather than the two page executive summary...and I don't have any intersection with natural gas in my life at all, just curiosity. I just like to read the "scribble, scribble, Mr Gibbon"

Sorry I rounded off to 50-100 years and 2 to 6 degrees C.

MitchP85D | 17/07/2015

Hey bb0tin, you are on! This will be like taking 10K candy from a baby! What is your bet. A decade? Two decades? And who defines the Arctic Ocean completely sea ice free? National Ice Center? I'm 58. In two decades, I'll be 78. If I die before then, that will obviously cancel the bet.

So, give me your time frame when the Arctic Ocean will completely melt and NIC defines the Arctic Ocean as completely ice free.

MitchP85D | 17/07/2015

science-is-better, as long as your ilk keeps calling me denier (hint hint - holocaust denier) I will use whatever gawl dang language I want to use.

bb0tin | 18/07/2015

@rmitchell108
You said “What is your bet. A decade? Two decades? “
You already specified the timeframe in your original post about a bet. I re-iterated the timeframe when I accepted ‘that’ bet. It was “in our lifetimes, your children's lifetimes, and many subsequent generations afterwards"”

You said “And who defines the Arctic Ocean completely sea ice free? National Ice Center?”
I am happy with the National Ice Center. How about we change “completely” to “99% or greater loss of area or volume”. We can then agree on a number for each in km2 and km3.

You said “If I die before then, that will obviously cancel the bet.”
No need to cancel the bet if you die. We can both submit the $10,000 now, in a way that can be left in a will.

science-isbetter | 18/07/2015

@rmitchell108. No major argument about your freedom to "use whatever gawl dang language I want to use." (Some exceptions, but those are not relevant here.) That doesn't stop it from being offensive.

MitchP85D | 18/07/2015

bb0tin, how old are you? I think it should be within our lifetimes if you actually want to bet. A will involves getting other people in the loop, who will no doubt not like what we are doing. There has to be a defined amount of time.

Check this NIC link:
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/products/ice_extent_graphs/arctic_daily_ice_e...

When the graph touches the zero line, we will define that as Arctic sea ice free.

bb0tin | 18/07/2015

@rmitchell108
You said "There has to be a defined amount of time." and your original timeframe was "in our lifetimes, your children's lifetimes, and many subsequent generations afterwards"
So assuming your youngest child is about 30, the average lifespan will be about another 50 years. Adding 30 odd years per generation for “many” generations, which I would think would be a minimum of 5 (to differentiate “many” from “some” and “a few”) we get a minimum of 200 years. I will accept that shorter timeframe.

You said “When the graph touches the zero line, we will define that as Arctic sea ice free.” There is a major problem with defining it like this. That graph may not be around when the bet is met. However, a number in km2 and km3 for greater than 99%, is unambiguous and will be available.

Grinnin'.VA | 18/07/2015

@ bb0tin | July 18, 2015

>>> @rmitchell108
>>> You said "There has to be a defined amount of time." and your original timeframe was "in our lifetimes, your children's lifetimes, and many subsequent generations afterwards"

^^^
BB, IMO RM cares not about this bet, or about polar ice melting, or about AGW, or about science.
His focus seems to be entirely dedicated to discrediting science for the purpose of advancing a political agenda.

When you expose one of his outrageous claims as bogus, he denies, insults and distracts attention from the issue. He drags this out until all of us are thoroughly tired of hearing about it. Then he moves on to another outrageous claim. He evidently owes loyalty to only one thing: his political agenda. Never will he allow reality, honesty or truthfulness to deflect him from that sacred agenda.

MitchP85D | 18/07/2015

Hey bb0tin and grinnin'

How about changing the terms of bet? Betting on something over 100s of years is silly. Since bb0tin expelled his anal gas with with his goofy 10K bet, and actually said he was serious, I will propose something a bit more realistic.

http://www.natice.noaa.gov/products/ice_extent_graphs/arctic_weekly_ice_...

Over the next 10 years, I bet the Arctic sea ice will NOT reach a minimum of 2 million sq. km. I will bet a 1K on that. I am also willing to go $500 for the sea ice not reaching the 3 million sq. km. To keep things above board, click on the link. Then click Arctic weekly. Plot the years from 1972 to 2015. Look at it carefully. If any of you are such firm believers that we are melting the Arctic ice cap, the bets seem reasonable. So, what do you alarmists think about those terms?

bb0tin | 18/07/2015

@rmitchell108
I accepted your bet with your specified timeframe.
You said at the time "I'll take that bet anytime, anyplace!"
So take it.

You said "Betting on something over 100s of years is silly."
You are the one who specifed that timeframe.

You said "bb0tin expelled his anal gas with with his goofy 10K bet"
I simply accepted your bet and proposed an amount.

You said "and actually said he was serious"
I am serious. That is why I proposed $US10,000, and then added paid upfront.

You said "So, what do you alarmists think about those terms?"
Not much at all.
Are you not prepared to live up to your "I'll take that bet anytime, anyplace!"?

bb0tin | 18/07/2015

@rmitchell108
I should have added that I do not consider accepting the science is being alarmist. I have explained this to you before.

MitchP85D | 19/07/2015

So bb0tin, you actually thought I wanted to make a literal monetary bet over 100s of years? Are you that dumb?

Grinnin'.VA | 19/07/2015

@ rmitchell108 | July 18, 2015

>>> Over the next 10 years, I bet the Arctic sea ice will NOT reach a minimum of 2 million sq. km. I will bet a 1K on that.

10 years is a very short time interval for AGW.

I defer to the AGW climate science consensus.

The topic of this thread is a hypothesis of a new ice age coming in the next 15 years. What evidence for or against that hypothesis do you have?

bb0tin | 19/07/2015

@rmitchell108
You said "So bb0tin, you actually thought I wanted to make a literal monetary bet over 100s of years? Are you that dumb?"

1) You are the one who made your prediction for that timeframe by saying "I can tell you the Arctic ice cap will NOT completely melt in our lifetimes, your children's lifetimes, and many subsequent generations afterwards”

2) You then said “You know my prediction” and “I'll take that bet anytime, anyplace!”

3) You also said “But I know the likes of you. You are all cowards, and will refuse to stick your necks out for the fear of being wrong and looking stupid.”

You shoot your mouth off, call other people cowards, and then don’t have the fortitude to live up to your words.

MitchP85D | 19/07/2015

Yes bb0tin, you are that dumb! Here is my original post:

_________________________________________________________________________

OK, for all of you AGW believers in this forum, I have a challenge for you. I asked bb0tin this, and he wussed out. Any of you care to predict when the Arctic ice cap is going to melt? Since you all believe so strongly that Man is causing global warming, go ahead and give it a shot. Since I've been forecasting weather and sea conditions in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas during the summer/fall seasons of 2007,2008,2010,2012, and now 2015, I can tell you the Arctic ice cap will NOT completely melt in our lifetimes, your children's lifetimes, and many subsequent generations afterwards. And I can say this with 99.999% confidence because I know AGW is bullcrap!

But I know the likes of you. You are all cowards, and will refuse to stick your necks out for the fear of being wrong and looking stupid. Al Gore entertained the thought of 7 years back in 2007, but of course the Arctic ice just blew up in his face!

I'll never forget the conversation I had with Dr. Lindzen. He agreed with me that storm tracks have much more to do with the melting ice cap that the imaginary AGW phenomena. Quoting him about 2007, "the wind blew the ice back towards the north pole."

You know my prediction. Somebody is going to be right, and somebody is going to be wrong. The prediction business is something I've been doing for 35 years. I'm not always right. And the times that I'm not right is usually because of a difficult synoptic condition that makes the weather forecast uncertain. But the Arctic ice cap completely melting? That's a slam dunk! I'll take that bet anytime, anyplace!
_________________________________________________________________________

Not only are you dumb, you are also deceitful. How do I know that?

Because:

You took the 5th sentence in my first paragraph and directly connected it to the last sentence of the fourth paragraph. I had no intention of connecting those two at all. But deceitful, dumb-ass bb0tin did!

The first paragraph was basically a statement that I am quite certain the Arctic Ice cap will not melt for a very long time - maybe on the order of a thousand years. I don't actually know this. Nobody knows the future. But to me as a weather forecaster, there are certain places that we can make a weather forecast for with high confidence. For example, my forecast for Thermal, CA is Clear with a high temp of 105. I haven't looked at a weather chart or anything. But I do know something about the climate there at this time of the year, and I have good confidence my forecast might be pretty accurate. Same applies for the Arctic ice cap. From my experience in working in the Arctic, I am confident the ice cap will not completely melt for several hundred, maybe thousands of years.

The last paragraph was basically a statement that I bet I am right and that you are wrong! There was no mention of money. I wasn't establishing any parameters for a monetary bet until bb0tin farted out his 10K thing. I put forward what I think what will happen, and I just wanted to find out if any of you AGW believers care to put forward when you think the ice cap will completely melt since many of you seem to think it will melt on the order of a decade(s). And then we will find out who is right and who is wrong. That was what my original intent was. We already know the 7 year speculation by Al Gore was wrong! So again, any of you AGW believers want to give it a shot? When do you think the ice cap will melt? You know my prediction. If any of you say 10 years, then there is a pretty good chance we will still be alive then, and I can tell you "see, I was right and you were wrong." That was all my original intent of "bet" was about.

If you want to make an actual monetary bet, you will have to establish very specific parameters and set a realistic short time frame to ensure that both betters will still be alive by the deadline. Then one can pay off the other after examining the result.

So, I hope this explains why I think bb0tin is a deceptive dumb-ass!

bb0tin | 20/07/2015

@rmitchell108
You said “Not only are you dumb, you are also deceitful” and “So, I hope this explains why I think bb0tin is a deceptive dumb-ass!”
I have to disagree with your opinion, and your logic as well.

You said “You took the 5th sentence in my first paragraph and directly connected it to the last sentence of the fourth paragraph. I had no intention of connecting those two at all.” and “The last paragraph was basically a statement that I bet I am right and that you are wrong!”
If you simply wanted to express that you believe you are right you would have just said “I bet I’m right”. But you did not. You said “I'll take that bet anytime, anyplace!” By using the word “take”, and then reinforcing it with “anytime, anyplace”, you are specifically implying that an actual bet is being talked about. You also used the word “that”, which implies you are talking about a specific bet, and not some general belief”. You also said “But I know the likes of you. You are all cowards, and will refuse to stick your necks out for the fear of being wrong and looking stupid.” This says that you would like those who disagree with you to “stick their necks out”. How is this to be done except with a bet?
There is no deceit or deception on my part. You however, have been caught out shouting your mouth off, and now are trying to say that all you wanted to express was that you think you are right. We already know that. You continually tell us.

You do not seem to understand, although it has been explained to you, that science does not talk about a specific timeframe when the arctic ‘will’ be ice free. You are wasting your time trying. It is a statistical probability. You may as well ask when someone will toss 2 heads in a row. You cannot do it, you can only give the probabilities.

You said “If you want to make an actual monetary bet, you will have to establish very specific parameters and set a realistic short time frame to ensure that both betters will still be alive by the deadline.”
I disagree. I am happy to leave the bet in a will.

PS:
You continue to confuse the weather and the climate. Your opinions on the climate are worthless since you have no evidence to support them. But you do keep telling us about the weather, even though it has been explained to you that it is irrelevant.

You said “We already know the 7 year speculation by Al Gore was wrong!”
I have already explained to you why this is false in another thread, but you shamelessly repeat the same falsehood.

MitchP85D | 20/07/2015

I would not be the least bit surprised if the likes of bb0tin want these videos banned from the public!

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/wrong-al-gore-pred...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI

Now, what was my falsehood about Al Gore again?

I've tried to be nice by making the discussion a bit more civil by establishing terms on both sides of the climate change debate. Those who support AGW theory should be called "alarmists." And those who doubt AGW theory should be called "skeptics." There is nothing derogatory about either term. But unfortunately, the liberal-socialist-progressive mindset still throws a hissy fit about being called such a benign term, and they continue to call us deniers (hint holocaust deniers). So, I've lost my patience. I will now join vperl by using "weather hoaxer" to describe the AGW believers.

MitchP85D | 20/07/2015

@ 0

I think what CERN is doing is worthy of discussion. When you think about what all is happening with the sun, it makes you glad that we are 93 million miles away from it. But here is something else I find most interesting. The defined habitable zone within our solar system is quite narrow. If we were only 5% closer to the sun, we would get burnt to a crisp. And if we were 20% farther away from the sun, our climate would closely resemble that of Mars. So, we are truly in the Goldilocks zone with respect to our distance from the sun. If there is this much sensitivity based on distance from the sun, I'm sure there is a proportional sensitivity based on energy output from the sun.

bb0tin | 20/07/2015

rmitchell108
You said “I would not be the least bit surprised if the likes of bb0tin want these videos banned from the public!” and “Now, what was my falsehood about Al Gore again?”
Why would I want them banned? This is yet another strawman argument from yourself. I even dissected Al Gore’s statements and explained why you were wrong in another thread. Not only did you not respond in that thread, but you appear to have forgotten about it. Please read http://my.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/are-you-or-against-fracking?page=2

You said “I've tried to be nice by making the discussion a bit more civil”
You are continuously being not civil. In just your previous post you called me dumb and a dumb-ass.

You said “Those who support AGW theory should be called "alarmists." And those who doubt AGW theory should be called "skeptics."”
I have previously explained to you why both terms are inappropriate.
Accepting the science of climate change has nothing to do with being “alarmist”, no more than accepting the science of nuclear fission/fusion makes one “alarmist”.
A “denier” is someone who denies. That is what you do. You do not provide scientific evidence for your opinions.

You said “call us deniers (hint holocaust deniers)”
Not me. It is in your head, not mine.

You concluded with “by using "weather hoaxer" to describe the AGW believers.”
Once again you fail to differentiate between weather and climate. You know virtually nothing about the climate.

MitchP85D | 20/07/2015

Hey weather hoaxer,

So you are equating nuclear fission/fusion science to climate change science? As if there was something comparable about both fields?

You remind me of the old sci-fi TV show several decades back called "The Outer Limits." "We are in control of your tv set. We control the horizontal, we control the vertical, we can bring your your picture to crystal clarity, or to a soft blur..."

You act as if you know my intent of what I write better than I do. When I show you that you misinterpreted what I stated, you act like the over-controlling force of the Outer Limits, dictating things are the way you say they are.

The melting Arctic ice cap is a hot topic in the climate change argument. Is it not a reasonable assumption that most of the weather hoaxing crowd believe the ice cap will melt in a matter of a few decades? Your leader Al Gore sure thinks so!

bb0tin | 21/07/2015

@rmitchell108
You said “Hey weather hoaxer”
You still talk about the weather. I talk about the climate.
You have not shown any ‘hoax’. The best you usually do is link to a denier blog. When you do link to the science you will even link to something that supports climate change without realising it. It seems you do not either read or understand what you link to.
An example is when you posted this link http://www.space.com/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate.html. My response is at the end of this post. Note that I challenged you to produce just a single a single to support your opinion, but you did not. I was able to provide four quotes which did not support your opinion.

You said “So you are equating nuclear fission/fusion science to climate change science? As if there was something comparable about both fields?”
Yes I am equating them. There is no need to make any political statements when discussing the science of either. You conflate science with politics. Both subjects have political ramifications, but the science should be independent of the politics.

You said “Is it not a reasonable assumption that most of the weather hoaxing crowd believe the ice cap will melt in a matter of a few decades?”
Firstly I disagree with your term ‘weather hoaxing crowd’. It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of the science. You seem unable to differentiate between a politically driven opinion and an evaluation of the science.

You said “Your leader Al Gore sure thinks so!”
You insist on making false statements with no evidence. Al Gore is not my leader.
=================================================================================
@rmitchell108
Great to see you link to a non-denier blog. It seems that you either did not read, or did not understand the article. Or you are really careless with what you post. You insist on posting utter nonsense, and now don't even seem to realise what actually contradicts your opinion.
You said “So, that knocks two birds out of the sky with one stone.”
What are these two birds? Please tell me. I have no idea what the two birds could be.
As far as I can tell the article 100% supports man made climate change. Please quote those bits that you think do not support man made climate change. I am betting that cannot find a single one. I have listed a few which show the opposite at the end of this post.
You said “It is just basic, fundamental Met 101 the sun is the dominant influence on our weather and climate.”
Please indicate what part of the article related to the weather. I do not see anything myself.
Supporting quotes for mostly man made global warming:
“In fact, the sun could currently be on the cusp of a miniature version of the Maunder Minimum, since the current solar cycle is the weakest in more than 50 years.”
“the researchers note that solar variability may have more of a regional effect than a global one.”
“do not assume that it is causing much of recent climate changes. It's pretty stable,”
“the sun is mostly likely responsible for less than 15 percent of the global temperature increases we've seen over the last century”

Grinnin'.VA | 21/07/2015

@ bb0tin | July 21, 2015

bb:>>> @rmitchell108
bb:>>> You said “Hey weather hoaxer”
bb:>>> You have not shown any ‘hoax’.

^^^
IMO, that doesn't matter to @rmitchell108. His focus is on a political PR effort to discredit science. Hadn't you noticed that in political attack ads, the truth is often portrayed as fiction, and fiction as truth?

bb:>>> You said “So you are equating nuclear fission/fusion science to climate change science? As if there was something comparable about both fields?”
bb:>>> You conflate science with politics.

^^^ Science is science. Politics is rarely based on science.

bb:>>> You said “Is it not a reasonable assumption that most of the weather hoaxing crowd believe the ice cap will melt in a matter of a few decades?”

^^^
AFAIK, there is no scientific consensus of when the "ice cap will melt" completely. His arguments about this question are mere smoke screen. A distraction.

bb:>>> You said “Your leader Al Gore sure thinks so!”
bb:>>> ... Al Gore is not my leader.

^^^ I'm not a fan of Al Gore either, and I've told him that. But that doesn't stop him from pretending that we blindly agree with whatever Gore says. Since Gore is regarded as a tarnished politician in "conservative" political circles, @rmitchell108 is just trying to discredit you by association with a hated political opponent. To him, it doesn't matter that the association is no more real than the fictious "communist" associations of quite a few victims in Sen. Joseph P. McCarthy's political smears back in the "Cold War".

In case some may misunderstand: I do indeed regard the "discussion" tactics used by @rmitchell108 on this topic to be very similar to those used by Sen. McCarthy in attacks against his political enemies back in the "Cold War".

MitchP85D | 21/07/2015

Hey grinnin' and bb0tin,

I can tell you are both back-tracking over the past few months. You used to think we have to take immediate action to stop the melting Arctic Ice Cap. Because AGW theory is a fact, and the science is settled, if we don't take immediate action, the ice cap will disappear soon, and we will all drown.

But in recent days, I can tell you are a bit subdued. Saying things like 10 years is too short of time for AGW to have any effect. It won't necessarily be on the order of decades before the ice cap melts. But this has been the main scare tactic by you weather hoaxers. We have to pass a carbon tax now, so the ice cap won't melt! Speaking of politics, that is where the politics is all coming from on this issue. It is all coming from you liberal-socialist-bureaucratic-bastards! You are the ones who try to tell people what kind of energy they should use, and how much they should be taxed based on the type of energy they use. I have nothing to do with the politics. I don't tell anybody what kind of energy they should use, and I don't advocate increasing their cost of living. I am non-political on the energy or climate issue because I DON'T TRY TO ALTER PEOPLES' LIVES like you liberal-progressives do. The politics - all of it is from your side of the climate change debate!

bb0tin | 22/07/2015

@rmitchell108
You said “I can tell you are both back-tracking over the past few months.” and “But in recent days, I can tell you are a bit subdued.”
These statements, with respect to me, are incorrect. Please provide quotes to support your opinion.

You said “Saying things like 10 years is too short of time for AGW to have any effect.”
You made this up as well. Please provide quotes to support your opinion.

You said “by you weather hoaxers” and “It is all coming from you liberal-socialist-bureaucratic-bastards!”
You are repeating your baseless opinion again. I have not been talking politics, I have been talking science. You will not find an instance in my discussions with you where you could discern my politic beliefs. You would not know if I am fascist, socialist, left-wing, right wing, liberal, communist or anything else. Moreover, I have not attempted to say what political persuasion is.

“The politics - all of it is from your side of the climate change debate!”
I challenge you to find a single political statement from me in my discussions with you. Just one. A single measly one. Come on, give it a go. You will fail. But of course that won’t stop you from repeating your claims. I don’t need to look far for political statements from you since you made several in just your last post.

MitchP85D | 22/07/2015

OK bb0tin.

Do you want to slap a carbon tax on those who drive their big-ass SUVs and pick-up trucks? Can you answer that?

bb0tin | 22/07/2015

@rmitchell108
I guess your lack of response to the challenge means that you accept that what you said was false.

You said "Do you want to slap a carbon tax on those who drive their big-ass SUVs and pick-up trucks? Can you answer that?"
Why would I want to answer that question? It has nothing to do with the sciennce of Climate Change. My opinion on the matter means nothing.

Grinnin'.VA | 23/07/2015

@ rmitchell108 | July 21, 2015

>>> Hey grinnin' and bb0tin,

>>> You used to think we have to take immediate action to stop the melting Arctic Ice Cap.

^^^
I urge you to look at the record and post a followup message on this thread with one of two options:

1. Here's the link to one of Grinnin'.VA's post saying that "we have to take immediate action to stop the melting Arctic Ice Cap". Or,

2. I looked at the record and failed find a post by Grinnin'VA stating that he thought that. I apologize for my erroneous claim.

Please show us a modicum amount of decency and quit distorting what we write on these forums.

Pages