Global cooling - Feet of Hail on Equator in Colombia and Ecuador

We also have been experiencing the natural affect of a mag pole shift.

www.zengardner.com...

Water in the form of a gas will be affected be a magnetic field on an atomic level. Thus, the water cycle will be shifting it's pattern in the upper atmosphere is also in play IMHO.

It is interesting to ponder what might happen if we were to experience a mini ice age today vs the 1600's. The population that we have today that relies on temperate areas to provide the majority of the grain supplies for humans and the livestock need to survive would be forced to relocate in more habitable areas.

It could be we are perched on a major pole shift and we have not been around with all this technology to see it. OR history has lost the records.

www.mnn.com...

phys.org...

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...


For me, this better explains what is happening than the CO2 hoax being perpetuated on the people for greedy people with agendas.

a reply to: pheonix358

Tough. Climate is complex and people should want to know the details. That way maybe we can have less derpy discussions about it.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: pheonix358

Tough. Climate is complex and people should want to know the details. That way maybe we can have less derpy discussions about it.

Kali, I agree it is tough and i am going where the data I have felt is worthy leads us. Ditto for MC and Phage, we just disagree on who is trustworthy at this point. But certainly, events that our weather is bringing lately mean big changes are coming. Huge swings in climate are normal, if we can believe the geological scientists interpretation. Our problem interpreting the data is that our span of time to view any data trends is short. Perhaps if we can keep this civilization intact for a long time we can develop more reliable trend reporting and weather models that don't fail several days into the projection as they do now. Best guesses of good scientists seem to say the Sun will slow down and speed up the heating of the earth during the sun spot cycles.

The climate is always changing.

The only difference now is the chicken little's that are trying to make something out of it and the scammers that are trying to make big money from it.

In this case i believe from my research that man is only causing 5 to 10% of the change and the rest is natural.

And nothing we do will stop the climate change. we might slow it down by a couple years but not stop it.
And its better to spend money to deal with the change then to try to stop the change.

I've said that they seem to be doing gymnastics trying to persuade people that the climate is getting warmer when just the opposite is obvious. It's a cash grab but they're now faced with having their credibility seriously damaged which is what they really fear.

Global warming cooling whatever it is sure has the jet-stream messed up. I watch that a bunch on satellite sights and it is whipping more now then I can remember.
I could almost have seen this coming. Never have I not had a well defined Equator. Yesterday or the night before it just almost was not there at all. I was actually checking the cold front hitting us in Florida to see what was going to push it back.

I think we are certainly heading towards bad weather in the future the world over.
I'm actually a strong believer these tsunami that move the earth just the slightest are to blame. Or could be the sun doesn't matter we can not fix it. To bad.

Hail does not confirm cooling, if anything it is the opposite. It shows the intense energy of a storm. Hail means that the intense storm had enough updraft to blow the rain droplets up high enough into the atmosphere where it is freezing. Hail has nothing to do with surface temperatures.

a reply to: Rezlooper

Perhaps you would be interested in hearing some interesting correlations between the sun and climate by CERN scientist in Sweden.

cds.cern.ch...

a reply to: glend


PTN: A lack of solar flaring and lack of CME also shrinks our atmosphere. It 'condenses' it.
Density increases.
See from 2010: science.nasa.gov...

a reply to: Rosha

Yes very interesting, Thanks

a reply to: Rosha

Your source:

The thermosphere ranges in altitude from 90 km to 600+ km. It is a realm of meteors, auroras and satellites, which skim through the thermosphere as they circle Earth.

The thermosphere is not, except in a technical sense, part of the atmosphere. What happens up there doesn't really translate to what happens down here. On the other hand:

For instance, trends in global climate could alter the composition of the thermosphere, changing its thermal properties and the way it responds to external stimuli. The overall sensitivity of the thermosphere to solar radiation could actually be increasing.

"The density anomalies," they wrote, "may signify that an as-yet-unidentified climatological tipping point involving energy balance and chemistry feedbacks has been reached."

science.nasa.gov...

Our sensors all show that something wacky is happening. For backup, we have the ice cores and trapped gasses in rocks, the solar minimum upon us, increased CO2 and a great deal of minutia. However, what is obviously lacking is adequate and accurate historical record to correlate what the aftermath will be. If we had 50k or so years of accurate world climate data, then it probably would be much easier.

We rely heavily on models of what-if's, based upon what we have put into the simulations.
Our current level of understanding still cannot tell us exactly what to expect.

originally posted by: charlyv
Our sensors all show that something wacky is happening. For backup, we have the ice cores and trapped gasses in rocks, the solar minimum upon us, increased CO2 and a great deal of minutia. However, what is obviously lacking is adequate and accurate historical record to correlate what the aftermath will be. If we had 50k or so years of accurate world climate data, then it probably would be much easier.

We rely heavily on models of what-if's, based upon what we have put into the simulations.
Our current level of understanding still cannot tell us exactly what to expect.

Our current level of understanding still cannot tell us exactly what to expect.

But even if it can't tell us exactly what to expect, it sure can tell us enough, with high certainty, that there is a problem which will get far worse for generations, and the time was 20 years ago to truly stop making it worse.

If you get a scan and the doctor finds three tumors in your lung, does biomedical science know enough exactly what to expect, as in you will hemorrhage in 84.21 days from now with 0.75 liters of blood loss? No. Does it know enough to tell you that you need surgery NOW, and you're a fool if you don't? You betcha!

The "what we have put into the simulations" are based on decades of intensive scientific research and observational and experimental data. They are not just "made up crap", but dependent on the same laws of physics used throughout the science & engineering worlds for many fields of endeavor.

Only in global warming, where some part of the public doesn't like the answer and doesn't want to feel responsible, do laymen think they know better than the experts about the reliability & quality of the understanding. In the 1960's the scientists knew that they didn't know enough. By the early 1990's the scientists knew then that they knew enough about the big picture to be sure. Now we know even more and are more certain.

originally posted by: Rezlooper
Hail does not confirm cooling, if anything it is the opposite. It shows the intense energy of a storm. Hail means that the intense storm had enough updraft to blow the rain droplets up high enough into the atmosphere where it is freezing. Hail has nothing to do with surface temperatures.

Right. Increased precipitation, especially violent convective disturbances, is a sign of increased latent energy being transformed into kinetic and thermodynamic changes.

Increased latent energy comes from a higher difference between hot surface and cold. And more hot comes from global warming.

originally posted by: ANNED
The climate is always changing.

The only difference now is the chicken little's that are trying to make something out of it and the scammers that are trying to make big money from it.

In this case i believe from my research that man is only causing 5 to 10% of the change and the rest is natural.

What is the scientific evidence the change is 'natural'?

What is the physical mechanism of the natural change, and how is it diagnosed in the data in contrast to increased greenhouse effect from global warming? How is the current undersatnding of global warming incorrect quantitatively? How do you address the existing large set of observations supporting the current consensus? Take for instance the recent results from the Berkeley Earth project (started by a former skeptic).

You've done your research so you do have answers for these, yes?

originally posted by: Justoneman

For me, this better explains what is happening than the CO2 hoax being perpetuated on the people for greedy people with agendas.

What is the physical mechanism relating a 'pole shift' to global warming? Where is the evidence in the data for this mechanism?

a reply to: mbkennel

What is the physical mechanism of the natural change, and how is it diagnosed in the data in contrast to increased greenhouse effect from global warming?

How do you address the existing large set of observations supporting the current consensus?

There is no consensus! There is a huge climate debate. On one side we have sensible people and on the other we have greedy little bastards reaping huge cash inflows by running around with doom porn. None of the woes have ever come to pass. Carbon taxes are worth billions upon billions of dollars.

How about you jump off the pedestal and do some research following the money trail.

P