patrick.net

mell says

Solar minimum is the period of least solar activity in the 11 year solar cycle of the sun. During this time, sunspot and solar flare activity diminishes, and often does not occur for days at a time. This causes the sun to radiate less heat.

So what do YOU think the solar minimum is?

That's exactly what it is and it blows away any "man-made" warming, eventually leading to a mini ice-age. You don't want that.

The low in a 11 year CYCLE will lead to a mini ice-age?
Really?

Heraclitusstudent says

Direct measures providing INCONTROVERTIBLE proofs that the CO2 warms the planet and not the sun:
1 - out bound earth radiations measured by satellites since 70s diminishing in spectrum absorbed by CO2
2 - low atmosphere temperatures increasing more than high elevation temperatures. The opposite would be true if the sun was responsible.
3 - night temperatures increasing more than day temperatures. The opposite would be true if the sun was responsible. Well sorry greenhouse effect works at night too.
4 - polar temperatures increasing more than tropic temperatures. The opposite would be true if the sun was responsible.
5 - winter temperatures increasing more than summer temperatures. The opposite would be true if the sun was responsible.
etc, etc...

What happen direct sun measurements?
Nah....

How do we know it's greenhouse effect created by CO2?

In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. The 2 datasets were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period. The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:




There is a drop in out going radiations around the level known to be absorbed by CO2.
Just coincidence, right?

Looks like a nice coating of UVA on that thing...

anon_37bba says

Virtually no sunspots:

Heraclitusstudent says

That ONE chart is what makes the "Alarmists" narrative fall completely to shit. We're suppose to be concerned about a one degree change in temperatures over a 125+ YEAR time frame??

Really?

If one degree C is so catastrophic to the human race, please explain how people can live year round on the Arctic Circle and how people can live year round at the Equator?

Kinda makes that whole "Going Parabolic" argument total nonsense, doesn't it?

HeadSet says

As many educated Pat netters know, (complete) burning a hydrocarbon releases 2 major green house gases - carbon dioxide and water vapor.

Except no, there is no water vapor released when burning gas.

Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas and is of course necessary for the temperature balance that existed long before we burned CO2. Left to itself it self regulates: water condenses into clouds when cooled and falls back on the surface. It's called rain. There was no reason for that to change until recently.

But of course...as temperature rises, the maximum sustainable water vapor concentration increases by about 7% per degree Celsius. Clouds too depend on temperature, pressure, convection and water vapor amounts. So a change in CO2 that affects the greenhouse effect will also change the water vapor and the clouds. Thus, the total greenhouse effect after a change in CO2 needs to account for the consequent changes in the other components as well. If, for instance, CO2 concentrations are doubled, then the absorption would increase by 4 W/m2, but once the water vapor and clouds react, the absorption increases by almost 20 W/m2 — demonstrating that (in the GISS climate model, at least) the "feedbacks" are amplifying the effects of the initial radiative forcing from CO2 alone.

Heraclitusstudent says

HeadSet says

As many educated Pat netters know, (complete) burning a hydrocarbon releases 2 major green house gases - carbon dioxide and water vapor.

Except no, there is no water vapor released when burning gas.

Hmmmm, better check again:

Hydrocarbon combustion refers to the type of reaction where a hydrocarbon reacts with oxygen to create carbon dioxide, water, and heat.
http://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Hydrocarbon_combustion

Heraclitusstudent says

the "feedbacks" are amplifying the effects of the initial radiative forcing from CO2 alone.

So why don't you answer the questions:
How much has the temp and sea level risen in the last hundred years?
How much did the temp rise between 2015 (2nd hottest year) and 2016 ( hottest year EVER)?
How can they measure such a small increase over the entire globe?
If the earth is warming why is the hottest temp ever recorded over a century old?
What is the ideal temp for human habitation?

Still waiting for answers to these important questions.

Heraclitusstudent,

Burning any hydrocarbon does indeed produce water vapor in the reaction. That fact is very easy to check and I suspect was readily know to most readers of this blog.

Just as those thousands of flight over the Christmas season are adding tons of "carbon" to the air, they are also adding tons of "hydro." Time for Goldman-Sachs to start a Hydro Credit Trading Exchange.

By the way, the Earth is gaining more water every day. Each time the orbit passes through comet trails or is impacted by comets themselves, water is collected. Comets and related debris gathered over the Earth's life may be how the water got here in the first place.

Until there is enough hydrogen inside the Sun, I guess that we don't need to worry too much.
The Sun was here way before us, and will be here to send us heat and light for at least another 5 billion years, so if the sunspots reduce their number for a while you don't need to worry because they will be back in a couple of weeks.

This is the same Martin Armstrong that spent 10 years in jail for fraud right? Great source.

We know Mother Nature is out to fuck us. We just have no idea how or when.

The earths axis is wobbling, we're drifting further away from the Sun every year.
Yet through all of this the Ancient Observatory monuments still line up perfectly, how is that possible?
If you have ever done any tile work, being just 1/32 off on a straight line over distance the variance can drift to being inches off over 30 feet. Just imagine how far out of focus the Sun would be over the 1,00's and even 1000's of years since those monuments were made.

The cave in Ireland that once a year, the sun shines through perfectly at the exact same time every year.
In Machupichu there are stones with a hole, and a stone several yards away higher up. Once a year this Temple was used to observe a Star in the Southern Cross.
There's plenty of example of these sites in archaeological sites around the world.

Tenpoundbass says

The cave in Ireland that once a year, the sun shines through perfectly at the exact same time every year.

That's Newgrange (Brú na Bóinne in Irish), a neolithic tomb which is at least 5000 years old. Went there last year. Very cool.