Solar activity is declining—what to expect?

August 17, 2015 by Tomasz Nowakowski report
The Sun by the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly of NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory. Credit: NASA

(Phys.org)—Is Earth slowly heading for a new ice age? Looking at the decreasing number of sunspots, it may seem that we are entering a nearly spotless solar cycle which could result in lower temperatures for decades. "The solar cycle is starting to decline. Now we have less active regions visible on the sun's disk," Yaireska M. Collado-Vega, a space weather forecaster at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, told Phys.org.

But does it really mean a colder climate for our planet in the near future? In 1645, the so-called Maunder Minimum period started, when there were almost no sunspots. It lasted for 70 years and coincided with the well-known "Little Ice Age", when Europe and North America experienced lower-than-average temperatures. However, the theory that decreased solar activity caused the climate change is still controversial as no convincing evidence has been shown to prove this correlation.

Helen Popova, a Lomonosov Moscow State University researcher predicts that if the existing theories about the impact of solar activity on the climate are true, then this minimum will lead to a significant cooling, similar to the one during the Maunder Minimum period. She recently developed a unique physical-mathematical model of the evolution of the magnetic activity of the sun and used it to gain the patterns of occurrence of global minima of solar activity and gave them a physical interpretation.

"Given that our future minimum will last for at least three solar cycles, which is about 30 years, it is possible that the lowering of the temperature will not be as deep as during the Maunder Minimum," Popova said earlier in July. "But we will have to examine it in detail. We keep in touch with climatologists from different countries. We plan to work in this direction."

The solar cycle is the periodic change in the Sun's activity and appearance like changes in the number of sunspots. It has an average duration of about 11 years. The current began on in January 2008, with minimal activity until early 2010. The sun is now on track to have the lowest recorded sunspot activity since accurate records began in 1750. The long-term decline in solar activity set in after the last grand solar maximum peaked in 1956.

But according to Collado-Vega, the current minimum in the number of sunspots doesn't mean that the sun won't show us its violent nature in the coming years.

"There is a development for coronal holes, due to the reconfiguration of the sun's magnetic field, that bear the well-known high-speed streams. These high-speed streams have the ability to cause strong geomagnetic storms at Earth, and changes to the radiation environment in the inner magnetosphere," Collado-Vega noted.

Coronal holes are regions with lower density and temperatures in the sun's outer atmosphere, known as the corona. The sun contains magnetic fields that arch away from areas in the corona that are very thin due to the lower levels of energy and gas, which cause coronal holes to appear when they do not fall back. Thus, solar particles or solar wind escape and create a lower density and lower temperature in that area.

The existing fleet of spacecraft studying the sun includes the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) and the Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO), which provide continuous solar observations that are currently enhancing our knowledge about sun's corona. And if that's not enough, a new NASA probe named Solar Probe Plus is being developed to revolutionize our understanding of solar phenomena. Significantly, the mission, with a planned launch in mid-2018, will fly closer to the sun than any previous spacecraft. Its primary science goals are to trace the flow of energy and understand the heating of the solar corona and to explore the physical mechanisms that accelerate the solar wind and energetic particles. This would definitely improve future forecasts and help us more accurately predict the impact that the features on the have on our planet.

Explore further: Solar minimum; solar maximum

Related Stories

Solar minimum; solar maximum

November 27, 2012

(Phys.org)—The picture on the left shows a calm sun from Oct. 2010. The right side, from Oct. 2012, shows a much more active and varied solar atmosphere as the sun moves closer to peak solar activity, a peak known as solar ...

Large coronal hole near the sun's north pole

July 20, 2013

The European Space Agency/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, or SOHO, captured this image of a gigantic coronal hole hovering over the sun's north pole on July 18, 2013, at 9:06 a.m. EDT. Coronal holes are dark, low ...

NASA's SDO sees two coronal holes

March 18, 2015

NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory, or SDO, captured this solar image on March 16, 2015, which clearly shows two dark patches, known as coronal holes. The larger coronal hole of the two, near the southern pole, covers an estimated ...

Irregular heartbeat of the Sun driven by double dynamo

July 9, 2015

A new model of the Sun's solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun's 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface ...

SOHO image: Here comes the sun

July 13, 2015

The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) has been watching the Sun for almost 20 years. In that time it has seen solar activity ramp up and die down repeatedly. Its Extreme ultraviolet Imaging Telescope has taken images ...

No, we aren't heading into a 'mini ice age'

July 27, 2015

Wouldn't it be great if scientists could make their minds up? One minute they're telling us our planet is warming up due to human activity and we run the risk of potentially devastating environmental change. Next, they're ...

Recommended for you

Rosetta captures comet outburst

August 25, 2016

In unprecedented observations made earlier this year, Rosetta unexpectedly captured a dramatic comet outburst that may have been triggered by a landslide.

ALMA finds unexpected trove of gas around larger stars

August 25, 2016

Astronomers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) surveyed dozens of young stars—some Sun-like and others approximately double that size—and discovered that the larger variety have surprisingly ...

35 years on, Voyager's legacy continues at Saturn

August 25, 2016

Saturn, with its alluring rings and numerous moons, has long fascinated stargazers and scientists. After an initial flyby of Pioneer 11 in 1979, humanity got a second, much closer look at this complex planetary system in ...

Rocky planet found orbiting habitable zone of nearest star

August 24, 2016

An international team of astronomers including Carnegie's Paul Butler has found clear evidence of a planet orbiting Proxima Centauri, the closest star to our Solar System. The new world, designated Proxima b, orbits its cool ...

130 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (24) Aug 17, 2015
This will be the final nail, in the AGW Cult's coffin of CO2 lies.
AGreatWhopper
3.1 / 5 (14) Aug 17, 2015
QED: Phys.org is DELIBERATELY baiting trolls and LIKE the pointless exchanges with fucking idiots and their liberal tormentors.
jljenkins
3.9 / 5 (21) Aug 17, 2015
Amen! At a minimum they need to publish IP addresses and require straight links to FB so we don't have to deal with fucktard anonymous cowards like antigoracle. You know, if you have no life but spamming the same old crap over and over, then you really should do the right thing and end it.
axemaster
4.3 / 5 (27) Aug 17, 2015
I can't wait for this thread to explode with "told you so".

However, the theory that decreased solar activity caused the climate change is still controversial as no convincing evidence has been shown to prove this correlation.


Of course this critical statement will go unnoticed... After all, for a denier 97% of scientists isn't enough to convince them that global warming exists, but an unsupported speculation to the contrary has the weight and majesty of Thor's Hammer.
SamB
2 / 5 (21) Aug 17, 2015
I can't wait for this thread to explode with "told you so".

Of course this critical statement will go unnoticed... After all, for a denier 97% of scientists isn't enough to convince them that global warming exists, but an unsupported speculation to the contrary has the weight and majesty of Thor's Hammer.


You must have a problem with religion because 97% of most religious leaders believe in their favorite deity. Using your logic, your religious beliefs must swing wildly with all the worlds Gods.
Or are you a denier?
jim_xanara
2.4 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2015
Say the word "Jewish" and you get censored instantly. Threaten to kill millions via ignorance and you've a place to post. I'm sure Andrew Zinin, editor-in-chief's own demographics has nothing to do with that. I'm so shocked that he's so mercenary. Nothing like the claims we make about kleptocracy.
NiteSkyGerl
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 17, 2015
Point taken that being an anti-semite is worse than spreading climate change misinformation. You really have to wonder what kind of vermin would accept that AGW is a critical issue and then take money to promote deniers.

Do any of the trolls, like SamB have ANY concept of the falsifiability criteria? Obviously not if he can equate a falsifiable hypothesis with a fairy story. And at least 1/2 the US and much more in Europe don't believe it. Can you say anything without making up numbers???
bschott
4.3 / 5 (17) Aug 17, 2015
Look on the bright side. If, for the next 30 years temperatures remain close to current levels despite a decrease in solar energy output, It will demonstrate AGW due to CO2 is a valid and verified theory. If temperatures drop over the next 30 years....it will reveal one of the scams of the century...whether it was intended to be one or not.

CO2 absorption lines dictate that it traps heat, this is tried and true...is it as effective as we have been telling the world it is? In this case time will definitely tell.
jeffensley
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2015
Amen! At a minimum they need to publish IP addresses and require straight links to FB so we don't have to deal with fucktard anonymous cowards like antigoracle. You know, if you have no life but spamming the same old crap over and over, then you really should do the right thing and end it.


Yeah , silence the dissenters!
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (17) Aug 17, 2015
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (14) Aug 17, 2015
Re: "Of course this critical statement will go unnoticed... After all, for a denier 97% of scientists isn't enough to convince them that global warming exists, but an unsupported speculation to the contrary has the weight and majesty of Thor's Hammer."

If all we did was count scientists like jelly beans, there'd be no space program at all. After all, the scientific consensus in 1944 when rockets started raining down upon London was that space-based rocketry was just simply absurd.

The practice of counting scientists led to an existential threat. Those who invite the public to count scientists apparently learned nothing from that crucial history lesson.
jeffensley
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2015
Look on the bright side. If, for the next 30 years temperatures remain close to current levels despite a decrease in solar energy output, It will demonstrate AGW due to CO2 is a valid and verified theory. If temperatures drop over the next 30 years....it will reveal one of the scams of the century...whether it was intended to be one or not.

CO2 absorption lines dictate that it traps heat, this is tried and true...is it as effective as we have been telling the world it is? In this case time will definitely tell.


Nice to see that reasonable people still post here. Thanks. Not sure I agree that it will be a black and white scenario given the amount of variables (known and unknown) that exist but based on what we DO know, we should be looking at two of the "big boys" in action. Albedo (cloud cover, snow/ice cover) and geophysics/atmospheric particulates belong up there as well but those still lie in the realm of the completely unpredictable.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 17, 2015
Ice age you say.
Well, I expect that there will be lots of ice for the AGW Cult's special Kool-Aid brew.
Of course, the Chicken Little hypocrites would refuse to drink it, complaining that it's still too warm.
axemaster
4.6 / 5 (20) Aug 17, 2015
I love how everybody insists that consensus among scientists isn't meaningful. What is going wrong inside your brains? The fact that you make a comparison to religion really illustrates that you don't understand what science is.

Science:
1. Gather information
2. Think up a logical and self-consistent theory to explain it.
3. Use the theory to predict something you haven't already seen.
4. Check the theory by looking for the predicted effect. If it isn't there, the theory is wrong.

Religion:
1. Come up with a story. Usually not logical or self-consistent.
2. Avoid gathering information, or ignore any information that doesn't fit the theory.
3. When the problems are too blatant to ignore, declare that part of the story to be "metaphor".
4. The story is never wrong.

Now, between the climatologists/scientists, and the global warming deniers, which do you think is basically a religion?
greenonions
5 / 5 (15) Aug 17, 2015
HannesAlfven
After all, the scientific consensus in 1944 when rockets started raining down upon London was that space-based rocketry was just simply absurd.


Do you have any references that would support this statement Hannes? It seems there have been a number of assertions about what scientific consensus use to be (ie the earth is flat) - that don't seem to be based in historic fact.
Zzzzzzzz
4.5 / 5 (15) Aug 17, 2015
I can't wait for this thread to explode with "told you so".

However, the theory that decreased solar activity caused the climate change is still controversial as no convincing evidence has been shown to prove this correlation.


Of course this critical statement will go unnoticed... After all, for a denier 97% of scientists isn't enough to convince them that global warming exists, but an unsupported speculation to the contrary has the weight and majesty of Thor's Hammer.

Due to the delusional psychotics need for vigorous defense of their fragile belief systems, the delusionist will never see the true nature of his psychosis. Climate change denial is just like religious belief - the fragile sanity the delusionist maintains is easily threatened by truth. Therefore truth is not to be sought, but defended against. These psychos have even gone so far as to convince themselves they have scientific interests, when its all a masquerade for delusional belief defense.
Zzzzzzzz
4.2 / 5 (15) Aug 17, 2015
Find a time in human history when delusional people have not masqueraded as those interested in truth, when their sole aim is to destroy it

You cannot. The capacity for self delusion has been shown to have had a survival benefit for humans. What percentage of the population maintains a religious belief system of some sort? That gives an accurate picture of the widespread psychosis humanity struggles with.......
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (19) Aug 17, 2015
Science:
1. Gather information
2. Think up a logical and self-consistent theory to explain it.
3. Use the theory to predict something you haven't already seen.
4. Check the theory by looking for the predicted effect. If it isn't there, the theory is wrong.


AGW Cult "science":
1. Come up with a story. Usually not logical or self-consistent.
2. Avoid gathering information, or ignore any information that doesn't fit the theory.
3. When the problems are too blatant to ignore, declare that part of the story to be "metaphor".
4. The story is never wrong.
jeffensley
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 17, 2015
The 97% lie.
http://www.wsj.co...13553136


Thanks for that link. It allowed me to do a little searching and I found a couple good reads. This article...

http://www.popula...sts.html

with some interesting quotes from the scientists themselves who had their research mislabeled as endorsing AGW by Cook et al.

And the following paper is a FAR more thorough study of scientific opinion on climate change. It was heartening to see that science by and large is exactly where it should be on this issue... in the middle. Only alarmists seeking to dishonestly influence opinion can continue to reference this 97% consensus...

http://ncse.com/f...nge_.pdf
mytwocts
3.9 / 5 (21) Aug 17, 2015
Science:
1. Gather information
2. Think up a logical and self-consistent theory to explain it.
3. Use the theory to predict something you haven't already seen.
4. Check the theory by looking for the predicted effect. If it isn't there, the theory is wrong.


AGW Cult "science":
1. Come up with a story. Usually not logical or self-consistent.
2. Avoid gathering information, or ignore any information that doesn't fit the theory.
3. When the problems are too blatant to ignore, declare that part of the story to be "metaphor".
4. The story is never wrong.


Antigoracle==moron QED.
TechnoCreed
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2015
mytwocts
4.7 / 5 (13) Aug 17, 2015
After all, the scientific consensus in 1944 when rockets started raining down upon London was that space-based rocketry was just simply absurd.

Which leading scientists in 1944 thought space based rocketry was absurd?
casualjoe
3.9 / 5 (14) Aug 17, 2015
antigoracle, you think Hindu is a language, you don't give a damn about the world outside of your country. Do you really think people here are going to listen to your facetious comments about global issues?

Don't answer.
mytwocts
4.4 / 5 (14) Aug 17, 2015
If all we did was count scientists like jelly beans, ... [nonsense skipped] ...

You are confusing two different aspects. Scientists do not base their judgement on what other scientists think but on experimental and theoretical results. Politicians and the public (ideally) DOES base its judgement on what the majority of scientists think.
denglish
2.2 / 5 (13) Aug 17, 2015
4. Check the theory by looking for the predicted effect. If it isn't there, the theory is wrong.

Do any of the trolls, like SamB have ANY concept of the falsifiability criteria?

OK, and Yes!

The theory is wrong, and falsified:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

A good article that actually leans towards describing a better understanding of what *really* affects our climate, and the only thing AGWs can muster is vitriol. What a shame.
mytwocts
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 17, 2015
Anyone fascinated by the crackpot phenomenon should check out this site:
h e i w a c o .tripod.com/ m o o n t r a v e l .htm
This guy makes any crackpot on phys.org look normal.
Use a proxy ...
mytwocts
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 17, 2015
4. Check the theory by looking for the predicted effect. If it isn't there, the theory is wrong.

Do any of the trolls, like SamB have ANY concept of the falsifiability criteria?

OK, and Yes!

The theory is wrong, and falsified:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

The data in the plot clearly show GW. The models overestimate the magnitude, but correctly and consistently predict the trend.
Is that your message?
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2015
The data in the plot clearly show GW. The models overestimate the magnitude, but correctly and consistently predict the trend.
Is that your message?

Hi George.

Almost. The current hiatus places a caveat on "correctly and consistently".

It is concerning to me that the alarm being generated is per the upper limits of the model predictions, which clearly are not happening. Even more concerning is that the models are biased to find manmade forcing factors, not all (which is impossible) factors.

Mankind is not guilty of what the earth is doing to the extent economic ruin and moral corruption can be justified. Ironically, the policies that have been enacted are crippling the very things that will bring us to being cleaner.

jeffensley
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 17, 2015
The data in the plot clearly show GW. The models overestimate the magnitude, but correctly and consistently predict the trend.
Is that your message?


And most everyone agrees that it's currently occurring... the big question is, do we even need to be concerned about it and to what extent is warming due to human activity?
mytwocts
4.1 / 5 (13) Aug 17, 2015
The current hiatus places a caveat on "correctly and consistently".

The trend is unmistakably upward.
It is concerning to me that the alarm being generated is per the upper limits of the model predictions, which clearly are not happening.

That is the good news. It gives us more time.
Even more concerning is that the models are biased to find manmade forcing factors, not all (which is impossible) factors.

With "manmade factors" I assume you mean CO2. The model predicts that an increase in CO2 cause an increase in T. What is your concern with that ? What other factors do you want to include, since I know none that correlates with global T.
Mankind is not guilty

It is not about guilt. It is about risk.
Ironically, the policies that have been enacted are crippling the very things that will bring us to being cleaner.

Whether the measures are adequate is a separate but important discussion.

denglish
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2015
And most everyone agrees that it's currently occurring... the big question is, do we even need to be concerned about it and to what extent is warming due to human activity?

Exactly.
denglish
2 / 5 (12) Aug 17, 2015
The trend is unmistakably upward.

Actually, over the last 18 years 7 months, the trend has been cooling.

That is the good news. It gives us more time.

The bad news is that we are being guided by falsified theories.

What other factors do you want to include, since I know none that correlates with global T

What factors shouldn't be included? In regards to climate, one of the things I'm finding out in my readings is that we don't' know what we don't know. To answer your question though, Pacific Decadal Oscillation is one.

It is not about guilt. It is about risk.

That is reasonable. However, the policies being levied are not mitigating; they are punishing.

Whether the measures are adequate is a separate but important discussion.

I don't think they're separate. The measures are a result of the policies being enacted due to the fear/concern being generated by models that haven't been vetted via observation.
mytwocts
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 17, 2015
And most everyone agrees that it's currently occurring... the big question is, do we even need to be concerned about it and to what extent is warming due to human activity?

Exactly.

No doubt many people will even deny global warming itself.
Q1. Can we ignore it?
A1. No we can't. We see detrimental effects of warming.
Q2. Is it due to human activity?
A2. It exclusively correlates with human CO2 production so a human contribution is likely.
mytwocts
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 17, 2015
the policies being levied are not mitigating; they are punishing.

Any solution inevitably come with a price tag, like any risk reduction.
I don't think they're separate. The measures are a result of the policies being enacted due to the fear/concern being generated by models that haven't been vetted via observation.

Solutions and problems should be distinguished.
mytwocts
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2015
Solutions should be distinguished from the problems they are designed to solve.
denglish
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2015
A2. It exclusively correlates with human CO2 production so a human contribution is likely.

Exclusively? No way.

Even partially can be debated two ways to Sunday, and back again.
jeffensley
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2015
No doubt many people will even deny global warming itself.
Q1. Can we ignore it?
A1. No we can't. We see detrimental effects of warming.


Detrimental is ambiguous. In the eyes of alarmists, melting ice is detrimental as is plants blooming a week early. It seems to me "change" alone is the defining characteristic of "detrimental" effects of climate change. We need a better standard than that.

Q2. Is it due to human activity?
A2. It exclusively correlates with human CO2 production so a human contribution is likely.


"Exclusively" is probably not an accurate word. Solar activity has been correlated as well and if we had better data, I suspect cloud cover would also see a direct correlation with temperature.
freeiam
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2015
axe aster: "I love how everybody insists that consensus among scientists isn't meaningful. What is going wrong inside your brains? The fact that you make a comparison to religion really illustrates that you don't understand what science is.
...
Now, between the climatologists/scientists, and the global warming deniers, which do you think is basically a religion? "

Consensus isnt meaningful at all, only facts and a sound argument are. 97% of scientist can be wrong 100% of the time. The scientific method doesn't seem to work for very complex multifaceted system like the human body or the climate of the Earth, at least not initially.
Also, climate 'science' is a very young discipline and seems to be more like a social/soft science.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2015
Amen! At a minimum they need to publish IP addresses and require straight links to FB so we don't have to deal with fucktard anonymous cowards like antigoracle. You know, if you have no life but spamming the same old crap over and over, then you really should do the right thing and end it.

Yeah , silence the dissenters!


Uh,huh, then we can all believe in "Consensus Science", you know, like what the Pope & his Court of Consensus Science Cardinals did to Galileo for proving Earth is not the center of the Universe.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2015
Benni
1 / 5 (12) Aug 17, 2015
I love how everybody insists that consensus among scientists isn't meaningful.
Science:

Religion:
1. Come up with a story. Usually not logical or self-consistent.


.......so you must be referring to stories about something like the Tooth Fairy & her sister Cosmic Fairy Dust. Stories about stuff that envelopes 1/3 of the mass of the Universe (Spiral Galaxies) & supposedly composes 75-90% of the Universe? Yeah, Axeo, you probably think that kind of math is valid just so long as the majority who reason like you do have a "consensus" opinion.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2015
A2. It exclusively correlates with human CO2 production so a human contribution is likely.

Exclusively? No way.

Even partially can be debated two ways to Sunday, and back again.

Exclusively meaning with no other variable. Only with CO2.
If you do not agree, which other variable comes into play in your opinion?
mytwocts
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 17, 2015

Detrimental is ambiguous. In the eyes of alarmists,

Nothing ambiguous about it. I resent the term "alarmist". I put anyone who uses such terms on "ignore".

Q2. Is it due to human activity?
A2. It exclusively correlates with human CO2 production so a human contribution is likely.


"Exclusively" is probably not an accurate word. Solar activity has been correlated as well and if we had better data, I suspect cloud cover would also see a direct correlation with temperature.

Nothing inaccurate about it. Solar activity has not been correlated. Cloud cover is not an independent parameter.
leetennant
5 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2015
I find Popova's quotes incomprehensible based not just on her research but on other modelling into this phenomena. A Maunder Minimum is expected to shave a whopping 0.1 degree of temperatures.

Even this article says the previous Maunder was associated with cold temperatures only across Europe and North America - that's a regional change. Clearly there was another regional factor at work or there would have been a global impact. And we know what those regional factors were because they've been documented.

She was quoted saying similar things in a previous article and I assumed she was misquoted or taken out of context. The other authors on this study have made it clear the reduction in sunspot activity will in no way lead to a "new ice age".

This is the second time a weird, poorly-researched piece on this issue has been on phys.org. Maybe @AGreatWhopper is right and they're trolling. if so, that's deeply disappointing from an otherwise excellent site.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (11) Aug 17, 2015
mytwocts
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 17, 2015

Consensus isnt meaningful at all, only facts and a sound argument are. 97% of scientist can be wrong 100% of the time.

You are contradicting yourself. Scientists base themselves on "facts and a sound argument ".
The scientific method doesn't seem to work for very complex multifaceted system like the human body or the climate of the Earth, at least not initially.

That is nonsense.
Also, climate 'science' is a very young discipline and seems to be more like a social/soft science.

Frankly, where do you get this stuff ?

mytwocts
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 17, 2015
Amen! At a minimum they need to publish IP addresses and require straight links to FB so we don't have to deal with fucktard anonymous cowards like antigoracle. You know, if you have no life but spamming the same old crap over and over, then you really should do the right thing and end it.

Yeah , silence the dissenters!


Uh,huh, then we can all believe in "Consensus Science", you know, like what the Pope & his Court of Consensus Science Cardinals did to Galileo for proving Earth is not the center of the Universe.

You forget that Galileo was the scientist and that the pope was the crackpot. Do not confuse these two categories.
mytwocts
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 17, 2015
I love how everybody insists that consensus among scientists isn't meaningful.
Science:

Religion:
1. Come up with a story. Usually not logical or self-consistent.


.......so you must be referring to stories about something like the Tooth Fairy & her sister Cosmic Fairy Dust. Stories about stuff that envelopes 1/3 of the mass of the Universe (Spiral Galaxies) & supposedly composes 75-90% of the Universe? Yeah, Axeo, you probably think that kind of math is valid just so long as the majority who reason like you do have a "consensus" opinion.

This thread is not about your standard obsessions. Off-topic.
indio007
1 / 5 (6) Aug 17, 2015
Appeal to majority is a logical fallacy. As is appeal to authority.
mytwocts
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 17, 2015
Appeal to majority is a logical fallacy. As is appeal to authority.

97% of scientists will declare that QM is correct and that evolution is a fact.
There is however no logical fallacy, because they do this on the basis of the evidence.
Same here. 97% of scientists subscribe to the view that human cause is likely
on the basis of evidence. No logical fallacy.
indio007
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2015

You forget that Galileo was the scientist and that the pope was the crackpot. Do not confuse these two categories.

Not at the time.
leetennant
4.7 / 5 (13) Aug 17, 2015
It's not an appeal to authority fallacy if the person is an actual expert in the field.

"Trust me I'm a doctor" is an appeal to authority fallacy if you're talking about pork belly futures - not if you're talking about medicine. Unless you go to the Doctor when you've got the flu and then ignore their advice because that would be an "appeal to authority".

As for the idea that Galileo was on the side of fringe science and the pope was on the side of the scientific majority - that is ridiculously ahistorical. The Pope was on the side of mythologised dogma. All the astronomers at the time knew the Earth revolved around the Sun - Galileo was just the one who was loudest and who had incontrovertible proof.

Man I'm tired of the stupid. Can the stupid go somewhere else please?

Benni
1 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2015
I love how everybody insists that consensus among scientists isn't meaningful.
Science:

Religion:
1. Come up with a story. Usually not logical or self-consistent.


.......so you must be referring to stories about something like the Tooth Fairy & her sister Cosmic Fairy Dust. Stories about stuff that envelopes 1/3 of the mass of the Universe (Spiral Galaxies) & supposedly composes 75-90% of the Universe? Yeah, Axeo, you probably think that kind of math is valid just so long as the majority who reason like you do have a "consensus" opinion.

This thread is not about your standard obsessions. Off-topic.


Then practice what you preach, post ONLY about Solar Activity & cease with addressing "Off-Topic" issues.

mytwocts
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 17, 2015
I love how everybody insists that consensus among scientists isn't meaningful.
Science:

Religion:
1. Come up with a story. Usually not logical or self-consistent.


.......so you must be referring to stories about something like the Tooth Fairy & her sister Cosmic Fairy Dust. Stories about stuff that envelopes 1/3 of the mass of the Universe (Spiral Galaxies) & supposedly composes 75-90% of the Universe? Yeah, Axeo, you probably think that kind of math is valid just so long as the majority who reason like you do have a "consensus" opinion.

This thread is not about your standard obsessions. Off-topic.


Then practice what you preach, post ONLY about Solar Activity & cease with addressing "Off-Topic" issues.


I am .
Wait, you have not cared to read or understand any of my posts.
That's my Benni ! Regards to your exclusive pal Albert.
mytwocts
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2015

You forget that Galileo was the scientist and that the pope was the crackpot. Do not confuse these two categories.

Not at the time.

How so ?
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2015
The Pope was on the side of mythologised dogma.

So nothing has changed then.
https://www.googl...e+change
mytwocts
4.7 / 5 (13) Aug 17, 2015
The trend is unmistakably upward.

Actually, over the last 18 years 7 months, the trend has been cooling.

Not according to the plot you yourself referred to:
http://www.drroys...2013.png
What kind of sloppy talk is this Denglish?
You are wasting everyone's time here.
Benni
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 17, 2015
..so you must be referring to stories about something like the Tooth Fairy & her sister Cosmic Fairy Dust. Stories about stuff that envelopes 1/3 of the mass of the Universe (Spiral Galaxies) & supposedly composes 75-90% of the Universe? Yeah, Axeo, you probably think that kind of math is valid just so long as the majority who reason like you do have a "consensus" opinion.

This thread is not about your standard obsessions. Off-topic.


Then practice what you preach, post ONLY about Solar Activity & cease with addressing "Off-Topic" issues.


I am .
Wait, you have not cared to read or understand any of my posts.
That's my Benni ! Regards to your exclusive pal Albert.
.....because only two of your posts so far have anything to do with the topic of Solar Activity . Your grade school math is so bad you're unable to keep track of the number of times you commit the same "Off-topic" offenses you accuse others of committing.
mytwocts
4.7 / 5 (14) Aug 17, 2015
I beg to differ. You probably used your skills on Differential Equations to calculate that.
Have Albert check your calculations.
Now go back to trolling DM threads.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (13) Aug 17, 2015
The point of a scientific consensus is that a whole bunch of well-qualified experts agree on how things are. Could they be wrong? Sure, but it's pretty unlikely. Much more unlikely than that a bunch of random people on the Internet could form a consensus and still be wrong.

Getting back to the article, and specifically Popova, it seems she's a denier. Read the last paragraph of this: http://phys.org/n...age.html

OTOH, she's also not a geophysicist which means she's not an expert on climate, so her opinion on it is no better informed than any other layperson's.

She's also not very good at logic; showing there have been warmings and coolings before there were humans is not proof that humans can't cause warming. But she talks like it is. In logic terms, she's saying that A implies B means that B implies A, which is a known logical fallacy.
Benni
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 17, 2015
She's also not very good at logic; showing there have been warmings and coolings before there were humans is not proof that humans can't cause warming. But she talks like it is. In logic terms, she's saying that A implies B means that B implies A, which is a known logical fallacy.


Leaves me to wondering about how good she might come off looking when trying to cram 75-90% of the missing mass of the universe into galactic structures that comprise only 1/3 of the total mass of the Universe. Do you think she'd be on to that math?

One thing I've noticed AGWs all have in common, they believe in Dark Matter, without exception, now that's a "consensus".
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2015
antigoracle, you think Hindu is a language, you don't give a damn about the world outside of your country. Do you really think people here are going to listen to your facetious comments about global issues?

Don't answer.
--casualjoe...fulltimeIdiot
You know, idiots have my sympathy, so I try to refrain from responding to them.
I know Hindi, not Hindu, is a language. However, I don't know what your simple mind has deluded you into thinking where I'm from.
Osiris1
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2015
Looks like this will hit just as the global overturning current will start to fail due to planetary warming and consequent fresh water injection into the jet streams. When this happens we go from warming to a new 'Younger Dryas' climate regime on top of a Maunder Minimum. The Earth will become cold indeed and quicker than one thinks. Some of those mammoths frozen in ice were found with buttercups in their mouths.
AGreatWhopper
1.4 / 5 (7) Aug 18, 2015
Conservatives are doing this as well. It's time to stop feeding the trolls or admit you really don't give a damn about what you're preaching. http://www.thegua...-savchuk

Boycott all comments until trolls posting cut and paste spam are deleted. I don't have a lot of hope, though, given the level of hypocrisy the liberals show here.
plasmasrevenge
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2015
Re: "Some of those mammoths frozen in ice were found with buttercups in their mouths."

7 mammoth tusks have also been found with meteorites embedded in them.
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2015
The trend is unmistakably upward.

Actually, over the last 18 years 7 months, the trend has been cooling.

Not according to the plot you yourself referred to:
http://www.drroys...2013.png
What kind of sloppy talk is this Denglish?
You are wasting everyone's time here.

They're measuring two different things. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Please, pay attention to detail.

Now go back to trolling DM threads.

Has anyone else figured out that this is Boy George aka gkam?

showing there have been warmings and coolings before there were humans is not proof that humans can't cause warming.

Its not supposed to. What that point is illustrating is that when we consider climate change and AGW, we must keep in mind that the earth experiences cyclic changes. Are the changes that we are going through within the bounds of natural variance? yes, they are.

Boycott all comments

Typical response to being flummoxed.

mytwocts
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 18, 2015

They're measuring two different things. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Please, pay attention to detail.

Talking about detail, who are "they" ? What are the "things"?
Names, papers, etc.
Practice what you preach.
denglish
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2015
Talking about detail, who are "they" ? What are the "things"?
Names, papers, etc.
Practice what you preach.


*sigh* I cant' believe I have to carry you guys.

Ok. This:
http://www.drroys...2013.png
Is a falsification of models used to predict climate.

This:
http://woodfortre.../to:1997
Is a plot of the observations made by RSS, showing that for the last 18 years, there has beed a cooling trend in the lower tropic global mean.

I hope this clears it up for you.
kulashaker
5 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2015
Science : come up with an explanation and then try to prove it wrong
Religion : come up with an explanation and then try to prove it right.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2015
This
http://woodfortre.../to:1997
Is a plot of the observations made by RSS,
specifically cherry picked data
you should read the site first...
Beware sharp tools

However, with sharp tools comes great responsibility... Please read the notes on things to beware of - and in particular on the problems with short, cherry-picked trends. Remember that the signals we are dealing with are very, very noisy, and it's easy to get misled - or worse, still to mislead others
just because you can make a graph say whatever you want doesn't mean it is factually accurate
http://www.woodfo...60/trend

Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Aug 18, 2015
Ok. This:
http://www.drroys...2013.png
Is a falsification of models used to predict climate
no, that is a graphic posted out of context and is linked to a site where a person is known for attempting to post evidence in a format which mimic's verifiable, reputable peer reviewed studies to undermine actual science

the site is not posting links to validated studies or source material that prove your point, it is a blog site and a personal site which is NOT scientific...

IOW- it is opinion... AKA unsubstantiated conjecture based upon personal beliefs and attempting to mimic science to add legitimacy to it's posts... no different than any other fundamentalist religious post
denglish
2 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2015
Welcome back from your ban.

specifically cherry picked data

Wrong. It is calculated, not cherry picked. Using a date prior to 1997 shows an increase in temperature.

doesn't mean it is factually accurate

Wrong. It is factually representing the data entered. You should also know that RSS and HADCRUT4 measure different things.

that is a graphic posted out of context

Wrong. It is a graphical representation of CMIP5 predictions vs what has actually happened, thus showing CMIP5 failing in a key segment of the scientific process.

IOW- it is opinion

Please reference the actual predictions vs. actual observation. CMIP5 vs. HADCRUT4 and UAH readings.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 18, 2015
Welcome back from your ban
wasn't banned
It is calculated, not cherry picked
and yet, it is proven wrong when all data is incorporated:
http://www.woodfo...60/trend
so, yes, it IS chery picked
did you read the info on satelite data? probably not. try finding it: then remember this
Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature
http://journals.a...0.CO%3B2
http://books.nap....;page=17

toBcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 18, 2015
It is factually representing
no, it is a graphical representation of the data you want to present using data recovered from other sources. and you should know that you need to have accurate physical measurements
It is a graphical representation of CMIP5 predictions ... failing in a key segment of the scientific process
and you've already been shown (abovethat you are wrong
no point reiterating that again given your tendency to ignore factual data
IOW- it is opinion
Please reference the actual predictions vs. actual observation
red herring distraction from original comment
please demonstrate where dr roy's study you've previously linked (this one: http://www.drroys...esponse/ ) has ever been published in a reputable science journal

IOW- attempts to create a false sense of SCIENCE on an OPINION site are disingenuous, misleading and fraudulent.

toBcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 18, 2015
Please reference the actual predictions vs. actual observation. CMIP5 vs. HADCRUT4 and UAH readings
you ca do that yourself, just like i've used your own links to show your own references to be false as well as misleading

why are you refusing to accept land based measurements and accepting satellite measurements over them? is it because you think inferred temp is more accurate than actual measurement? or because of some other conspiratorial leanings? perhaps every scientist in the world has committed scientific sepuku and manipulated the measurements and forgot about integrity? is that it?
screw the cultural differences and lets get rich with a scam?

how exactly does that work?

more importantly... WHERE is the empirical evidence that debunks, refutes or in ANY way undermines the legitimate validated studies i've linked to you in the past?

where?

is it hidden by the governments?
what?
denglish
2 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2015
proven wrong when all data is incorporated:

Comparing HADCRUT4 and RSS is not comparing like measurements. Nothing is proven here except that one can compare apples and oranges, and get different results.

IS chery picked

Wrong. It is calculated.

then remember this

So?

data you want to present

Please direct me to the actual RSS measurements.

ignore factual data

Please provide the actual CMIP5 predictions compared to HDCRUT4 and UAH observation.

red herring distraction from original comment

Wrong

please demonstrate where dr roy's study

It is not a study. It is a comparison of data that can be accessed by anyone, and the data is immutable.

IOW- attempts to create a false sense of SCIENCE on an OPINION site are disingenuous

Nonsense.

is it hidden by the governments?
what?

You are very emotional. I hope everything works out OK for you.

denglish
2 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2015
you ca do that yourself

Your favorite:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

NASA vs HADCRUT and GISS:
http://c3headline...0b-350wi

Ocean pedictions vs. ARGO:
http://www.infini...ure5.png

CMIP5 Again:
http://media.al.c...5761.jpg

There are thousands of these. The evidence is clear: AGW predictions have been falsified; as per the original thread points, this is because there are other factors acting on the earth's climate other than CO2, which is the primary forcing factor in the falsified models.

davesmith_au
2.2 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2015
First, let me say I am a big fan of developing solar energy. I heard a disturbing thing on the tele last night. It was about a new airport which generates ALL its power needs via solar. There was a comment something like:

"We would have to plant 3 million trees to offset the carbon generated if we did not go solar"

I started thinking about the NEED trees have of carbon. I started thinking about the NEED food crops have of carbon. I started thinking about the NEED we have of food...

Is carbon really the deadly pollutant it is made out to be? Does the whole AGW issue need a bit of a re-think? Like how about growing some trees (billions, like we've already managed to wipe out) and crops to help lower the carbon levels in the atmosphere.

On another point, I thought when I researched climate many years ago, that atmospheric CO2 levels lagged T by around 800 or so years. Is this not the case any more?
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2015
I started thinking about the NEED trees have of carbon. I started thinking about the NEED food crops have of carbon. I started thinking about the NEED we have of food...

Studies have shown that many of our basic food crops (like wheat and rice) will produce less nutritious food with increase CO2 levels (http://www.skepti...nced.htm ). For other plants, the photosynthesis pathway they use means that they can't take advantage of additional CO2, but the additional heat caused by CO2 increases damages all plants.
On another point, I thought when I researched climate many years ago, that atmospheric CO2 levels lagged T by around 800 or so years. Is this not the case any more?

That's only when CO2 is a feedback of the temperature. Since the current CO2 increases are almost entirely due to humans, it currently drives the temperature change. (There's also some debate about the "800 years" bit, I believe.)
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 18, 2015
Re: "Some of those mammoths frozen in ice were found with buttercups in their mouths."

7 mammoth tusks have also been found with meteorites embedded in them.
Interesting.

1. How big and what composition "meteorites?" Are we talking about grazing from grass that was near a meteor strike, or direct hits from micrometeorites, or what exactly?

2. How many such sites do modern elephant tusks show? (One assumes that we can do science on the tusks of ones that die naturally.)
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2015
First, let me say I am a big fan of developing solar energy. I heard a disturbing thing on the tele last night. It was about a new airport which generates ALL its power needs via solar. There was a comment something like:

"We would have to plant 3 million trees to offset the carbon generated if we did not go solar"

I started thinking about the NEED trees have of carbon. I started thinking about the NEED food crops have of carbon. I started thinking about the NEED we have of food...
Animal respiration will provide all the carbon that plants will need. It's easy enough to add carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere; what we have trouble with is getting it back out.

It should scare you that carbon lag is 800 years and they're saying 2 degrees F by 2050. That's all the more they know to scientific levels of confidence. They think it will go up a lot more by 2050, but they're not certain enough to go to print with it yet. 2100 is, at this point, speculation.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2015
(There's also some debate about the "800 years" bit, I believe.)
I bet it's different for leading and trailing edge delay. And I bet they cherry picked the longest one.

:D
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2015
HannesAlfven
After all, the scientific consensus in 1944 when rockets started raining down upon London was that space-based rocketry was just simply absurd.


Do you have any references that would support this statement Hannes? It seems there have been a number of assertions about what scientific consensus use to be (ie the earth is flat) - that don't seem to be based in historic fact.
Just to substantiate this: About 200 years BCE, Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth to within 17% of the correct value. Columbus had read later philosophers' and historians' accounts of Eratosthenes' work (the original was burned in the library at Alexandria) before he sailed for America, but he chose to believe a smaller value which made Eurasia the only continent on Earth and made him believe he had reached India when he'd only reached the Caribbean.

Columbus not only messed up the circumference of the Earth, but also overestimated the width of Eurasia.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2015
Columbus was lucky, not good. Note that he wasn't a scientist and Eratosthenes was. Note that Columbus' opinion was pretty popular among non-scientists in Columbus' day. If America hadn't been there he'd never have come back.

Stick with the scientists. They actually check data before they form opinions (anyway most of the time).
denglish
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2015
Columbus was proven right via observation, or in is case, experience.

Stick with the scientists. They actually check data before they form opinions (anyway most of the time).

In the case of AGW, which scientists are closer to adhering to the scientific method? AGW, or skeptic?
leetennant
4.1 / 5 (14) Aug 19, 2015
You mean the ones actually doing science or the ones yelling "No it's NOT! You're a lying socialist!" at the science?

Wait... it's a stumper... let me think...
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2015
Columbus was proven right via observation, or in is case, experience.

"Until his death he claimed to have landed in Asia, even though most navigators knew he didn't."

http://www.livesc...covered-
americas.html

@denglish

I thought this was common knowledge, you must have slept through history class.

De Schneib is correct, Columbus was lucky.
FredJose
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2015
@Axemaster:
Science:
1. Gather information
2. Think up a logical and self-consistent theory to explain it.
3. Use the theory to predict something you haven't already seen.
4. Check the theory by looking for the predicted effect. If it isn't there, the theory is wrong.

Do you think this also applies to the General theory of evolution?
What gathered information supports un-aided birth of the first star or planetary accretion?
What gathered information supports abiogenesis or in fact the highly accepted Darwinian evolutionary theory?
Are we dealing with Science or Religion in this case? What do you think?

mytwocts
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2015

Do you think this also applies to the General theory of evolution?

Yes I do (can't speak for the other person).
http://www.nbcnew...q27Qq788
http://planeteart...onsent=A
https://en.wikipe...periment
and many more.
mytwocts
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2015

What gathered information supports un-aided birth of the first star or planetary accretion?

Just a question. What would _aided_ birth of the first star or planetary accretion look like?
Keep getting a ridiculous image of a person with a beard and huge Heavenly Lighter ...
mytwocts
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2015
What gathered information supports abiogenesis

The fact that we are here.
or in fact the highly accepted Darwinian evolutionary theory?

ALL gathered information supports this.
axemaster
5 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2015
Do you think this also applies to the General theory of evolution?
What gathered information supports un-aided birth of the first star or planetary accretion?
What gathered information supports abiogenesis or in fact the highly accepted Darwinian evolutionary theory?
Are we dealing with Science or Religion in this case? What do you think?

I'm a bit confused by your question. You do realize that all of these have direct observational evidence to support them? As in, people have directly watched them happening. Abiogenesis being the only exception, but that's expected - it's hard just to find, much less date 3.5 billion year old fossils of bacteria. And it's sort of irrelevant as a proof anyway, we fundamentally know that abiogenesis is possible, it's just a question of how easily it happens.

If you're actually interested in evolutionary theory, I would suggest watching this VERY excellent lecture series from Stanford:
https://www.youtu...IGh9g6fA
denglish
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2015
ou mean the ones actually doing science or the ones yelling "No it's NOT! You're a lying socialist!" at the science?

I rest my case.

De Schneib is correct, Columbus was lucky.

So off topic, but its on the subject of scientific method, so; Columbus knew the world was round. He hypothesized that as such, if he sailed west far enough, he would reach land. His theory was proven correct. Lucky in the sense that he made it, not in the sense that he knew what he was doing.

Holt mackerel, this thread is de-railed!. I'm out.

jeffensley
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2015
You mean the ones actually doing science or the ones yelling "No it's NOT! You're a lying socialist!" at the science?

Wait... it's a stumper... let me think...


No, the scientific community is actually shown to be pretty reasonable about AGW when it comes down to it. It's those who treat Science as a religion, take probabilities and turn them into certainties, and change the words of science into gospel that we are talking about.

Those who ask questions of science are arguably doing a far better job of following the method than its most sycophantic followers. If everyone accepted science as infallible truth, we'd already be running bulky and wasteful carbon removal machines in a vain human-led effort to "sink" carbon back into the ground. Having this discussion as new discoveries are made will allow us to find a reasonable approach in the end and not take drastic measures based on emotional responses to change.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2015

What gathered information supports un-aided birth of the first star or planetary accretion?

Just a question. What would _aided_ birth of the first star or planetary accretion look like?
Keep getting a ridiculous image of a person with a beard and huge Heavenly Lighter ...
Nawww, more like a garbage compactor...

:D
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2015
Abiogenesis being the only exception, but that's expected - it's hard just to find, much less date 3.5 billion year old fossils of bacteria. And it's sort of irrelevant as a proof anyway, we fundamentally know that abiogenesis is possible, it's just a question of how easily it happens.
This is actually a pretty interesting question. There's another currently open article here: http://phys.org/n...and.html

I have commented there that it seems the Late Heavy Bombardment, which ended some 3.8 billion years ago, seems to have preceded the first bacteria by some 400 million years, as the first fossil bacteria appear in the fossil record some 3.4 billion years ago in geological formations in Australia. This conversation might be more interesting over there.
mytwocts
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2015

Those who ask questions of science are arguably doing a far better job of following the method than its most sycophantic followers.

So by your own standards and without any feedback from actual scientists, you have promoted yourself to be better than the real scientists. That is a full-blown delusion of grandeur. Get help.

If everyone accepted science as infallible truth.

Name any person that actually matters that does so.
axemaster
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2015
@Da Schneib
Thanks for linking that article, it was interesting. The search for abiogenesis mechanisms always seems to lead into the "dark corners" of high-energy chemistry, with molecules being synthesized in bolts of lightning, comet impacts, UV radiation and the like. This is very non-standard stuff that's hard to do in the lab, so they're always finding novel reactions.

I think we're a very long way off from knowing enough to make a reasonably accurate assessment of what happened. Just intuitively it seems like the "space" of possible reactions should be far larger than in normal chemistry if you allow high-energy transients. To figure out probabilities for abiogenesis, you also have to calculate rates of formation, rates of molecules encountering each other at random, whether one thing will catalyze another... all sort of things that manipulate the statistics. It's pretty likely there are many viable routes to abiogenesis, and the trick will be finding the most likely one.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2015
blah blah blah direct me to the actual RSS blah blah blah
So... your argument that supposedly supports your posts is to obfuscate the issue with an irrelevant counterpoints and data?

lets see... i used a search engine and looked for "RSS raw data" and found multiple sites, including .gov AND the RSS home page sites which give the raw feed...

[so what is your problem finding the raw data? or is this just another red herring distraction?]

then you shout about already failed arguments (like repeating the fraudulent dr roy links which prove he is ignorant of far too many things and attempting fraudulent posts)...

so basically your argument is to scream "no it isn't", throw out tired old debunked arguments, then circle around to fraud and screaming "but look at this link" which proves only that you didn't read any of the studies that i linked previously which disproved your arguments...

where are the studies that debunk the bulk of the science?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2015
Your favorite:
http://www.drroys...2013.png
this is cherry picked

See : https://upload.wi...ures.png
for more details
there are other factors acting on the earth's climate other than CO2
no one ever claimed otherwise... however, there is a stronger correlation between CO2 and it's effects than what you are saying...AND, there is no studies that prove falsification, either

again, where is the evidence equivalent to my reputable peer reviewed studies that prove those studies to be false? all you are doing is linking articles, misleading diagrams, graphics out of context and trying to obfuscate the issue with numerous posts and links but you've NOT ONCE been able to produce a level of evidence that would be considered "falsification"
and to prove that, simply look at all the studies that i've linked that have been retracted or changed!

(PRO-TIP- not one has been debunked or retracted)
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2015
so are all these wrong as well, d?
or are you thinking that only dr roy has the market on reality?

https://upload.wi...ures.png

https://www.youtu...JtS_WDmI

perhaps you could get him to comment on the direct RSS feeds? supply that info to you, since you are incapable of finding it yourself?

perhaps you could contact NASA and tell them that their observations are wrong too! since they don't match what dr roy is saying and all that

maybe they will change it for you?
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2015
So...

The next two posts are nonsense. You may not need so many posts if your curtail your emotion.

Let's take a look at your links:
https://upload.wi...ures.png

Please, pay attention to detail. No GW since 1997, not 198whatever.

https://www.youtu...JtS_WDmI
Which measurement system was used?

since you are incapable of finding it yourself?

http://www.remss....perature
I know, I'm embarrassed doin' it...too easy. Daft Fury does tend to over-extend doesn't it?

hey don't match what dr roy is saying and all that

You'll have to point out where Dr. Spencer says the NASA observations are wrong. I'm incapable of finding it.

here is no studies that prove falsification

No, only the observations:
http://www.drroys...2013.png
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2015
the "requests" for info above are all located in the links, you know... problems with reading and comprehension again? like with the studies you are refusing to read or acknowledge?

or is it your "daft fury" at being outed as a conspiracy theorist? IOW- you have nothing that refutes the science, so you will play word games then?
what?

AGAIN
where is the evidence equivalent to my reputable peer reviewed studies that prove those studies to be false? all you are doing is linking articles, misleading diagrams, graphics out of context and trying to obfuscate the issue with numerous posts and links but you've NOT ONCE been able to produce a level of evidence that would be considered "falsification"
and to prove that, simply look at all the studies that i've linked that have been retracted or changed!

(PRO-TIP- not one has been debunked or retracted)
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2015
here is no studies that prove falsification [sic]
No, only the observations:
http://www.drroys...2013.png
PROTIP 1 - deleting data is called cherrypicking, just like leaving out data that intentionally makes your "graphic" false is cherrypicking

PROTIP 2 - there is no refuting studies

PROTIP 3 - the "observations" that you claim falsify the studies are the same ones used to support the studies and prove you are wrong, as well as cherrypicking

PROTIP 4 - intentionally LYING about a quote, like saying "You'll have to point out where Dr. Spencer says the NASA observations are wrong" is not only intellectual dishonesty, but proves my point about your lack of scientific findings, as well as undermines your ability to make a valid point. LIES = obfuscation as well as stupidity and ignorance and you can surely do better?

So
WHERE ARE THE STUDIES WHICH UNDERMINE THE BULK OF THE SCIENCE OUT THERE WHICH ARE PROVING YOU WRONG?
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2015
the "requests" for info above are all located in the links, you know

You can't figure it out.

equivalent to my reputable peer reviewed studies

Please produce those studies, cite a passage, and summarize it.
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2015
the "observations" that you claim falsify the studies are the same ones used to support the studies and prove you are wrong, as well as cherrypicking

Please produce the CMIP5 predictions and compare them against HADCRUT4 and UAH observations. I am very interested in what you find.

Your nonsense is boring.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2015
You can't figure it out.
LMFAO - it even links a STUDY on the original site from NASA which is linked in the video... the problem is that YOU can't figure it out! in fact, it goes to intention as well as reading comprehension... and you are failing miserably at both! your intention is to lie and cheat and obfuscate, which is proven above.... now it is proven that you are refusing to read (or simply can't)

try again... i'll be back later to see your progress! or failure!
Please produce those studies, cite a passage, and summarize it.
that is what i've been asking YOU to do!

I've already linked those studies time and again... would you like me to start linking them all here again? i can, you know... i keep them all saved and close at hand for easy retrieval

tell me if you want them ALL or simply a few to start... especially if you are actually going to start linking studies to refute them
THANKS

(PS start with LACIS and FRANCIS if you can)
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2015
Your nonsense is boring.
TRANSLATION of deng: i am lying again and can't supply proof of anything i say that is equivalent to the empirical data in the studies which refute my position, so i will simply use ad hominem and intellectual dishonesty and claim they're boring

now, from me:
AGAIN
where is the evidence equivalent to my reputable peer reviewed studies that prove those studies to be false? all you are doing is linking articles, misleading diagrams, graphics out of context and trying to obfuscate the issue with numerous posts and links but you've NOT ONCE been able to produce a level of evidence that would be considered "falsification"
and to prove that, simply look at all the studies that i've linked that have been retracted or changed!

IN YOUR OWN WORDS
Please produce those studies
(PRO-TIP- not one of the studies i've ever linked has been debunked or retracted)
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2015
it even links a STUDY

You can't figure it out.

that is what i've been asking YOU to do!

You can't do it.

The rest is nonsense.

I found something. Please tell me what it means. Its from this paper:
http://www.regula...014-0827

"The results of the analysis demonstrate that relative to the reference case, by 2100 projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by 1.1 to 1.2 part per million by volume (ppmv), global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.0026 to 0.0065 °C, and sea-level rise is projected to be reduced by approximately 0.023 to 0.057 cm."
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2015
You can't figure it out
no, it is you who is confused, like below: you link regulations, then you ask
I found something. Please tell me what it means. Its from this paper: http://www.regula...014-0827
in said link, there are 4 Primary documents, 730 supporting documents, and 67 comments. the label states
Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827 Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
RIN: 2060-AS16 Impacts and Effects: None CFR Citation: 40 CFR 1036; 40 CFR 1037; 40 CFR 86 Priority: Economically Significant
this does NOT link or support ANY claim you have made about conspiracy, the data included in the studies i linked, nor does it in ANY way refute any claims made above or on this site regarding the science and it's validated studies

the only thing it does is show your attempts at obfuscation and misrepresentation of FACTS

BTW- the phrase you posted is NOT on the link, but perhaps you can't copy/paste?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2015
The rest is nonsense
so... when you ask "Please produce those studies" when i've repeatedly linked them here time and again, then it is legitimate, but when i require the same from you, then it is "nonsense"?

why is that?
why do you fear AGW and the problems in the climate?
is it a religious thing, or is it all tied to your belief in conspiracy?

feel free to be very explicit in your answers there, they are telling... and also, while you are at it:
where is the evidence equivalent to my reputable peer reviewed studies that prove those studies to be false?
you've NOT ONCE been able to produce a level of evidence that would be considered "falsification"
and to prove that, simply look at all the studies that i've linked that have been retracted or changed!

just show where the studies i've left have been retracted

i gotta go for now, i will check back later
FritzVonDago
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2015
Uh Oh! Hurry up you warmest researchers, change those HogWash weather models, its about to get cold and you will not get any more Federal Grant money to live on if you have conflicting weather data!
Gimp
1 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2015
Wow, I was going to comment on this but I see all the smart people have already weighed in and the delusional self appointed experts are beating their chests calling everyone that disagrees with them names and wanting IP addresses so they can shame them. Such passion.
my2cts
5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2015
Uh Oh! Hurry up you warmest researchers, change those HogWash weather models, its about to get cold and you will not get any more Federal Grant money to live on if you have conflicting weather data!

This guy does not know weather from climate while yelling.
I propose to put him on ignore.
Bongstar420
1 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2015
The Maunder Minimum was a strong Solar Minima plus 2 big aerial volcanoes.

We won't get much cold without as big fat injection of SO2 into the upper atmosphere.
denglish
1 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2015
no, it is you who is confused

You can't figure it out.

in said link

I put the passage in the post, and you didn't even recognize it.

why is that?

Because dealing with you is a waste of time. You have no idea what you're doing.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2015
Uh Oh! Hurry up you warmest researchers, change those HogWash weather models, its about to get cold and you will not get any more Federal Grant money to live on if you have conflicting weather data!

This guy does not know weather from climate while yelling.
I propose to put him on ignore.
I use the ignore button liberally and struggle to retain my resolve in certain cases. :D
jeffensley
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2015
So by your own standards and without any feedback from actual scientists, you have promoted yourself to be better than the real scientists. That is a full-blown delusion of grandeur. Get help.


Nope. As I said, scientists actually seem to be practicing what they preach by and large. They are willing to acknowledge the limitations of models to predict variables important to climate change, even in the short term. It's their online lackeys that have episodes of cardiac arrest every time someone questions a study that are delusional.

If everyone accepted science as infallible truth.
Name any person that actually matters that does so.

jeffensley
1 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2015

Name any person that actually matters that does so.


The President of the US? The UN? People with too much power that want to take limited information and run with it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2015
I put the passage in the post, and you didn't even recognize it...
Because dealing with you is a waste of time. You have no idea what you're doing
PROTIP 1- if you are going to link a paper, make sure the link goes to the PAPER you wish to address, which includes the VERSION (there are 4 primary papers, 730 supporting doc's and of the primary, ALL are your EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827, but there are 4 versions: 0002, 0746, 0745, and 0733)
PROTIP 2- this does NOT debunk historical studies, nor does it support your claims of conspiracy or anything else. you can't even read gov't regulations properly enough to specify what you want to link or others to read
PROTIP 3- if you are going to be vague and quote without specific reference, then it is fully adequate to refute you with a single link and state that it debunks your "beliefs": http://svs.gsfc.n...aid=4135
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2015
@D continued
PROTIP 4 - just because you believe in a conspiracy, doesn't mean it exists: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

also note: failure to comprehend basic science is what is putting you firmly into the camp of trolling pseudoscience conspiracy theorist

it is really easy, D
all you gotta do is either produce equivalent studies which refute or debunk the validated studies i've linked to you in the past, or show where they've been retracted!

you can't, can you?
NOPE
and there is a reason why... the scientific method works

that is why you are playing your red herring distraction game above & why you tend to be labeled as various derogatory ad hominems by various people here

and you still haven't changed

you want me to comply with your "requests", but still haven't answered my requests from months ago

the scientific method works
hopefully, you will learn that one day
denglish
1 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2015
PROTIP 1

Didn't read any of it. You are nonsensical. I should mute you, but I enjoy pointing it out.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2015
PROTIP 1

Didn't read any of it. You are nonsensical. I should mute you, but I enjoy pointing it out.


@denglish

You read all of it, you're just incapable of a rational response because you know Captain Stumpy is right.
denglish
1 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2015
PROTIP 1

Didn't read any of it. You are nonsensical. I should mute you, but I enjoy pointing it out.


@denglish

You read all of it, you're just incapable of a rational response because you know Captain Stumpy is right.

No, I didn't. Its nonsense, and he's on the verge of being muted.

Vet, I think you're a reasonable, respectable guy. If you can't see the daft fury in his posts, I have to suggest to you that you're prejudiced.

This thread died a long time ago. Bye.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2015
No, I didn't
then how do you know any of it is "nonsense"? ROTFLMFAO
you lie and get caught in a lie and then lie about getting caught! WOW

go to this thread: http://phys.org/n...ght.html

@Vietvet
@everyone else interested
in that thread, i posted a reply to the EXACT SAME CROSS POST that deng put up on that conversation... no reason to cross post it again here, since he will refuse to actually acknowledge it or bring any actual validated scientific studies which support his "claims"...

that is the problem with trolling pseudoscience conspiracy theorists
it is also addressed here: http://phys.org/n...ies.html

the author talks about his special kind of trolling in that article. there are more, but they, too, will be ignored by the special blindness of those like d, or wp, or (etc- you get the point)
Egleton
5 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2015
The carbon will still be there waiting for us when the sun gets hot again.
I can see no mechanisms that will reduce the carbon other than turning it into carbon fibre.

http://phys.org/n...ble.html

Maybe we should use this opportunity to get it done and become rich too.
Or maybe we should go back to what the main stream media wants us to believe, that it is all about Kim Kardashians arse.
fmaci
5 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2015
For 25 years, a model including only 4 forcing functions—solar intensity, volcanic aerosols, El Niños, and anthropogenic greenhouse gases—has modelled the global mean temperature accurately, with the exception of irregular narrow (~1 week) excursions every year or two. Of the 4 drivers, the solar intensity shows a distorted sinusoidal oscillation around a constant mean; the volcanoes show decreases followed by a return in a few years; El Niños show an irregular oscillation about a constant mean. Only the anthropogenic greenhouse gasses show a trend. See: JL Lean & DH Rind (2009) 'How will Earth's surface temperature change in future decades?'
Geophys Res Lett 38, L15708.
It seems to me that one has to be very obtuse not to accept the Keeling curve, showing the annual 5-ppm northern-hemisphere tree-leaf oscillation in atmospheric CO2, superimposed upon the steadily rising anthropogenic contribution. The only places the CO2 can go are atmosphere and ocean, roughly 50-50.
fmaci
5 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2015
Can some denier explain how to avoid global heating if atmospheric CO2 increases? It absorbs IR, increasing the IR photon pathlength and so raising the altitude of the thermodynamic steady-state outward radiation level that balances inward solar radiation. This increases surface temperature by a nominal 0.65K/100m of rise.

How do you guys get around this?
jeffensley
2.5 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2015
The carbon will still be there waiting for us when the sun gets hot again.
I can see no mechanisms that will reduce the carbon other than turning it into carbon fibre.

http://phys.org/n...ble.html

Maybe we should use this opportunity to get it done and become rich too.
Or maybe we should go back to what the main stream media wants us to believe, that it is all about Kim Kardashians arse.


You're acting as if the problem is solved. It was a small-scale experiment. Have you have any interest in the practical aspects of the wide-spread implementation of such technology? Are you the least bit curious as to how a carbonate-bath is going to be kept at that temperature in real-life conditions?
jeffensley
1 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2015
Can some denier explain how to avoid global heating if atmospheric CO2 increases?


1.) Should we be avoiding global heating and if so, why?
2.) What is the end-goal of regulating atmospheric CO2 and what realistic implementation tactic do you envision to achieve this goal? Once achieved (which I think is highly unrealistic), is it humanity's responsibility to maintain temperature and atmospheric gas concentrations on Earth at some "ideal"?
3.)The principles of forcing seem pretty cut and dry at the moment so there is no "denial" from me regarding that, though don't be surprised if we discover something "new" about such basic a science in the future. Luckily CO2 has a logarithmic effect and increasing concentrations continually to lose their effectiveness on heat absorption.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.