Reduced energy from the sun might occur by mid-century—now, scientists know by how much

February 7, 2018, University of California - San Diego
Magnetic loops gyrate above the sun, March 23-24, 2017. Credit: NASA/GSFC/Solar Dynamics Observatory

The sun might emit less radiation by mid-century, giving planet Earth a chance to warm a bit more slowly but not halt the trend of human-induced climate change.

The cooldown would be the result of what scientists call a grand minimum, a periodic event during which the sun's magnetism diminishes, sunspots form infrequently, and less ultraviolet radiation makes it to the surface of the planet. Scientists believe that the event is triggered at irregular intervals by random fluctuations related to the sun's magnetic field.

Scientists have used reconstructions based on geological and historical data to attribute a cold period in Europe in the mid-17th Century to such an event, named the "Maunder Minimum." Temperatures were low enough to freeze the Thames River on a regular basis and freeze the Baltic Sea to such an extent that a Swedish army was able to invade Denmark in 1658 on foot by marching across the sea ice.

A team of scientists led by research physicist Dan Lubin at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego has created for the first time an estimate of how much dimmer the sun should be when the next minimum takes place.

There is a well-known 11-year cycle in which the sun's ultraviolet radiation peaks and declines as a result of sunspot activity. During a grand minimum, Lubin estimates that ultraviolet radiation diminishes an additional seven percent beyond the lowest point of that cycle. His team's study, "Ultraviolet Flux Decrease Under a Grand Minimum from IUE Short-wavelength Observation of Solar Analogs," appears in the publication Astrophysical Journal Letters and was funded by the state of California.

"Now we have a benchmark from which we can perform better climate model simulations," Lubin said. "We can therefore have a better idea of how changes in solar UV radiation affect climate change."

Lubin and colleagues David Tytler and Carl Melis of UC San Diego's Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences arrived at their estimate of a grand minimum's intensity by reviewing nearly 20 years of data gathered by the International Ultraviolet Explorer satellite mission. They compared radiation from stars that are analogous to the sun and identified those that were experiencing minima.

The reduced energy from the sun sets into motion a sequence of events on Earth beginning with a thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer. That thinning in turn changes the temperature structure of the stratosphere, which then changes the dynamics of the lower atmosphere, especially wind and weather patterns. The cooling is not uniform. While areas of Europe chilled during the Maunder Minimum, other areas such as Alaska and southern Greenland warmed correspondingly.

Lubin and other scientists predict a significant probability of a near-future grand minimum because the downward sunspot pattern in recent solar cycles resembles the run-ups to past grand minimum events.

Despite how much the Maunder Minimum might have affected Earth the last time, Lubin said that an upcoming event would not stop the current trend of planetary warming but might slow it somewhat. The cooling effect of a grand minimum is only a fraction of the warming effect caused by the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. After hundreds of thousands of years of CO2 levels never exceeding 300 parts per million in air, the concentration of the greenhouse gas is now over 400 parts per million, continuing a rise that began with the Industrial Revolution. Other researchers have used computer models to estimate what an event similar to a Maunder Minimum, if it were to occur in coming decades, might mean for our current climate, which is now rapidly warming.

One such study looked at the climate consequences of a future Maunder Minimum-type grand solar minimum, assuming a total solar irradiance reduced by 0.25 percent over a 50-year period from 2020 to 2070. The study found that after the initial decrease of solar radiation in 2020, globally averaged surface air temperature cooled by up to several tenths of a degree Celsius. By the end of the simulated grand solar minimum, however, the warming in the model with the simulated Maunder Minimum had nearly caught up to the reference simulation. Thus, a main conclusion of the study is that "a future grand solar minimum could slow down but not stop global warming."

Explore further: Don't panic—the northern lights won't be turning off anytime soon

More information: Dan Lubin et al. Ultraviolet Flux Decrease Under a Grand Minimum from IUE Short-wavelength Observation of Solar Analogs, The Astrophysical Journal (2017). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa124

Related Stories

Why is the sun going quiet?

January 22, 2014

The sun is our nearest star and the source of all our light and heat on Earth but recent reports have highlighted an ongoing steep decline in solar activity.

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 ...

Solar minimum is coming

June 28, 2017

High up in the clear blue noontime sky, the sun appears to be much the same day-in, day-out, year after year.

Recommended for you

135 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
2.4 / 5 (14) Feb 07, 2018
A Grand Minimum has a much larger effect (at least 10:1) over what little effect man has considering Earth's weakening magnetic field. It's about to get much colder!
Anonym
2.2 / 5 (17) Feb 07, 2018
Newton's dead. Scientists don't "know" anything anymore. They surmise. They theorize. They hypothecate. They stopped "knowing" a century ago. Certainty went out the window with Schroedinger's cat.

As to this revelation, the IPCC models don't account for solar radiation, do they? Radiation is considered by them to be invariant. As is cloud cover/water vapor. The two largest drivers of climate, in other words, are zero'd out in the models. Guess they'll have another think coming. Meanwhile, hang on to your snow chains.

And won't the projected solar minimum be accompanied by AMO and PDO oscillations reinforcing the cool down? Hope not. We'll need more CO2 than ever to keep things comfy.

So much for AGW. Bring on the next Catastrogeddon.
Bart_A
1 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2018
The only thing that we know for sure is that we don't know the future and cannot accurately predice long-term weather. Have to tip my hats to the scientists that try, but the track record is very bad.
MR166
1 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2018
"Have to tip my hats to the scientists that try, but the track record is very bad."

They deserve nothing not even a tip of the hat. They are using your tax money to foster more government control of your life. They are people on the government dole doing the governments bidding and care little about your freedoms. In fact they view your freedoms as a real danger.
MR166
1 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2018
How can the sun change the amount of energy it emits when just a few years ago 97% of scientists agreed that solar radiation was a constant and created their models on that premise. Thus any changes in the earths temperatures had to be due to increasing CO2 levels. The sun must be wrong, silly sun.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2018
A lot of very talented climate scientists have been working day and night to "adjust" their temperature data sets to the point that they can now "prove" that all historical changes in the earth's temperature are proportional to CO2 levels. That is why there was never any pause and 2018 will be the warmest year ever recorded.
shadybail
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2018
"Newton's dead. Scientists don't "know" anything anymore. They surmise. They theorize. They hypothecate. They stopped "knowing" a century ago. Certainty went out the window with Schroedinger's cat."

What? Certainty went out the window with what? the "Hindenburg Uncertainty Principle?"

And if the cat went out the window, did it make sound when it hit the ground?
humy
5 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2018
Newton's dead. Scientists don't "know" anything anymore. .... They stopped "knowing" a century ago. "

So scientists no longer "know" the Earth is round and solid objects are made of atoms?
-clearly false.
humy
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2018
How can the sun change the amount of energy it emits when just a few years ago 97% of scientists agreed that solar radiation was a constant and created their models on that premise.

97% of scientists NEVER "agreed" that solar radiation never varies even just slightly thus 97% of scientists did NOT "created their models on that premise". Please don't make crap up. Scientists are not in the strange habit of denying the scientific facts! It is only climate change deniers that do that.

TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2018
What? Certainty went out the window with what? the "Hindenburg Uncertainty Principle?"

And if the cat went out the window, did it make sound when it hit the ground?

You are damn right! And thank god for the cat jumping out, cause the rest of it went out in flame on May 6 1937, that's how uncertain this evil thing was.
knutsonp
1 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2018
These comments are hilarious! But on a serious note, the lovely bit of real-world cooling we have enjoyed this winter, with little sign of relenting, indicates that "anthropogenic climate change" is largely irrelevant, and winter is winter, summer is summer, seed time and harvest will continue as designed...
MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2018
"97% of scientists NEVER "agreed" that solar radiation never varies even just slightly thus 97% of scientists did NOT "created their models on that premise"."

How quickly you forget history when past claims are proven untrue. The IPCC claimed that the sun's output did not change to any significant degree and that 97% of scientists agreed with their findings. I did not hear many in the climate science community doubting these claims.

Thus your only recourse is to deny that this ever happened as you just have done.
Parsec
5 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2018
@kbutsonp - every time there is a batch of cold or hot weather anywhere on the globe some idiot claims that it means global warming is or isn't real. You cannot tie AGW to particular events. Either to prove it or discount it.

It still amazes me that people with absolutely no idea how science works, or even what AGW actually is come here and make such ludicrous comments.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2018
@knutsonp
But on a serious note, the lovely bit of real-world cooling we have enjoyed this winter, with little sign of relenting, indicates that "anthropogenic climate change" is largely irrelevant, and winter is winter, summer is summer, seed time and harvest will continue as designed
[sigh] no, that's wrong

1- global climate isn't the same thing as local weather; in point of fact, "climate" is clearly defined as "the statistics of weather over long periods of time" - not just one event or time

Need I also define Global to you?

2- read Francis, Vavrus et al. it's not only validated, but it's what you're experiencing with your local cold snap

if you need something simpler than the actual study, feel free to ask and I will provide a youtube link which uses simpler language and imagery to explain it

3- climate change is about rate of change due to anthropogenic influences
See also: Oxford English Dictionary
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2018
@mr
Thus your only recourse is to deny that this ever happened as you just have done.
by all means, please show the links and references that demonstrate "IPCC claimed that the sun's output did not change to any significant degree and that 97% of scientists agreed with their findings"

you will see that:
1- you're either illiterate or simply confused two separate issues

2- you're wrong

3- you are working off of a script, site or belief that is politically motivated to specifically con you into throwing away your time, logic and money to fight against changes that will affect their bulging pocketbooks because you're stupid enough to fall for it (proven: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx )

Turgent
1 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2018
The math critic here. From the Abstract: "...sample of 33 Sun-like stars observed..."

"These normalized surface fluxes show a strong linear relationship with activity ..... (R 2 = 0.857 after three outliers are omitted)."

This is a rather small sample size from which to exclude 3 outliers. Paper has been requested. Will see the specifics once the paper is provided.

humy
5 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2018
"97% of scientists NEVER "agreed" that solar radiation never varies even just slightly thus 97% of scientists did NOT "created their models on that premise"."

How quickly you forget history when past claims are proven untrue. The IPCC claimed that the sun's output did not change to any significant degree and that 97% of scientists agreed with their findings.

where did I claim/imply they didn't "agree" that the change was not "significant"? I made no such claim. And in what way not "significant"? They all agree that the sun output varies so that part of your claim is clearly false. As to whether that change is "significant"; please define what "significant" means in this case. Does it mean a change of output of more than 2%? If so, then it isn't "significant". If it means not enough to halt all CO2 induced warming then, again, it isn't "significant". If not 2%, then exactly what percentage or criterion for "significant" are you talking about here?
MR166
1.1 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2018
"by all means, please show the links and references that demonstrate "IPCC claimed that the sun's output did not change to any significant degree and that 97% of scientists agreed with their findings"

If you guys cannot remember what was claimed just a few years back why should I bother to provide links. You will just "conveniently" forget it again. I am tired of dealing with selective amnesia. The exact same thing goes for the climate models that predicted the end of cold, snow and winters. Now of course it just doesn't matter since any weather occurrence/change is directly traceable to CO2 levels. BTW what ever happened to the increasing rate of sea level rise?

http://notrickszo...J6M.dpbs
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2018
Yea any change just does not matter........then
https://judithcur...-matter/
mackita
1 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2018
... Reduced energy from the sun might occur by mid-century...
versus
One such study looked at the climate consequences of a future Maunder Minimum-type grand solar minimum, assuming a total solar irradiance reduced by 0.25 percent over a 50-year period from 2020 to 2070
In another words, they could assume the period from 2070 to 2120, or 20120 - 2170 as easily... Nothing actually indicates, that such an event might occur in mid-century or whenever else...
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2018
Mack the 20-70 time period makes more sense because there are indications that another minimum is upon us. To make things even more uncertain it appears that the earth's magnetic poles are in the process of reversing. Once started this process increases in speed. This is a bad omen for the electric grid due to the greater effect of solar storms.
mackita
4 / 5 (4) Feb 07, 2018
because there are indications that another minimum is upon us
No such an indication is mentioned in the above study. Where you got this impression (link)?
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Feb 07, 2018
Mack I am not posting this as 100% factual, just an interesting link.

http://www.iflsci...ge-2030/
shadybail
not rated yet Feb 07, 2018
I get it now. If you throw the cat out the window, it's not the sound that's important. It's whether or not the cat is alive or dead which somehow must be express that way (dead or alive) until someone looks at the cat. In short, a theory is just an idea until proven.

I am certain that I am still certainly, uncertain about uncertainty.
Uncertainty! That has been bothering me all afternoon. Measured value, true value, random error, reference value, in short, all measurements must factor in an uncertainty equation. Is this correct? It applies here, yes? Does it apply across the board?
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Feb 07, 2018
https://www.iceag...0-years/

One theory is that a solar minimum allows more cosmic rays to hit the earth. In turn these rays promote cloud formation cooling the earth.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2018
burn as much gas as possible , the Thames might freeze over
rrwillsj
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2018
My guess as to why the denier shills are so frighten of the concept 'Global Climate Change'? It's that word 'Change' they can't handle.

Cause getting paid to spread propaganda like disease-bearing vermin? On behalf of their Tobacco Lobby puppet masters? Oh, excuse me! I meant, their Carbon Lobby puppet masters. That they are selling themselves out for chump change. Shows how little they value their own lives, much less everybody else.

What we will endure with Global Climate Change is as follows. If you live in a Temperate Zone, when it should be warm, it will be hot. When it should be cooler, it will vary between heat waves and freezing cold. The erratic variations will create violent storms and lingering droughts. Sometimes at the same time.

If you live in the Equatorial Zone? Basically, it'll become a blast furnace when the monsoons fail.

And we are going to have to invent a new term for the Arctic Zones. When they finish melting down.

Good Luck?
mackita
1 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2018
MR
Professor Valentina Zharkova from the University of Northumbria who made this announcement says, the model has shown to have a 97% accuracy when mapping the past movements of sunspots, using data of solar cycles from 1976 to 2008
I see, Russians.. You cannot make reliable fifty years prediction from thirty years long data sample without good underlying theory.
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2018
Yea RR warming was a big flop so they had to change the fear to change. I don't fear the "change" but you sure seem to.

"What we will endure with Global Climate Change is as follows. If you live in a Temperate Zone, when it should be warm, it will be hot. When it should be cooler, it will vary between heat waves and freezing cold. The erratic variations will create violent storms and lingering droughts. Sometimes at the same time."
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2018
How NASA "predicted" the number of sunspots at much shorter timeframe...
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2018
@mr
If you guys cannot remember what was claimed just a few years back why should I bother to provide links
listen, you idiot. it's not like I've never provided you with links to prove you're wrong about anything

you made the claim; you prove it with links/references
otherwise, you're a liar and talking sh*t

.

the whole reason you're not providing IPCC links and proof about your claim is that you're promoting a known blatantly false claim about a topic you're accepting as valid because you read it on one of your idiot political sites

you *want* it to be true, therefore you're willing to repeat it as true because your source makes claims that make you feel better about ignoring reality

I can also provide links refuting your link:
http://www.busine...s-2017-1

https://www.huffi...fcf8c165
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2018
https://www.ucsus...DUFSnEdU

Another link that claims that the sun does not influence modern climate.
MR166
1 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2018
My point was that the climate models are incomplete. So incomplete as to render them useless for long term predictions.
Gimp
5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2018
Well, now I've heard everything,

"Another link that claims that the sun does not influence modern climate"

I weep for the future inhabitants and their larvae.
MR166
1 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2018
Capt. here is the real reason for climate science.

http://www.climat...warming/

As I have said many times this is a political issue.

Yea, there is nothing wrong with the climate that a lot of wealth redistribution can't fix.
MR166
1 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2018
AGW was merely a UN tool to promote their main agenda of wealth redistribution and reparations.
Turgent
1 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2018
Probably the only way to credit or discredit AGW and Climate Scare will be the advent of quantum computing for both calculations and determination of a correct and adequate data set.
Da Schneib
4.8 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2018
Bwahahaha, "Hindenberg Uncertainty Principle"
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2018
Having read the article, it seems that a minority group of solar astrophysics scientists thinks there might be a sunspot minimum coming. Plugging such a minimum into climate models, geophysicists say that might offset a small part of the warming from CO2.

If you, you know, like, actually read the article. And stuff.

That is all.
IwinUlose
5 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2018
AGW was merely a UN tool to promote their main agenda of wealth redistribution and reparations.

My point was that the climate models are incomplete. So incomplete as to render them useless for long term predictions.


Aside from all sensationalism, the theory is that the global weather functions as a feedback loop with notable patterns on timescales both large and small. Then, that artificially increasing any active variable in the loop is likely to cause a change in the function of the weather.

The argument that the current models used to predict the outcome are not precise enough does little to refute known and observed mechanics of global weather patterns.
IwinUlose
5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2018
One might be able to argue bad data(the climate science plot to alter data) or a different interpretation of the data(provide theory that realizes better predictions upon which to base econ planning).

You seem to understand and agree there is variability in the weather but deny the functions for it to take place.
Turgent
1 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2018
Just watched an episode of Big Bang. Sheldon Cooper spoke of the dilemma of reconciling linear and non-linear systems. Therefore, AGW needs be critiqued in light of this problem.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2018
Actually, given that wealth is being siphoned from Western democracies to Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela to pay for oil, it seems that in fact petroleum is a plot to weaken Western democracies financially.

If you're all into conspiracy theories and stuff.

Just sayin'.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2018
MR
Another link that claims that the sun does not influence modern climate
If you even bothered to read your own links - you would see that it does not say that.

Over the time-scale of millions of years, the change in solar intensity is a critical factor influencing climate (e.g., ice ages). However, changes in the rate of solar heating over the last century cannot account for the magnitude of the rise in global mean temperature since the late 1970s.
"Cannot account for the magnitude..." is very different from "does not influence modern climate." The sun is of course the central factor in our climate - the article is just saying that recent climate changes - cannot be accounted for by changes in the suns radiation.
I know it is a little bit complex - more than one variable - and your head explodes....
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2018
Actually the strongest influence on the solar irradiance on the yearly to millennial scale after the seasonal cycle induced by the Earth's axial tilt is the Milanković cycles. These are primarily responsible for the ice ages and the variation between glaciations and interglacials. Over geological timescales of tens of millions to billions of years, the positions of the continents and the effects of biology on the atmosphere become the most important factors.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2018
Why the above "scientists" and AGWites are utterly wrong and why it's about to get much colder in the very near future. Weakening magnetic field, a Grand Minimum, and flipping poles. Facts are facts;
https://youtu.be/dQyjxTi6Jpw
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2018
@mr
Another link that claims that the sun does not influence modern climate.
LMFAO
did you not even read that link?
maybe you should have! LOL
As I have said many times this is a political issue
no, corky - the science isn't the political issue
what to *do* about it is the political issue

problem is: you're denigrating the science while not being able to comprehend there is a difference

that is why you're so easily conned
AGW was merely a UN tool to promote their main agenda of wealth redistribution and reparations
except you don't know jack sh*t about international law, therefore your argument is invalid

look up what that means and then perhaps you'll see why you got suckered into making stupid mistakes

then again, considering you ignore reality for the sake of a delusional belief that somehow there is a *global* conspiracy to take your money for poorer countries...

HeloMenelo
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2018
burn as much gas as possible , the Thames might freeze over


Picture a bunch of baboon sockpuppets chest thumping throwing gas everywhere and lighting it up... that's the lunicy this baboon and his own sockpuppets create on a daily basis. Science is far from their capicity to even try and comprehend.

HeloMenelo
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2018
Probably the only way to credit or discredit AGW and Climate Scare will be the advent of quantum computing for both calculations and determination of a correct and adequate data set.

Aaaa... i see Bonobo and his own sockpuppets aka cantdrive bartAfart, knutsonp,turDgent, and snooseloose, having a banana racket here today, Still being dumber than rocks as ever... Why let your original sock Antigoracle gorilla, or even before him your old Waterprophet baboon prophet not join in on the clown show you provide today ?

That the baboon himself is so desperate in drumming up his own sensles echos umongst his own puppets that he now wants to divert to quantum computing as all the overwhelming evidence of Climate change drowns him into insanity, to try and straw man another hilarious claim takes the very cherry on the cake :D
humy
5 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2018

If you guys cannot remember what was claimed just a few years back why should I bother to provide links.

Those 'links' you say support your claim don't exist. Assuming you aren't deliberately making crap up (and I think you probably are), it is you, not us, that cannot remember. So, assuming you aren't deliberately lieing, it is you that needs to see if you can provide those non-existent links, not us, so you can finally figure out you are wrong and are an idiot; learn something new for once.
Osiris1
5 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2018
The Maunder Min was mean. It destabilzed governments all over the world and was a factor in the quick spread of the Great Plague in Europe as folks confined to rat infested houses with little heat had lessened resistance to plague. Only the 'New World' escaped the plague. Probably something to do with all plague susceptbles and carriers tended to die at sea in the long voyage across the Atlantic to here. Coupled with housing in the new world was not near as dense, and Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, etc led cleaner lives and had cats and small dogs...chihuahuas, that made short work of rats and killed off the flea carriers of the plague. Fortunately rat fleas only seemed to like rats, kinda like some of our politics on the right.
shadybail
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2018
Yes, the "Hindenburg Uncertainty Principle". This is when humans put high-explosives into containers and it backfires. Strap a gondola onto the underside of a giant balloon of explosive gas and load the gondola with people. Are you 100% certain they will make it to their destinations? No! Therefore and thusly mostly, we have the uncertainty principle.

Anyway,
@Da Schneib
Milanković cycles! Thanks that was informative; a good read and helped put the article into perspective for me.

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2018
@shadybail
Yes, the "Hindenburg Uncertainty Principle". This is when humans put high-explosives into containers and it backfires
Erm... it is entirely dependent upon how said "fuel" is contained, used and several engineering factors as well
example: gasoline
http://home.earth...gies.htm

there are several ways to formulate the potential explosive power of regular gas/petrol, but one of the potential deadliest explosive situations is with a BLEVE ( https://en.wikipe...xplosion )

modern designs have a multitude of safety measures build in that would prevent said explosion: https://scholar.g...mp;btnG=

so anyone riding or driving in a petrol vehicle is similarly threatened by a potential high-explosive event should certain parameters be met - the thing is, those parameters are factored into the safety of the said vehicle
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2018
''Picture a bunch of baboon sockpuppets chest thumping throwing gas everywhere and lighting it up ''

yes , must be chinese monkeys

http://www.strait...l-plants
MR166
1 / 5 (11) Feb 08, 2018
"''Picture a bunch of baboon sockpuppets chest thumping throwing gas everywhere and lighting it up ''
yes , must be chinese monkeys "

Picture a bunch of addle brained unemployed americans waiting for the wind to blow so they have enough electricity to watch Wheel of Fortune.

Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2018
Picture a bunch of addle brained unemployed americans waiting for the wind to blow so they have enough electricity to watch Wheel of Fortune
what is sad is that you actually believe your own crap!

I linked you an excellent resource above and you still want to post stupidity?

I can almost understand you not reading your own resources because you're simply taking the word of some political idiot who conned you... but not reading anything?

are you illiterate?

wow....

just ...
WOW
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2018
monkey say monkey do... (and now he's adding chinese monkeys to his clan of puppetry) lol
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2018
The sum total of all this is: Soon we will need all the CO2 we can get to keep our asses from freezing in 2050,

STOP CO2 CAPTURE, RELEASE ONLY.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2018
The sum total of all this is: Soon we will need all the CO2 we can get to keep our asses from freezing in 2050,

STOP CO2 CAPTURE, RELEASE ONLY.


All you AGWs living here, thank you & all your AGW scare tactics for explaining what we must do to save the planet from the next mini-ice age. Of course next we'll expect to hear from you why all this CO2 RELEASE won't prevent 2050 from becoming reality, right Greeno?
greenonions1
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2018
Benni
right Greeno?
I don't know Benni - nothing you have said above makes any sense. But you could check out this data - showing that C02 and temps have been highly correlated for the past 800,000 years or so. https://nas-sites...e-14.png

Ergo scientists drawing a connection between C02 and climate conditions is pretty reasonable.

Now this data would show you that for about the past 1,000 years - we have been in a cooling trend - https://en.wikipe...ison.png

I guess if you are saying that human release of C02 has arrested that trend - that is reasonable. The bigger issue is the current RATE of change. The implication is that this plus our population explosion - may have some pretty serious consequences. You dont care - but some of us do - http://www.resili...ollapse/
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2018
I guess if you are saying that human release of C02 has arrested that trend - that is reasonable. The bigger issue is the current RATE of change. The implication is that this plus our population explosion - may have some pretty serious consequences.


.......yes, we already know about the serious consequences & we need to be about fixing this problem.

In the last 100 years AGW has only managed to add only about 0.5 ppm CO2. How is that rate enough to blunt what happens in 2050? It has taken over a 100 years to move CO2 ppm to the current level, therefore it only makes sense to make the current CO2 blanket covering the Earth's surface even THICKER, but you AGWs can't figure out how to do that math?

C'mon, we're talking only 30 years from now & you're not in a panic? All you AGWs were in a panic about the warming narratives causing 6 foot sea level rise over a 100 years from now, but no panic for events only 30 years from now?

Turgent
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2018
Paper is behind a paywall, so the parameters of the "reference simulation" are unknown. A reference simulation assumes a steady state of all parameters except that which is being tested. The steady state does not fix parameters as constant, but will hold them at some rate of change assumed to be linear. Assuming linear is just that an assumption. This simulation is 50 years. The data with which this goes into the simulation is a linear regression of a small sample space of cherry picked data (outliers removed). Assumption of a 50 year environmental steady state is too big a reach. This appears to be an academic exercise.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2018
Well it's a good thing we had the forethought and good common sense to warn up the atmosphere before THIS happened eh?

Providence strikes again.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2018
Actually, given that wealth is being siphoned from Western democracies to Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela to pay for oil, it seems that in fact petroleum is a plot to weaken Western democracies financially
Well die Scheide if you actually think a about it, this is a very clever way of maintaining influence over distant peoples and their leaders, who would otherwise be forming into communist regimes and caliphates intent on controlling the world.

Worked out pretty well didn't it? Unless you actually prefer being shipped off to gulag or wearing a burka that is.

Come on. Actually think about it for a change.
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2018
Benni
In the last 100 years AGW has only managed to add only about 0.5 ppm CO2.
Again your statement makes no sense. In the past 60 years - C02 levels have gone up about 100 ppm - from 300 ppm to 400 ppm.https://scripps.u...cord.jpg

If you don't provide any references so we can try to make sense of your gibberish - what's the point?
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2018
Benni
In the last 100 years AGW has only managed to add only about 0.5 ppm CO2.
Again your statement makes no sense. In the past 60 years - C02 levels have gone up about 100 ppm - from 300 ppm to 400 ppm.https://scripps.u...cord.jpg

If you don't provide any references so we can try to make sense of your gibberish - what's the point?


In other words it has hardly changed since the year of the Holy Hockey Stick in 1998, twenty years ago.
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2018
Benni
In other words it has hardly changed since the year of the Holy Hockey Stick in 1998, twenty years ago
You made a very specific assertion -
In the last 100 years AGW has only managed to add only about 0.5 ppm CO2
You provided no support for your assertion - so that I could check into what it is you were trying to say. Instead of more obfuscation - why not actually explain your assertion - with a link?
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2018
Benni
In other words it has hardly changed since the year of the Holy Hockey Stick in 1998, twenty years ago
You made a very specific assertion -
In the last 100 years AGW has only managed to add only about 0.5 ppm CO2
You provided no support for your assertion - so that I could check into what it is you were trying to say. Instead of more obfuscation - why not actually explain your assertion - with a link?


No, you do that.......prove I'm wrong? Do that & boy are you ever gonna be caught up in a conundrum, which is why you won't go look for a link all on your lonesome. Hey, maybe Schneibo will look? Naw, he too sees the conundrum here, right Schneibo?
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2018
No, you do that.......prove I'm wrong?
it's impossible to prove you are wrong - you just posted a whole bunch of gibberish. So - again - here is your statement
In the last 100 years AGW has only managed to add only about 0.5 ppm CO2
. I don't understand that statement. It does not make any sense to me. It is gibberish. If you want to assert that it is not gibberish - please post some kind of link - that explains what it is you are trying to say. I think you just got busted saying stupid gibberish - and when asked to explain yourself - your only retort is to tell me that it is my responsibility to google your gibberish - which I did - and it came up with nothing.....
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2018
I don't understand that statement. It does not make any sense to me. It is gibberish. If you want to assert that it is not gibberish - please post some kind of link - that explains what it is you are trying to say. I think you just got busted saying stupid gibberish - and when asked to explain yourself - your only retort is to tell me that it is my responsibility to google your gibberish - which I did - and it came up with nothing


.......and until the authors of this article wrote it you would come up with nothing as well, now you know why you should believe it.
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2018
and until the authors of this article wrote it you would come up with nothing as well, now you know why you should believe it.
You certainly are a master of bullshit. Once again here is your assertion
In the last 100 years AGW has only managed to add only about 0.5 ppm CO2
Now give us a reference that will allow us to understand what you are saying - or where you got that from. Learn to do a copy and paste - copy the relevant sentences into a comment - and give us a link from where you pulled the sentence. Enough with the bullshit and obfuscation.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2018
and until the authors of this article wrote it you would come up with nothing as well, now you know why you should believe it.


You certainly are a master of bullshit. Once again here is your assertion


In the last 100 years AGW has only managed to add only about 0.5 ppm CO2


Now give us a reference that will allow us to understand what you are saying - or where you got that from. Learn to do a copy and paste - copy the relevant sentences into a comment - and give us a link from where you pulled the sentence. Enough with the bullshit and obfuscation.


Learn to solve Rate of Reaction Equations like I can & you'd be able to figure it out, in the meantime, I'm not an Info Tech Babysitter for lazyass people like you who never had the intellectual capacity to figure out that the Sun is the driving force of climatic conditions on planet Earth, something all you in the AGW Holy Hockey Stick crowd have always been in denial of.
greenonions1
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2018
Wow Benni - just total obfuscation. All I am asking you to do - is to explain a very precise statement that you made. It is not an unreasonable request. If you have the time to keep writing bullshit replies - you could take the minute to post me a copy and paste, and a link - showing me that you did not post gibberish. Otherwise it is all gibberish.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2018
Wow Benni - just total obfuscation. All I am asking you to do - is to explain a very precise statement that you made. It is not an unreasonable request. If you have the time to keep writing bullshit replies - you could take the minute to post me a copy and paste, and a link - showing me that you did not post gibberish. Otherwise it is all gibberish.


No, no, you're the one who still does't get it.

Ever since 1998 you guys in the Holy Hockey Stick crowd have been preaching apocalypse to the world via AGW, real science has stared down your rising ocean level scare tactics & found them totally deceptive, now you're the ones to put on the Pointy Denier Hat because you not only can't disprove real science, you've now run out of excuses for why NONE of your AGW claims of shorter winters & rising ocean levels haven't materialized.

Still want to DENY the SUN dictates Climate Change on Planet Earth?
Turgent
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2018
Benni,

You have it.

"Learn to solve Rate of Reaction Equations like I can & you'd be able to figure it out, in the meantime, I'm not an Info Tech Babysitter for lazyass people like you who never had the intellectual capacity to figure out that the Sun is the driving force of climatic conditions on planet Earth, something all you in the AGW Holy Hockey Stick crowd have always been in denial of."

It always degenerates into intellectual laziness, failure to understand math, and obfuscation. Don't waste your time.
Turgent
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2018
It is my understanding that Hockey Stick Man (Michael Mann) still has not released his math and data set.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2018
It is my understanding that Hockey Stick Man (Michael Mann) still has not released his math and data set.


I've heard that too about Mann.

Every single apocalyptic doomsday crowd that has ever come along has bitten the dust 100% of the time.
The AGW crowd is merely the latest, before that it was nutjobs quoting Bible texts or Hindu books & look how much crow that gaggle of doomsday prophets have had to eat.

But just you watch, all those AGWs who had been here engaging in their unending name calling binges will still come here & downvote those of us who poiltely asked them to prove their case, while they in turn went on some of the most prolific & profanity laced name calling binges that could be found anywhere on the internet, to name a few: Stumpy, Ira, Greeno, RNP, jonesdave, ojorf, ghostyotto, imp9, gkam, schneibo, you know, all the usual suspects......and the thing is, don't EVER expect this bunch will ever apologize for being dead wrong about EVERYTHING.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2018
Reduced energy from the sun might occur by mid-century—now, scientists know by how much February 11, 2018, 1:22 pm 1 Captain Stumpy

Case in point downvote, point out the chief of profanity & foulmouthedness around here & they show up everytime to prove my point.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2018
Reduced energy from the sun might occur by mid-century—now, scientists know by how much February 11, 2018, 1:22 pm 1 Captain Stumpy

Case in point downvote, point out the chief of profanity & foulmouthedness around here & they show up everytime to prove my point.


See, yet another case in point:

Reduced energy from the sun might occur by mid-century—now, scientists know by how much February 11, 2018, 1:47 pm 1 Captain Stumpy

......for so long as your foul mouthed name calling binges are allowed, your types will never stop impuning REAL SCIENCE by people with demonstrable credentials, right Stumpo?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2018
@idiot benji troll
your types will never stop impuning REAL SCIENCE by people with demonstrable credentials
1- you have no credentials
2- Rule 37
3- considering you've *demonstrated* that you don't have any maths skill... http://phys.org/n...ood.html

http://phys.org/n...s_1.html

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

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

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

so taking into consideration that you refuse to actually deal with provable science
and that you're inept in maths (demonstrated, repeatedly, from basic to ODE's)
and you refuse to accept validated studies

so anythinganyone will post in refute or validation will be ignored by you (and especially turdg) because that is what your history has proven you do
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2018
@idiot benji troll


........and just one more demonstration of your unending litany of name calling skills. It would be pointless to suggest you see what your skill level would be if you were asked to work on some of those Partial Differential Equations Einstein left behind in General Relativity.

So tell us, how does it feel to know something that you never before believed until you read this article, that in fact the Sun is the primary driver of climate change on planet Earth & not AGW?

Now you know why Nuclear/Electrical Engineers are smarter than guys who spent most of their working life riding around on fire trucks like you did.
Turgent
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2018
From a true authority.

MIT https://www.techn...-better/

"So models continue to get better. But most climate scientists acknowledge that there are limits: no matter how sophisticated our models become, there will always be an irreducible element of chaos in the earth's climate system that no supercomputer will ever eliminate."
greenonions1
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2018
Benni
Still want to DENY the SUN dictates Climate Change on Planet Earth?
I have never done that. I have a superficial understanding of Milankovich cycles, and also sun spot activity. There is plenty to keep me reading - if I take the time on google. So what?

What I keep asking you to do - is explain this statement
In the last 100 years AGW has only managed to add only about 0.5 ppm CO2
It is your statement - and of course very reasonable for another reader to ask you for clarification - and some links. After multiple times of making this very reasonable/straightforward request - you are not capable of doing so. That makes it clear to me that it is bullshit. You are a great at obfuscation and bullshitting - but clearly also know nothing....
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2018
It is your statement - and of course very reasonable for another reader to ask you for clarification - and some links. After multiple times of making this very reasonable/straightforward request - you are not capable of doing so. That makes it clear to me that it is bullshit. You are a great at obfuscation and bullshitting - but clearly also know nothing


Clearly you are talking about the name calling binges you engage with along with Stumpo, etc. And when you're asked to prove who are the "idiots', trolls, etc, you just go on another name calling binge as if your name calling binges are SETTLED SCIENCE.

We know you couldn't solve a Rate of Reaction Equation to save your life, neither could Stumpo, Jonesdave, etc. So why don't you just dig into this entire ppm thing & find out why you've never learned any chemistry in your entire life except for what Stumpy may have been teaching you?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2018
Magnetic reversal in progress during a Grand Minima, it will likely be getting much colder with much worse storms. Were about to see some real climate changes.
https://youtu.be/rgE7rW7x-VU
greenonions1
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2018
Benni
And when you're asked to prove who are the "idiots',
I did that already. You made a bullshit statement - I challenged you to explain your statement - and to provide some links regarding said statement. No matter how many times I repeat the request - all you are capable of is bullshit and obfuscation. It is clear 'who are the idiots.'
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2018
I did that already. You made a bullshit statement - I challenged you to explain your statement - and to provide some links regarding said statement. No matter how many times I repeat the request - all you are capable of is bullshit and obfuscation. It is clear 'who are the idiots.'


Correct. Benni makes idiotic, unsupportable statements, and when he's called out on it, he goes off on a Dunning-Kruger inspired rant about how he can do the differential equations that many of us did in high school, or 1st year undergrad. Maybe Benni lives in a special needs town, where he is the only one to graduate from high school, and this has given him an inflated opinion of his own abilities.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2018
Magnetic reversal in progress during a Grand Minima, it will likely be getting much colder with much worse storms. Were about to see some real climate changes.
https://youtu.be/rgE7rW7x-VU


Oh dear, argumentum ad youtubum! The little of that that I could stand to listen to sounded a lot like the idiot Ben Davidson. Increased solar activity leads to increases in earthquake and volcanic activity! He's been conning the scientifically illiterate with this bollocks for years. Is a regular speaker at EU conferences. Unsurprisingly. Along with other loony tunes cranks like Robitaille and Crothers. People actually pay to go listen to those loons. Sad.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2018
Benni makes idiotic, unsupportable statements, and when he's called out on it, he goes off on a Dunning-Kruger inspired rant about how he can do the differential equations that many of us did in high school, or 1st year undergrad


It is an "unsupportable statement" you made that you studied Differential Equations in HS or even 1st year undergrad. OK, if you expect to advance that claim, then let's scrutinize it........give us the name of your high school & where you attended 1st year of college & we can all log on to those respective sites & check their respective math curriculum.

Jonesy, you don't even know what the pre-requisites are for the math courses under question, no wonder you come here in all the glory of your name calling binges declaring the Sun does not affect climate change, that only AGW affects climate change.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2018
^^^^Lol. I have no idea what the maths curriculum is these days, but suffice to say it varied depending on the type of subjects one was taking in 6th & 7th forms. It was certainly covered in the first year of uni. However, this was back in the late 70s early 80s. I suggest looking up Auckland Grammar School, and Auckland University. That's in NZ, for the geographically challenged.

p.s. Notice that I was correct about Benni changing the subject to go off on a D-K rant to avoid backing up his unsupportable statements! Soooo predictable.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2018
Oh dear, argumentum ad youtubum! The little of that that I could stand to listen to sounded a lot like the idiot Ben Davidson.

Argumentum ad hominem, it's all you got. You have to attack the individuals instead of even trying to understand the science. But you are an acolyte so what else should be expected?
But here is his paper, you know how you shame all who don't publish. Here he publishes a paper and you still show your allegiance as the acolyte you are.
https://www.googl...4MQ_WYDv
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2018
Oh dear, argumentum ad youtubum! The little of that that I could stand to listen to sounded a lot like the idiot Ben Davidson.

Argumentum ad hominem, it's all you got. You have to attack the individuals instead of even trying to understand the science. But you are an acolyte so what else should be expected?
But here is his paper, you know how you shame all who don't publish. Here he publishes a paper and you still show your allegiance as the acolyte you are.
https://www.googl...4MQ_WYDv


Sorry, but he's a crank. The journal is a crank journal, distributed by a crank organisation.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2018
You have to attack the individuals instead of even trying to understand the science.


Nope, I'm well acquainted with Davidson's woo. It had a long running thread on ISF:

http://www.intern...t=289738

I posted in there a number of times, and even successfully predicted an earthquake myself! However, my prediction was based on whether or not I had had bacon for breakfast. It was very scientific. As scientific as Davidson's woo. And more successful.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2018
Thank you for showing once again your standard ad hominem attack. The data is clear, you have no way to refute it so you go character assassin. You're little more than a weak minded tool.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2018
Thank you for showing once again your standard ad hominem attack. The data is clear, you have no way to refute it so you go character assassin. You're little more than a weak minded tool.


No, the data is not clear. It is easy to look at the statistical likelihood of certain magnitude earthquakes occurring, and then use that to see how often they happen, and then make a prediction that makes you look like a genius. That's what I did, and then correlated it with eating bacon sandwiches. Piece of cake (or bacon), and all too easy for the scientifically gullible to get conned.

There is no correlation. Real scientists have studied such things:

Insignificant solar-terrestrial triggering of earthquakes
http://onlinelibr...abstract
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2018
Meh, your paper is cited by one. Obviously, nobody takes it seriously and it's value is shown by how many cite it. I would bet it's one of the authors that cited their own paper. Meanwhile, progress leave old minds such as yourself in the forgotten past. I would venture to say no one has every accused you of being on the cutting-edge of science, ever, in you entire pathetic existence.
Here is one of upwards of a hundred paper released in the last few years which shows you are very wrong.
http://www.tandfo...4.937773
Open your eyes old man!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2018
Here the Chinese and Italians are studying the electromagnetic aspects of earthquakes;
https://www.resea...m-space/
And there you sit, drooling on your TV table watching Jeopardy crapping in your Depends because your walker is just out of reach. Sucks getting old, doesn't it jonesdumb?
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2018
Sorry, but he's a crank. The journal is a crank journal, distributed by a crank organisation.


......but the clown who claims this is not a crank fantasy:

.....suffice to say it varied depending on the type of subjects one was taking in 6th & 7th forms. It was certainly covered in the first year of uni
...........and you just verified your mathematical incompetence, I'd suggest you be the one to go look even at the present day curriculum at the institutions you alluded to & you'll discover why I know you're about the most incompetent stumbling & bumbling neophyte to show up on a science site imagining that you can be mine or anybody else's teacher. You don't even know what a Differential Equation looks like, it was evident from the post I quoted you making, and the fun I'm having with you is that you don't even know why I can so easily figure it out. You think Differential Equations is an Algebra course.

jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2018
^^^^^Lol. Welcome back Dunning-Benni. What a tosser. What country do you live in, jackass? Not everywhere is as backward, you know. What you did in school back then was very much dependent on the subjects you were taking, and the stream you were in. People who were concentrated on the arts were not going to do heavy maths. People concentrating on science would. If you were in 'A' stream, you could do extra, and even attend the local uni. in 6th and 7th, depending on ability. I have no idea how they do it now. A little research shows that one can do DEs as part of calc 3 in the U.S. while at high school. Maybe you were just a bit slow. Now where was that equation of DaSchneib's (or was it 691 Boat's?) that you failed to recognise? Sorry, but scientific knowledge has nothing to do with DEs. You have little to no scientific knowledge, and, from what I've seen, wouldn't recognise a DE if it bit you on the arse. No bugger off back to your D-K fantasy land. Jerk.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2018
Meh, your paper is cited by one.
http://www.tandfo...4.937773
Open your eyes old man!


And nobody will cite Davidson's paper because he's a clueless crank, publishing in a crank journal. Ask him for his mechanism. He's an economist! He's in it to make money. From gullible idiots like you. He tied his fortunes to the EU numpties, because anybody capable of believing that crap will easily buy his drivel. Perfect marks. Grow up and get an education, woo child.
https://www.kicks...tion-app
Hands up any gullible loons who have given $25 to these shysters. Oh dear. Conned.

As for the paper you link; you are getting things bass-ackwards, yet again. Please show me where in that paper that the authors claim that EM effects are causing the 'quakes, rather than being a consequence of them? Just like your confusion with Langmuir waves. Cause and effect. Try to get it right.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2018
A little research shows that one can do DEs as part of calc 3 in the U.S. while at high school
@JonesDave
or just Calc as it depended upon how the curriculum was designed - or how far back you go
Now where was that equation of DaSchneib's (or was it 691 Boat's?)
these might help:
http://phys.org/n...s_1.html

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

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

https://phys.org/...ing.html

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

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

Some posters I know tried to teach benji - DaSch, RNP, Thermodynamics, Ira, Whyde, 691Boat, you, furlong
jonesdave
5 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2018
Here the Chinese and Italians are studying the electromagnetic aspects of earthquakes;
https://www.resea...m-space/
And there you sit, drooling on your TV table watching Jeopardy crapping in your Depends because your walker is just out of reach. Sucks getting old, doesn't it jonesdumb?


Deary me. And a minutes research gets me this:

CSES (China Seismo-Electromagnetic Satellite) is a scientific mission dedicated: to monitoring electromagnetic field and waves, plasma and particles perturbations of the atmosphere, ionosphere and magnetosphere ***induced*** by natural sources.....


Cause and effect, woo boy. Look up the word 'induced'. Lol.
http://cses.roma2.../node/18
jonesdave
5 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2018
And a couple more minutes reading gets me this, from the paper cantthink linked:

Though it is simplified, Eftaxias et al. (2013 Eftaxias K, Potirakis SM, Chelidze T. 2013. On the puzzling feature of the silence of precursory electromagnetic emissions. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 13:2381–2397.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]) have proposed a two-stage model of EQ dynamics as follows: (1) the initial emissions of very high frequency (VHF) waves originating from the cracking in the highly heterogeneous material that surrounds the backbone of asperities distributed along the stressed fault and (2) the abrupt emergence of strong avalanche-like ELF/VLF electromagnetic emissions thought to be due to the fracture of the family of the asperities themselves.


Really haven't got the hang of this science lark, have you dear? Or reading comprehension either, it would seem.

http://www.tandfo...4.937773
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2018
Actually, Davidson's paper has already been cited by more than the one you posted, and it's 3-years newer.
Also, just take a look at the papers cited, most refer to precursors to the earthquake. Precursors usual are on the causal side of the equation. Kinda like the precursor to you crapping your pants is when the care-taker gives you the bacon to eat.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2018
Cause and effect, woo boy. Look up the word 'induced'. Lol.
http://cses.roma2.../node/18

The Sun of course not being a natural source....
jonesdave
3 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2018
Also, just take a look at the papers cited, most refer to precursors to the earthquake. Precursors usual are on the causal side of the equation. Kinda like the precursor to you crapping your pants is when the care-taker gives you the bacon to eat.


Which part of the text that I quoted are you having trouble understanding? Let me put it in terms that even idiots can understand; rocks fracture; produce EM stuff; earthquake occurs. Not bleeding rocket science, is it?
And I'm sorry, but how old are the loons Thornhill, Scott, Talbott? They've got a generation on me. You don't seem to have any problem believing their idiotic woo.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2018
Cause and effect, woo boy. Look up the word 'induced'. Lol.
http://cses.roma2.../node/18

The Sun of course not being a natural source....


So, we can add lack of research skills to reading comprehension and scientific illiteracy!
Go to that page - mouse over 'scientific objectives', select 'ionosphere-magnetosphere-lithosphere coupling'. Read the following:

The objective of the CSES mission is to study the ionospheric disturbances ***induced by seismic activity and earthquake preparation mechanisms***.


Not difficult, is it?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2018
So, the Chinese and Italians want to research earthquake predictive ability by using EM signatures and a satellite is being sent up to study said EM precursors. You'd think if they were as smart as you and that and they actually read the papers they cited they would see that EM are only and can only be the results or cracking rocks, as you claim.
https://www.googl...KEOm0QtU
Nevermind the actual phenomena that occurs before the cracking rocks. But who cares about reality and facts when you can live in the same delusional dementia induced reality in which you reside.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2018
You don't even know what a Differential Equation looks like, it was evident from the post I quoted you making, and the fun I'm having with you is that you don't even know why I can so easily figure it out. You think Differential Equations is an Algebra course


Now where was that equation of DaSchneib's (or was it 691 Boat's?) that you failed to recognise?


I see you & Schneibo have the same problem, Differential Equation Identification. Schneibo also thought DEs were an Algebra course. So let's see here, you attended 1 year at Uni, your major was in the ARTS, no demonstrable skills or education in a Science curriculum.

You have this funny farm fantasy that you can lecture one, such as myself, who spent six years in Engineering School studying Nuclear/Electrical Engineering, and you wonder why I call you on your math skills as evidence against your competency to be a critic on a Science website.

So what were you majoring in at Uni & why only a year there?
Turgent
2 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2018
Is such ignorance for real?!! That is, mistaking a D.E., O.D.E, and P.D.E. for algebra be real! No wonder so many of these kooks are so absolutely stupid when it comes to the complexity of things.

This stupidity is consistent past dialogues with der Snob and others. This explains it. Some are so stupid you don't know how ignorant you are!
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2018
Is such ignorance for real?!! That is, mistaking a D.E., O.D.E, and P.D.E. for algebra be real! No wonder so many of these kooks are so absolutely stupid when it comes to the complexity of things.

This stupidity is consistent past dialogues with der Snob and others.This explains it. Some are so stupid you don't know how ignorant you are!


The joneses & schneibos, etc, are the ones to engage in the most prolific foul mouthed rants, who also are the ones with the least demonstrable math skills. They can't put up a Comment that is absent such linguistic content.

Take for example this jonesy guy, it's obvious why he didn't make it past the first year at Uni in New Zealand. When he talks about math courses he doesn't even talk about them within the context of actually having taken them, and when I pin him down to specifics he can't even get the sequence of a math curriculum in proper order. He thinks DEs are just some kind of outlier course in Algebra.

Turgent
2 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2018
"A little research shows that one can do DEs as part of calc 3 in the U.S. while at high school. Maybe you were just a bit slow. Now where was that equation of DaSchneib's (or was it 691 Boat's?) that you failed to recognise? Sorry, but scientific knowledge has nothing to do with DEs. You have little to no scientific knowledge, and, from what I've seen, wouldn't recognise a DE if it bit you on the arse."

This really gave it away. I would like to have done adequate calculus so as to do ODEs all before 12th grade graduation. Maybe Sheldon Cooper could. When I did ODEs the prof. called it "The whole bag of tricks". It was and fun. When I did my last PDE class it focused solely on the wave equation. It was the hardest course I ever took.

If any of these dip sticks understood the application of Navier-Stokes equations to climate simulations, maybe they would STFU and be something other than useful idiots.

Benni
1 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2018
When I did my last PDE class it focused solely on the wave equation. It was the hardest course I ever took.
........OH? You too? Fun working with PDE stuff for which you may not get a definitive answer. Yeah, hardest part of DEs for me too.

Turgent
2 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2018
Or could these clowns also/or be confusing DEs with finding a derivative?
Turgent
1 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2018
When I did my last PDE class it focused solely on the wave equation. It was the hardest course I ever took.
........OH? You too? Fun working with PDE stuff for which you may not get a definitive answer. Yeah, hardest part of DEs for me too.



I didn't solve it. I was an undergraduate. Some of the graduate students did. As a final we were given a week to solve it.

Method used to solve it counted.
TechnoCreed
not rated yet Feb 13, 2018
@Turgent
I know that articles relating to climate are what brought you to Physorg. But I did not yet read any comments of yours on articles relating to space exploration, aeronautics, astronomy or astrophysics. Do you have any interest in those subjects ?
leetennant
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2018
Once again, a Maunder Minimum will shave a whopping 0.1-0.2 degrees off global temperatures. Human activities have increased them by more than 1.

Pretty simple maths.
leetennant
4 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2018
Previous Maunder minimums have caused "mini ice ages" in regional areas only and those "mini ice ages" weren't actually "ice ages" at all.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2018
Once again, a Maunder Minimum will shave a whopping 0.1-0.2 degrees off global temperatures. Human activities have increased them by more than 1.Pretty simple maths.
.........only when you learn how to do it, you haven't:

0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F), average global temperatures decrease.
leetennant
4 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2018
Once again, a Maunder Minimum will shave a whopping 0.1-0.2 degrees off global temperatures. Human activities have increased them by more than 1.Pretty simple maths.
.........only when you learn how to do it, you haven't:

0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F), average global temperatures decrease.


You're right, Benni, science is best if you don't update your information for five years.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2018
Once again, a Maunder Minimum will shave a whopping 0.1-0.2 degrees off global temperatures. Human activities have increased them by more than 1.Pretty simple maths.
.........only when you learn how to do it, you haven't:

0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F), average global temperatures decrease.

You're right, Benni
.......again.
leetennant
4 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2018
Once again, a Maunder Minimum will shave a whopping 0.1-0.2 degrees off global temperatures. Human activities have increased them by more than 1.Pretty simple maths.
.........only when you learn how to do it, you haven't:

0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F), average global temperatures decrease.


You're right, Benni
.......again.


We all know your greatest skill is cherry picking but this is a little transparent even for you, no?
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2018
Once again, a Maunder Minimum will shave a whopping 0.1-0.2 degrees off global temperatures. Human activities have increased them by more than 1.Pretty simple maths.
.
........only when you learn how to do it, you haven't:

0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F), average global temperatures decrease.


You're right, Benni
.......again.


but this is a little transparent even for you, no?


It should be transparent because it wasn't hard to find by a simple google search that YOU manage to screw up, but no surprise there.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2018
You have this funny farm fantasy that you can lecture one, such as myself, who spent six years in Engineering School studying Nuclear/Electrical Engineering, and you wonder why I call you on your math skills as evidence against your competency to be a critic on a Science website.


Lol. This is the idiot that thinks that visible light doesn't cause warming! Shut up and get back under your rock, with the rest of the Dunning-Kruger infected idiots. Which differential equations did you stuff up to figure that one out? Like I said, your scientific knowledge is negligible to nil.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2018
So, the Chinese and Italians want to research earthquake predictive ability by using EM signatures and a satellite is being sent up to study said EM precursors. You'd think if they were as smart as you and that and they actually read the papers they cited they would see that EM are only and can only be the results or cracking rocks, as you claim.
https://www.googl...KEOm0QtU
Nevermind the actual phenomena that occurs before the cracking rocks. But who cares about reality and facts when you can live in the same delusional dementia induced reality in which you reside.


You obviously didn't read the paper that you linked, eh? This appears to be a decent, well researched paper. It nowhere contains anything remotely resembling the idiocy peddled by Davidson. All of the EM effects are due to what's happening beneath ground.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2018
^^^^^^^Here is a later paper with the same author as one of the co-authors. Pretty much everything you need to know is in the abstract. Oh, and the 'corona' discharge they are talking about is not from the Sun's corona :)

https://www.resea...in_rocks
Turgent
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2018
@TechnoCreed,

@Turgent
I know that articles relating to climate are what brought you to Physorg. But I did not yet read any comments of yours on articles relating to space exploration, aeronautics, astronomy or astrophysics. Do you have any interest in those subjects ?


I love the articles on aeronautics, astronomy, cosmology, etc. Occasionally, I do comment. Sometimes the physics dialogue also gets ridiculous, as with Climate science. See the comments on the article "First high-precision measurement of the mass of the W boson at the LHC" or "Researchers discover efficient and sustainable way to filter salt and metal ions from water". Sometimes there are so few who can contribute a worthwhile comment. I doubt any of the kooks had any idea where the mass of the W boson comes from.

Cont:
Turgent
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2018
You shouldn't get me talking as I go off on tangents.

"Researchers discover efficient and sustainable way to filter salt and metal ions from water" was fascinating. What is defined as "hydration" or "solvation shell" and how it can be used was new knowledge.

Something like an organism reaching the limits of hearing or smell at the quantum level is fascinating. That is random motion (quantum fluctuation of electron positions) of molecular electrons can give an organism a false signal is amazing.

See you on the aeronautics, astronomy, cosmology, etc. posts.
Turgent
1 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2018
One last comment. For fun I have a couple of times thrown out on point red herrings and none of the name callers ever picked up on it.

I'm getting off subject here.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2018
Lol. This is the idiot that thinks that visible light doesn't cause warming! Shut up and get back under your rock, with the rest of the Dunning-Kruger infected idiots. Which differential equations did you stuff up to figure that one out? Like I said, your scientific knowledge is negligible to nil.


Having expertise in science requires more than name calling skills, there's the required minimum level of math skills in Calculus & the ONLY thing you amply demonstrate is the lack of THOSE minimum skills every single time you put up a Comment.

Hey, name calling genius, why did you spend only a year at Uni in New Zealand? Was remedial grade school math too much for you?
leetennant
5 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2018


0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F), average global temperatures decrease.


You're right, Benni
.......again.


but this is a little transparent even for you, no?


It should be transparent because it wasn't hard to find by a simple google search that YOU manage to screw up, but no surprise there.


What did you google? Temperature increases circa 2013?

https://www.ncdc....l/201713

Not only are temperature increases above 1 degree Celsius, they're above 1 degree Celsius for the first time *in the absence of an El Nino*. In fact, according to the BOM's latest ENSO Wrap up, the indicators continue to show at least some La Niña characteristics. And we're still above 1 degree.
TechnoCreed
1 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2018
@Turgent
HEP to hein ? Very glad I asked ! Hope to see your comments in various subjects. New blood is very much needed in those comment sections.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2018
@Turgent
HEP to hein ? Very glad I asked ! Hope to see your comments in various subjects. New blood is very much needed in those comment sections.


True, you Comments are all the same
Turgent
1 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2018
@Turgent
HEP to hein ? Very glad I asked ! Hope to see your comments in various subjects. New blood is very much needed in those comment sections.


Thank you
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2018
Here is another paper which points to electromagnetic causes of earthquakes, and the cited Davidson's paper. LOL, jonesdumb is being left in the forgotten past.
https://www.scirp...ID=82421

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.