Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And this year: _"Australia snow: 'Big chill' on its way as Queensland temperatures set to drop to lowest in 15 years"_
These are the warmest years only in your head, and in the globalist propaganda you eat. You're servile, you don't think for yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
..., and only affected the northern hemisphere.....
Oh really?
"The five-hundred-year reconstruction is characterised by a temperature increase of approximately 0.5 K, with most of the warming occurring in the 19th and 20th centuries. The 17th century was the coolest interval of the five-century reconstruction." -from Five centuries of climate change in Australia: the view from underground
What are you doing MM4? Are you running around the world taking temperatures everywhere? Is that what you call thinking for yourself? The problem is that you believe the lying denialist blogs your read and I believe valid science. That is why you will always be wrong, but hey, why change a pattern that works for you?
OK, I looked into it a bit longer than sycodon and timothy apparently did, and I take that back. It doesn't appear that Valentina Zharkova is being funded by the Koch brothers or anything like that. Rather, these two misinterpreted her work to suggest that a 60% fall in magnetic solar activity means the sun's brightness will fall by 60%. Which is somewhat ironic for the following reasons-
The sun actually gets slightly brighter when solar magnetic activity falls, because of the lack of sunspots.
Carbon dioxide has an atmospheric half-life of about 10,000 years, so a "60% fall in solar output" over a timescale of decades won't mean much for long.
The core isn't powering down (which would take approx. one million years to become evident at the surface, because the radiosphere is fully ionized and doesn't undergo convection, which means photons reach the radiopause via a random walk process).
Any variation in solar output will be tempered by the stability of the heat entering the convective zone.
A fall in solar output by 60% would guarantee a following rise afterwards, because of the conservation of energy, and ignoring a rise in CO2 for this reason would eventually backfire.
So this is probably decent research, but unfortunately every right wing nut job out there is going to desperately sink their fingernails into this and deny that rising CO2 is a problem. From reading the comments of the submitter, [slashdot.org] it doesn't seem that we're dealing with a scientific genius here.
A 60% decrease in solar activity does not mean that the sun's radiation will decrease by 60%....It means that there will be a decrease in sun spots and flares.
Solar output has varied by only 0.1% between highs and lows during the last three solar cycles, so you can stop panicking.
I am panicking about this as much as I am panicking about AGW. That is to say not at all.
The Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) published this study which predicts a 60% reduction is solar activity over the 11 year run...to me that's scary. Agreed that it should be peer reviewed and studied and other scientists weigh in on their analysis...they are claiming a 97% accuracy in solar predictions.
No it hasn't been published yet- it's still just a conference presentation. The RAS were just sponsoring a conference and this was a press release from one of the presentations. And the researchers only based their conclusions on research of 3 solar cycles- which isn't much to go on, but it looks like an interesting hypothesis.
It's not like the researcher is referring to the sun's total energy output (now that would be scary), just sunspot activity. It won't even make a dent in global warming. Maybe slow it slightly- like by about 2 years.
It's not like the researcher is referring to the sun's total energy output (now that would be scary), just sunspot activity. It won't even make a dent in global warming. Maybe slow it slightly- like by about 2 years.
That's what the Little Ice Age did?
And note: the Ordovician Ice Age before that occurred when there was 1500% (15x) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as there is now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230
This Slashdot post should say it all. Goes to show you to check carefully into any science story the mainstream media reports about.
“In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum’,” said Zharkova. “Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity. When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago.”
OK, I looked into it a bit longer than sycodon and timothy apparently did, and I take that back. It doesn't appear that Valentina Zharkova is being funded by the Koch brothers or anything like that. Rather, these two misinterpreted her work to suggest that a 60% fall in magnetic solar activity means the sun's brightness will fall by 60%. Which is somewhat ironic for the following reasons
-The sun actually gets slightly brighter when solar magnetic activity falls, because of the lack of sunspots.
...
"There have been several periods during which sunspots were rare or absent, most notably the Maunder minimum (1645-1715),...."
The conditions during this next predicted minimum will still be chilly: “It will be cold, but it will not be this ice age when everything is freezing like in the Hollywood films,” Zharkova chuckled.
The conservs won't listen to hundreds of scientists who warn about global warming, but will jump on 1 scientist who says something that they see as proving their point.
The conservs won't listen to hundreds of scientists who warn about global warming, but will jump on 1 scientist who says something that they see as proving their point.
Just like an anti-vacc'er.
Or the anti-GMO crowd.
Don't act like science denial is all Conservatives. Despite what your "I effing Love Science" Tumblr account and NDT say to the contrarty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
