Post: #1

This has been trending for the last couple of days. Almost every news source I've checked is in agreement. If this doesn't convince you that global warming is a sham, nothing will. The sun has a far greater impact on weather than Co2 emissions.

Quote:There will be a "mini ice age" in 2030, solar scientists have said.

We are now able to predict solar cycles with far greater accuracy than ever before thanks to a new model which shows irregularities in the sun’s 11-year heartbeat.

The model shows that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent between 2030 and 2040 causing a "mini ice age".

The conditions predicted have not been experienced since the last "mini ice age" which lasted from 1645 to 1715, called the Maunder Minimum.

The findings are being presented by Professor Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.

In 1843 scientists first discovered that the sun's activity varies over a cycle of 10 to 12 years.

Fluctuations within that cycle have been difficult to predict, although many solar physicists new that the variations were caused by a dynamo of moving fluid deep inside the sun.

Professor Zharkova’s team of researchers has found that adding a second dynamo close to the surface of the sun, creates a far more accurate model.

The scientists found magnetic waves in two different layers of the sun’s interior which fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the sun.

“Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 per cent," Professor Zharkova said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment...82400.html

Post: #2

Post: #3

If I actually listened to all these experts these days I would be in a bunker similar to those in the Fallout games, only coffee beans for nourishment, red wine for the evenings and no guns.




Oh yeah. And no pussy.

Post: #4

(07-13-2015 05:30 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  If I actually listened to all these experts these days I would be in a bunker similar to those in the Fallout games, only coffee beans for nourishment, red wine for the evenings and no guns.




Oh yeah. And no pussy.

Fair enough but this isn't profitable. You can't tax people more if there is no warming of the planet. There's so much interest in global warming because its profitable, scare people into believing a doomsday prediction and take more of their money. It's as if they reinvented a religious trope.

Post: #5

It may be even worse than they're talking about....and we've got a perfect setup for this, with all the global warming nutjobs doing everything in their power to make sure that we as a society are unprepared and don't have access to the technology needed to get through it:

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/34854

Quote:he Maunder Minimum created such a deep cold in Europe and extreme weather events elsewhere that what unfolds is a series of droughts, floods and harvest failures. Historically, this leads to massive migrations, wars and revolutions. The fatal synergy between human and natural disasters eradicated perhaps one-third of the human population during the last event and this time we are crashing more rapidly than before. Therefore, we may exceed more than a reduction in population of one-third and reach the levels of the 14th century of 50%, which was also combined with the Black Plague.

What took place during the 17th century suggests that altered weather conditions can have catastrophic political and social consequences. Political systems are already in crash mode with the economic BIG BANG. Add to this, the crisis we see in weather cycles and this will be augmented by unpredictable crises involving water, food, energy supply chains and public health. States will unquestionably collapse as famine could overtake large populations and flood or disease could cross borders and lead to internal instability or international conflict.

Post: #6

(07-13-2015 05:43 AM)zombiejimmorrison Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 05:30 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  If I actually listened to all these experts these days I would be in a bunker similar to those in the Fallout games, only coffee beans for nourishment, red wine for the evenings and no guns.




Oh yeah. And no pussy.

Fair enough but this isn't profitable. You can't tax people more if there is no warming of the planet. There's so much interest in global warming because its profitable, scare people into believing a doomsday prediction and take more of their money. It's as if they reinvented a religious trope.

I don't know if you're in the know but a whole incentive industry was set up to combat heat loss and energy consumption in EU countries.

Heat loss prevention products will only become more fashionable and require more incentives and tax-free/tax funding.

This prediction is a doomsday scenario. Shit my mother thought CERN was a doomsday prediction. People are gullible and stupid and this goes for governments too and lobbyists.

All someone has to do is point out an obvious flaw with today's construction methods and voila, more money.

Post: #7

Post: #8

Post: #9

I'm personally in favor of a mini-ice age and hope this does come to pass.

Predicting solar activity 15 years from now seems like a stretch, but I have an open mind. If you are convinced by this study, can you say why you trust the person who is doing this? Did you read her hypothesis and find it convincing? Did an independent, reliable scientific source back her up? You say its solid because every news source you checked corroborates it? That's chick logic and you know it, they are all just reporting something exciting and controversial that happened at a single conference. Were her results a peer-reviewed paper or was it a conference poster that any graduate student could put up without review. She is quoted on how accurately her model reproduced the previous solar cycle, 97%. Great, but we have data on so many previous solar cycles, why did she not present results on those? Trivial to do as long as you have the first one done.

The Earth's climate is influenced by a ton of different things, solar output being only one of them. Of course a big change there will influence our climate (you said weather but I know what you meant). However, your conclusion is false, since because even if x is true does not mean unrelated y is false. There really isn't any doubt among non-conspiracy theorists that man-made CO2 has a significant impact on climate change. The only question is exactly how much, and trust me a lot of smart people are working on that.

Post: #10

(07-13-2015 10:20 AM)Engineer Wrote:  I'm personally in favor of a mini-ice age and hope this does come to pass.

Predicting solar activity 15 years from now seems like a stretch, but I have an open mind. If you are convinced by this study, can you say why you trust the person who is doing this? Did you read her hypothesis and find it convincing? Did an independent, reliable scientific source back her up? You say its solid because every news source you checked corroborates it? That's chick logic and you know it, they are all just reporting something exciting and controversial that happened at a single conference. Were her results a peer-reviewed paper or was it a conference poster that any graduate student could put up without review. She is quoted on how accurately her model reproduced the previous solar cycle, 97%. Great, but we have data on so many previous solar cycles, why did she not present results on those? Trivial to do as long as you have the first one done.

The Earth's climate is influenced by a ton of different things, solar output being only one of them. Of course a big change there will influence our climate (you said weather but I know what you meant). However, your conclusion is false, since because even if x is true does not mean unrelated y is false. There really isn't any doubt among non-conspiracy theorists that man-made CO2 has a significant impact on climate change. The only question is exactly how much, and trust me a lot of smart people are working on that.

I'm not an expert but I'm also not a doomsday predictor like the people who preach global warming and want massive government intervention and spending. You think 15 years is a stretch but most climate experts predict 100 years into the future and assure us that bad things will happen.

The Royal astronomical society backs her up and I'm sure they don't put their reputation on the line so easily, considering they're a reputable society that is mostly made up of astronomers and not climate scientists. Their incentive to tell the truth wouldn't be as corrupted as a climate scientist.

You're asking a lot of loaded questions and not even checking the simple answers yourself. Thanks for clarifying that the climate is weather though.

I don't doubt that man-made CO2 has impact on climate change. You say its significant and then proceed to say they're working on how significant. I'm sure those smart people are diligently working on the solution as well or probably just filling up their coffers.

Post: #11

Well, we better produce more CO2 to warm up the planet and counter the effects of this mini ice-age! Quick, burn more oil.

Post: #12

Hubris. Pure hubris.

We're on the cusp of a new Dark Age, not a new Ice Age. Human beings, both on average individually and as an aggregate whole, know less than we did in previous generations.

Individually, we are more connected and have access to more information than ever before, but our worlds are increasingly smaller and the knowledge we actually understand, retain and employ is shrinking by the day.

As a whole, we have more information, more data, more test results, more research, more tools for investigation and analysis, but we are moving farther and farther from true knowledge.

The collective human understanding is filling up with more myths and outright untruths rather than facts and understanding. Even words are losing their meaning and language is failing us as memes supersede true knowledge and understanding.

What is actually, provably true can be deemed unacceptable, and therefore, untrue. We place more value on the messenger or the intent of the message rather than the truth of the message. Even our scientific is suspect, as the pursuit of pure scientific discovery gives way to the need to confirm or disprove one agenda over another, and as how the sound-bite summary of the results sounds on the evening news matters more than what the underlying analysis actually means.

We are no longer advancing, we're retreating into our own personal cocoons to enjoy the movie of our lives, starring us and a cast of nameless thousands, surrounded by the information, myths and untruths we deem acceptable to the plot we're trying to act out.

Post: #13

Fair enough ZombieJM. I appreciate your measured response. There have been dooms-dayers in climate change and I don't agree with them either. Agree as well astronomers may not have as much stake as climate change researchers. My questions were a bit loaded and I will take the time to find the answers as well as looking through her original presentation.

My frustration with the Times article bled into this discussion. Forgot I'm talking to the RVF here and not the average public. Won't happen again.

Of course there are parasites trying to profit from this situation, but that's not really my concern here. The logic and credence of the arguments on both sides are what interest me, as well as the probable outcome in my and my family's lifetime.

Clarification - when I said folks are looking at how bad it really will be I don't mean to imply they have no idea ("could be nothing, could be real bad") but my sense is the diligent and credible ones with little financial stake are at the stage of trying to narrow uncertainty in the "very uncomfortable" to "very bad" ranges. Second order effects like aerosol cooling which are much harder to quantify. I'll try to get some numbers I trust to share here.

Post: #14

I have for a long time tried to keep myself out of climate-related discussions on the RVF, as I get the impression that people are completely set in their anti-global warming viewpoints, no matter the multitude of evidence to the contrary. I have never (or maybe I should adjust that to rarely) seen any anti-GW poster show a modicum of understanding for basic scientific principles (for example the emission and absorption spectra of gases like carbon dioxide, and methane), let alone the complex dynamics that drive our climate system. In the climate change deniers (I don't mean to use this as a pejorative, or insulting term, merely a description) I see a tendency to drift towards viewpoints offered by conspiratorial sites, whose motives are driven by their dislike the fact that halting the progression of climate change would require regulation and co-operation concerning emissions of greenhouse gases on all scales small and global.

Sorry to pick on you, OP, but this thread is the epitome of this.

Note that the 60% decline in solar activity refers not to solar output (TSI), but rather to the activity of the solar magnetic field. Let me stress again, this article has nothing to do with the radiative output of the sun.

I'm guessing that the OP and some others may have even assumed that this refers to solar output itself, which makes these kinds of posts even more amusing.

I have to go right now, but I will return to this thread with a proper explanation for why this whole article is complete bullshit, and is related to scientifically outdated theories of climate change.

Post: #15

Does this benefit me in any way?

Post: #16

(07-13-2015 10:20 AM)Engineer Wrote:  I'm personally in favor of a mini-ice age and hope this does come to pass.

Why? Seems like a strange thing to be in favor of.

Quote:Predicting solar activity 15 years from now seems like a stretch, but I have an open mind. If you are convinced by this study, can you say why you trust the person who is doing this? Did you read her hypothesis and find it convincing? Did an independent, reliable scientific source back her up? You say its solid because every news source you checked corroborates it? That's chick logic and you know it, they are all just reporting something exciting and controversial that happened at a single conference. Were her results a peer-reviewed paper or was it a conference poster that any graduate student could put up without review. She is quoted on how accurately her model reproduced the previous solar cycle, 97%. Great, but we have data on so many previous solar cycles, why did she not present results on those? Trivial to do as long as you have the first one done.

Great post. So well said.

Quote:The Earth's climate is influenced by a ton of different things, solar output being only one of them.

Definitely. If people want to get an idea on the fickleness of Earth's climate (I don't mean from the effects of humans), read Bill Bryson's book A Short History of Nearly Everything. One example: the huge shift in worldwide weather patterns and climates when the waterway between North and South America dried up to create the Isthmus of Panama.

Post: #17

Remember the food crisis?

I dont recall the exact dates, but around 2006-2007, there was a huge hype saying that during the next year there would be a mayor food shortage and that millions around the world would die of starvation.

Nothing happened.

Post: #18

I just refreshed my page, deleting the draft that I had for a post, so let me keep it short.

First, I made a mistake by misinterpreting the research that this article points to, thinking that it was referring to a now outdated theory which correlates climate change to solar magnetic field activity via the effects of fluctuations in the sun's magnetic field on the flux of Galactic Cosmic Rays.

I am now reasonably sure that the 60% number in the article refers to the number of sunspots on the surface of the sun, which seems to be a proxy for the 11-year cycles in the total solar irradiance (amount of the sun's radiation reaching the top of the Earth's atmosphere). As the article states, IF this were to occur, this could lead to conditions in TSI similar to those observed during the Maunder minimum, a historic period from approximately 1650 to 1700 during which the number of sunspots observed on the surface of the sun was remarkably low, which seems to correspond with a lowered solar output during this period of time.

The literature ( 1, 2, 3, 4) suggests that IF these conditions were to repeat themselves, as is suggested by this paper, then the corresponding temperature forcing over the next 100 years could only be around -0.1 to -0.3°C, figures that are significantly lower than the temperature increases predicted in the most optimistic of emissions scenarios and corresponding temperature models.

Any talk of an 'ice age' is simply idiot journalists putting words into the mouths of the scientists responsible for the studies.

I believe that this is simply one of those journalistic misconceptions which will constantly pop up every year or so, without any backlash for the ease with which they misinterpret the words and works of scientists in order to further their own agendas.

In fact, here is a link to an educated response from a professor whose work was used to fuel an almost identical crap article to the one that the OP posted here, I suggest you check it out.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/11/...%E2%80%9D/

Post: #19

(07-13-2015 04:01 PM)germanico Wrote:  Remember the food crisis?

I dont recall the exact dates, but around 2006-2007, there was a huge hype saying that during the next year there would be a mayor food shortage and that millions around the world would die of starvation.

Nothing happened.

I've got my money on the hype.

Post: #20

(07-13-2015 04:21 PM)thebassist Wrote:  I have for a long time tried to keep myself out of climate-related discussions on the RVF, as I get the impression that people are completely set in their anti-global warming viewpoints, no matter the multitude of evidence to the contrary. I have never (or maybe I should adjust that to rarely) seen any anti-GW poster show a modicum of understanding for basic scientific principles.

(07-13-2015 04:21 PM)thebassist Wrote:  First, I made a mistake by misinterpreting the research that this article points to, thinking that it was referring to a now outdated theory which correlates climate change to solar magnetic field activity via the effects of fluctuations in the sun's magnetic field on the flux of Galactic Cosmic Rays.

You proved the first point you made, accusing others of not checking data or being set in their belief. Insulting other peoples intelligence when you commit the same mistakes is not a good look.

I'm not anti-pollution, I'm anti lets start taxing people and spending billions of dollars and not coming to any meaningful conclusion. America alone has spent $165 Billion on climate technology and science. Nothing meaningful has been done to stop pollution or climate change. Here in Australia we got slapped with a massive carbon tax that made electricity and gas bills go up into stupid levels. They're not done either, they want more money, the euro is going to spend as much as €180 billion between 2014-2020, they just haven't had enough research on climate change. Forgive my lack of conviction when the top government funded scientists are claiming doomsday predictions a hundred years from now.

http://www.hccrems.com.au/fs/201501/a_Ho...r_it_.html

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/budget/index_en.htm

Post: #21

(07-13-2015 10:19 PM)zombiejimmorrison Wrote:  Here in Australia we got slapped with a massive carbon tax that made electricity and gas bills go up into stupid levels.

Hey, Jim, remember how Tim Flannery said Perth was going to be uninhabitable by about 2015 or so?
























...I mean, okay, it is if you're looking for culture or style outside that encountered in your average mining camp, but I don't think that's the sense Timmy meant

Post: #22

(07-13-2015 10:19 PM)zombiejimmorrison Wrote:  You proved the first point you made, accusing others of not checking data or being set in their belief. Insulting other peoples intelligence when you commit the same mistakes is not a good look.

Fair enough man.

I (or rather my ego) saw this article as an affront to climate science as well as my own intelligence, therefore I lashed out without properly considering the situation at hand, or properly formulating my own arguments. I admitted I made a mistake, and will try to keep my ego out of things from this point on, as well as keeping a more measured tone in my posts concerning this topic.

Thus in my second post I responded in a manner more befitting a proper discussion on the RVF, by providing an analysis of the situation at hand based on the forefront of peer-reviewed scientific literature. I can also see that it still came off as somewhat abrasive and condescending, which I will work on.

Fair?

I think for too long I have been to content to simply sit behind my computer and sneer at the anti-anthropogenic-climate change viewpoints being presented at the forum (driven by my ego, no less).

From this point on, I will try to embody the change I want to see in climate-related discussions on the RVF, and make an effort to be more active, while ensuring the quality of the information that I am presenting. I guess my own signature is relevant in this.

So thank you for helping me realize this

Post: #23

There hasn't been a warming for a long time already despite all the claims.

Currently there is even a notable cooling effect which has been blamed on global warming despite the claims before that it would become warmer.

Plenty of articles came out in multiple newspapers - even mainstream ones:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/en...-ever.html

Quote:The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

You have the outright falsification of data:



Also they did not disclose the fact that tens of thousands of measuring stations specially in the countrysides were closed. The Russians alone have shut down thousands of those in places like Siberia, because they were no longer necessary for military reasons (you need temperature data for flight and missiles if you prepare for a potential attack by NATO). But the "scientists" failed to disclose that little fact - if you close 2 stations in the countryside (which is most of the time cooler) and leave one station open in the city, then you get a higher average despite the Earth's temperature not increasing.

Also CO2 - yes we need more of it - much more and we should be all gas-guzzling as much as we can. Currently we barely left a period with low CO2 levels - the UN goals are actually on the extinction levels for plants, so they are absolutely unrealistic and even dangerous if we could achieve them.



CO2 barely contributes to warming according to plenty of studies. There is no consensus of real scientists.

There is only a consensus that CO2 can be linked to human activity and they needed something to tax you all for existing and usher in a new age of austerity. And if Climatards are going to accept it all due to that lie, well then all the better - meanwhile the sun is cooling slightly and we all are looking forward to a small ice age. I wonder how their stupid bird-slaughtering super-expensive wind- and solar-crap will perform in cold winters?






Always question everything - especially when billions or in this case trillions of $ are involved.

Post: #24

(07-14-2015 06:32 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

There hasn't been a warming for a long time already despite all the claims.

I see what you did there. That graph starts in 1997 right before El Nino, I wonder why it would why it would start there?

Lets look at some other Average Global temperature graphs.

Post: #25

I'll preface my comments by stating that, although I try to remain objective, its difficult for me to separate the politics from the "climate change" issue because it has been so politicized, even by the scientists.

That said, I have seen very little reliable, independently verifiable evidence of man-made global warming.

I have seen some evidence of warming in climate research, but the length of time that scientists have been measuring the climate is so very tiny in comparison to the length of time the world has been in existence, I find it hard to believe we can categorize anything as an actual trend. An overly simplistic analogy would be measuring only one minute of temperatures out of an entire year to try to determine a "trend" in temperature change.

I understand there has been scientific research and analysis based on various different methods of extrapolating temperatures and climate prior to human history, but these methods are based on theory, not observable facts. Change a single assumption or move a decimal point and the results can change drastically. And that does not even take into account the level of bias that a significant portion of the climate-based scientific community has shown towards global warming -- a bias significant enough to include actually falsifying data to "improve" their findings. This also glosses over the fact that multiple billion-dollar industries have arisen based on global warming, and the very lucrative motive that industry has to push their agenda at any cost.

Yes, I understand the chart above indicates warming sea temperatures since the 1800s. But, even if those numbers are accurate and verifiable, how does that implicate man as the cause? Even if you correlate the purported warming with the industrial revolution, correlation does not equal causation. And even if every single scientist on the planet agreed that man-made global warming was occurring, science isn't a democracy -- their unanimous opinion doesn't make it an actual, verifiable fact.

Man-made global warming is a myth, but it is a myth deeply ingrained in our subconscious by decades of reinforcement. That's why so many people look at the so-called evidence and believe it, because it reinforces their pre-existing internal bias.