Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby clif » Sat 14 Nov 2015, 18:04:25

Zharkova doesn't even agree with you non-science based assertion.


Solar cycles alone can’t predict temperature. To do that, scientists must estimate how predicted solar activity will interact with other parts of the climate. But, according to Zharkova, the researchers “didn’t do that estimation.”

That’s the problem: If the researchers didn’t do that estimation, then journalists have no basis to claim that we’re headed for a new ice age. Reporters made stuff up. The media failed.


Read the rest here;

Media Failure: How Bad Journalism Created the “Mini Ice Age”

https://medium.com/@awurevig/media-fail ... 1cd5af9df8

In essence, she never said what you claim she said, but you probably don't understand why this is true.
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity.
User avatar
clif
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 12:04:10

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby PrestonSturges » Sat 14 Nov 2015, 18:10:10

And nobody wants to expand on their main point "The earth is getting warmer which proves the earth is not getting warmer!"
User avatar
PrestonSturges
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6052
Joined: Wed 15 Oct 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby AgentR11 » Sat 14 Nov 2015, 18:22:12

PrestonSturges wrote:And nobody wants to expand on their main point "The earth is getting warmer which proves the earth is not getting warmer!"


Because its idiotic. They can't support it when you boil it down. It engages glaciation as a distraction, and leaves the reader with the impression they are disputing agw, without actually saying it.

Its slimy and idiotic.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
User avatar
AgentR11
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6058
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 08:15:51
Location: East Texas

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby PeterEV » Sun 15 Nov 2015, 10:15:55

Preston wrote:
Since you aren't reading the thread ..... a couple people wrote articles about cooling because the 60s and 70's were chilly. But nobody suggested that an ice age was closer than centuries in the future.


It wasn't about not reading the thread. It was about my recollection of what was being said that it "could be" the beginning of a new ice age. At the time, there was a very severe cold wave in New York State. In January of 1966(?), a temperature of -52 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded nearby. Yes it was "chilly"; downright Siberian.
PeterEV
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat 14 Sep 2013, 23:10:56
Location: Central North Carolina

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby Lore » Sun 15 Nov 2015, 10:42:07

Anecdotal recounts of what was read in the general media, or a chilly day in winter is not really scientific evidence of what was actually happening.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9025
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby clif » Sun 15 Nov 2015, 13:45:46

It was about my recollection of what was being said


Never checked if your recollection is in line with the facts.

Sorta like what you have done misrepresenting the Zharkova paper,

No ... Just regurgitate whatever brainfart you want to be true, no correlation to facts needed.
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity.
User avatar
clif
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 12:04:10

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby PrestonSturges » Sun 15 Nov 2015, 13:46:33

PeterEV wrote:Preston wrote:
Since you aren't reading the thread ..... a couple people wrote articles about cooling because the 60s and 70's were chilly. But nobody suggested that an ice age was closer than centuries in the future.


It wasn't about not reading the thread. It was about my recollection of what was being said that it "could be" the beginning of a new ice age. At the time, there was a very severe cold wave in New York State. In January of 1966(?), a temperature of -52 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded nearby. Yes it was "chilly"; downright Siberian.


Yes I already said that the 60s and 70s were colder, and there were articles that said we could have another Ice Age in a couple thousand years.

You know, for years, the deniers were doing a weekly victory dance claiming "This paper proves global warming is a hoax," and every time the paper said just the opposite.

Now they are going back 50 years and pulling the same bullshit, where the papers they cite generally say the opposite of what they claim
proves. There's a good collection here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age ... -1970s.htm

Except now they claim that rising temperatures prove global warming doesn't exist, which makes no sense whatsoever.

WHy does someone want to spend year typing lies and gibberish? What can they possibly get out of that?
User avatar
PrestonSturges
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6052
Joined: Wed 15 Oct 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Sun 15 Nov 2015, 14:14:39

Why does someone want to spend year typing lies and gibberish? What can they possibly get out of that?


A big fat check from one of the conservative think tanks, like Heritage, Heartland, Cato, and others, who get big donations from you know who, to do exactly that.

They don't have one Joseph Goebbels, but several. You should look at those places as privately run Propaganda Ministries.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6806
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby Lore » Sun 15 Nov 2015, 17:11:54

The "ice age commeth" meme has been around for decades. It just gets dusted off ever so often and trotted around again.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9025
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sun 15 Nov 2015, 17:38:17

Again, I will simply note that the online revisionist version of History is wrong. I weary of saying this: You can't believe everything you read on the net, you can't believe most of it, and nobody can filter out what is real from what is not. If you want to learn about history, read a book.

The "coming Ice Age" was discussed at my dinner table - and although I was definitely the science geek in the family, my parents and three younger siblings were familiar enough with the topic to have an opinion. (Some of my siblings still jibe me today about my concern over the Ice Age that never happened.)

We simply had other things that were more worrisome than climate changing. We had the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviets appeared to be winning the space race, US Navy F4's were rattling the house with sonic booms, we landed on the moon, and somebody (still not completely sure who) had shot the President.

We survived that, just as we will survive and even prosper if the AGW theories are real. (By the way, I just published yet another AGW theory for your perusal in this Forum.)
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3873
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Sun 15 Nov 2015, 20:01:03

KaiserJeep wrote:Again, I will simply note that the online revisionist version of History is wrong. I weary of saying this: You can't believe everything you read on the net, you can't believe most of it, and nobody can filter out what is real from what is not. If you want to learn about history, read a book.

You claim that most scientists writing in scientific journals were predicting an imminent ice age at the time. That is falsifiable.
"I could go on, but let’s veer off in another direction instead."

– The Archdruid
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7274
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Mon 16 Nov 2015, 13:29:51

Keith_McClary wrote:
KaiserJeep wrote:Again, I will simply note that the online revisionist version of History is wrong. I weary of saying this: You can't believe everything you read on the net, you can't believe most of it, and nobody can filter out what is real from what is not. If you want to learn about history, read a book.

You claim that most scientists writing in scientific journals were predicting an imminent ice age at the time. That is falsifiable.


No, I said that scientists were quoted in the popular press I was reading. There was NOBODY then reading scientific journals unless they were in a university or sprang for a print subscription of their own, it was a very different world then, which seems beyond your comprehension.

That plus the fact that you actually believe the things you read on the web I find to be reliable indications of your judgement and intelligence. If you are wondering if that was a compliment: No.

Hint: There are lots of entirely false web pages with bibliographies which link to nothing. The world is not what you read online, it has a separate and different reality. I have no doubt, when the older generations which remember existence without the web are gone, the rest of you will allow History to be edited in real time online.

It simply boggles the mind. I remember a time when online sources were NEVER accepted, even on papers written by school kids. Today every flaming rectum with access to the online world deludes himself into believing he is an expert on everything, and that he can reliably filter what he reads and pick out "truth" from the online BS, and considers himself informed.

If YOU are actually someone who is qualified to have an opinion about whether AGW is real or not, then give me links to YOUR published papers on climate, and list your post-graduate degrees. If you can't or won't, I have to assume you are qualified to wash glassware in a laboratory, and nothing else.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3873
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby AgentR11 » Mon 16 Nov 2015, 14:43:30

So, are you now claiming that only you should be allowed to post material related to AGW on peakoil.com; and that no one is allowed to dispute your conclusions?

I think you will find no support for your asserted authority.

Another glacial cycle was a reasonable likelihood before humans began to alter the atmosphere about 10k years ago.
Once that alteration began, its forcing potence greatly exceeded the potency of the glacial / interglacial cycle.

Thus, there will be no more ice ages in the future history of homo sapiens. There are no negative forcings available that are even in the same ball park as the CO2/CH4 forcings underway. And nothing you have posted with regard to ice ages / glacial intervals contradicts that statement.

Everyone seems to follow your bait that ice ages are big, massive alterations in climate. They aren't. They're puny. Miniscule. Darn near trivial, and to boot, absolutely positive in their effects upon our species.

I really don't know why you deniers even bother any more, its like busting your tail to score the 173 additional leading point in a football game with 5 minutes remaining. Maybe yall are just bad sports, I dunno; but you won. Be magnanimous in your victory, enjoy the spoils of your war. We will burn all the oil, and all the coal, and all the gas; every last bit that is profitably recoverable. The AGW debate will have no impact on that result, regardless of what the science shows.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
User avatar
AgentR11
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6058
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 08:15:51
Location: East Texas

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby PrestonSturges » Mon 16 Nov 2015, 15:01:02

KaiserJeep wrote:The "coming Ice Age" was discussed at my dinner table - and although I was definitely the science geek in the family, my parents and three younger siblings were familiar enough with the topic to have an opinion. (Some of my siblings still jibe me today about my concern over the Ice Age that never happened.)


So you've had this notion stuck in your head for 50 years based on something you heard as a child, and nobody believed you then (?), and after 50 years you are still trying to win this argument or revising your memories that you won that argument in the past. Or something.
User avatar
PrestonSturges
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6052
Joined: Wed 15 Oct 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Cold Sun Rising

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Mon 16 Nov 2015, 19:49:44

KaiserJeep wrote:That plus the fact that you actually believe the things you read on the web I find to be reliable indications of your judgement and intelligence.

And where did you find Evans' "paper" ?
KaiserJeep wrote:Hint: There are lots of entirely false web pages with bibliographies which link to nothing.
...
It simply boggles the mind. I remember a time when online sources were NEVER accepted, even on papers written by school kids. Today every flaming rectum with access to the online world deludes himself into believing he is an expert on everything, and that he can reliably filter what he reads and pick out "truth" from the online BS, and considers himself informed.

Evans' "paper" ?
KaiserJeep wrote:If YOU are actually someone who is qualified to have an opinion about whether AGW is real or not, then give me links to YOUR published papers on climate, and list your post-graduate degrees. If you can't or won't, I have to assume you are qualified to wash glassware in a laboratory, and nothing else.

Oh, pleeze. You are the one who claims to have made the extensive study of mathematical climate models. Give me links to YOUR published papers on climate, and list your post-graduate degrees.
"I could go on, but let’s veer off in another direction instead."

– The Archdruid
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7274
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby dolanbaker » Mon 06 Jun 2016, 11:31:33

Just a quick update as we're progressing towards the end of cycle 24, the fist real period of spotless sun has arrived.


http://spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 0

[url="http://spaceweather.com/glossary/sunspotnumber.html"]What is the sunspot number?[/url]Updated 05 Jun 2016

Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 2 days
2016 total: 2 days (1%)
2015 total: 0 days (0%)
2014 total: 1 day (<1%)
2013 total: 0 days (0%)
2012 total: 0 days (0%)
2011 total: 2 days (<1%)
2010 total: 51 days (14%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%)
Updated 05 Jun 2016
Ronald Coase, Nobel Economic Sciences, said in 1991 “If we torture the data long enough, it will confess.”
User avatar
dolanbaker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Wed 14 Apr 2010, 09:38:47
Location: Éire

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 06 Jun 2016, 11:59:16

Based on the 100 year cycle observed at the beginning of the 1700, 1800 and 1900 centruries by observatories would good records we can expect cycle 25 to return to the strength we saw in cycle 22. IOW it will have a close to average range of sunspots, not the lower than average rates we have seen the last 11 years.

What impact this will have on global climate is hotly debated, some claim we will get a big boost on top of the much higher GHG levels now than in the past. Others proclaim the sunspot change in energy is so trivial we won't be able to tell the difference because we have increased GHG so rapidly.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13719
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby sparky » Sun 03 Jul 2016, 10:16:22

.
I'm pretty much into solar cycles , there is NO certainty about what cycle 25 will be .
in fact the silence of the heliophysicists is quite deafening , nobody of any stature is hazarding an estimate

the link between climate and total solar irradiance is also subject to some conjecture ,
there seems to be a link for a centennial super-cycle but for the last fifteen years it is not overwhelming ,

Time will tell .
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3266
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby dolanbaker » Sun 03 Jul 2016, 15:19:58

Well the only thing I know for sure is that we're now 9 days after the last visible sunspot went over the (solar) horizon.

No sunspots, it just appears to be quite early in the cycle to already be so clear.
Ronald Coase, Nobel Economic Sciences, said in 1991 “If we torture the data long enough, it will confess.”
User avatar
dolanbaker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Wed 14 Apr 2010, 09:38:47
Location: Éire

Re: Say Goodbye to Sunspots Pt. 2?

Unread postby sparky » Sun 03 Jul 2016, 19:27:48

.
@ Dolanbaker , I know , and the down curve is pretty much under the predictions ,
but , hey ...the Sun doesn't care about us and do its thing ,
so far too many famous scientists have been shown to be disastrously wrong to believe future projections .

There is a consensus Cycle 25 will be either a weak one or a very weak one ,
we will know around 2020 when we will see the curve shape
On the good side ,should it happen ,it will allow people to calculate the solar forcing value ,
the numbers given so far are just rubbish
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3266
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

PreviousNext

Return to Environment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests