3rdnlng Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/ I think the only thing that will save us is if we increase our carbon imprint. More SUV's, burn coal, and increase our herds of beef cattle should be a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Damn, Barry can't even get the sun to work properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 (edited) The story looks legit, though the conclusions they draw are not based in reality. Why was I only able to find your article on conspiracy and "stuff they don't want you to know" websites? Also, it seems very unlikely to me that we might experience another global cooling period due to this weakened sunspot cycle, but it shows you that there are very sensitive effects going on here that are very difficult to predict — and let me take this chance here to say that no, the Sun is not responsible for global warming, as has been shown fairly conclusively. It can mildly amplify or suppress such things, but is not the main driver of it. If it were, we'd see very strong correlations between the climate and solar activity on a decade-by-decade basis (or even shorter as sunspots form and dissipate over the course of days and weeks). We don't, and therefore the Sun is not the culprit. Here's a much more detailed explanation of what's going on: http://blogs.discove...tle-quiet-time/ Edited June 15, 2011 by Gene Frenkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 The only certainties in this entire debate is: 1. We simply do not know what is causing global warming, and we don't know the true scale and scope of the warming. 2. Some people, and some politicians are psychologically committed to man-made global warming not only being the exclusive answer, but one that demands an immediate end to our way of life. 3. The people in #2 should be psychologically committed. They are no different than the religious zealots they abhor...and the fact that they either can't or won't see that simple truth...is all the evidence we need to prove that they are insane. Both want us to believe in something we can't see, can't falsify, and can't reproduce in an experiment. Therefore, both want us to completely reject all scientific methodology, and simply take what they say on...faith. Worse, they want to do violence to others both physically and economically based solely on that faith. The only difference between these people is that: the religious one will cry "heretic!" before taking the life/property of others. the evirontologist one will cry "denier!" before take the life/property of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 The story looks legit, though the conclusions they draw are not based in reality. Why was I only able to find your article on conspiracy and "stuff they don't want you to know" websites? What, you didn't go straight to the NSO site itself and look at their release? I found even their description of their research somewhat questionable - but I've never known the NSO to do bad or half-asses research. I want to see the published paper and their statistical method before I passed final judgement. so, it seems very unlikely to me that we might experience another global cooling period due to this weakened sunspot cycle, but it shows you that there are very sensitive effects going on here that are very difficult to predict — and let me take this chance here to say that no, the Sun is not responsible for global warming, as has been shown fairly conclusively. It can mildly amplify or suppress such things, but is not the main driver of it. If it were, we'd see very strong correlations between the climate and solar activity on a decade-by-decade basis (or even shorter as sunspots form and dissipate over the course of days and weeks). We don't, and therefore the Sun is not the culprit. That's a load of horseshit. Whatever !@#$ wrote that is forgetting (or ignoring) the very large latent heat capacity of the Earth's ecosystem, which would ultimately result in a weaker intermediate-term correlation, and non-existent short-term ("days or weeks") correlation. That statement is akin to suggesting that because a pot of water doesn't immediately boil when you turn the stove burner up to high, or immediately stop when you turn it off, the stove itself isn't responsible for boiling the water. It's a completely !@#$ing retarded over-simplification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 I'd like to see that plot go back a little further than ~13 years and see what the trend is. Too easy to make your point if you cherry pick data... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 I'd like to see that plot go back a little further than ~13 years and see what the trend is. Too easy to make your point if you cherry pick data... Haven't seen the papers yet, but here's a pretty good write-up of one of them. http://www.sott.net/articles/show/164199-Livingston-and-Penn-paper-Sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015- Apparently, only having 13 years of data is a limit of the methodology - they're going off of spectroscopic analysis of the center of sunspots to establish overall magnetic flux. Not an invalid methodology...but the data set itself only goes back 13 years. The data itself is interesting, but too short to be predictive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 WWMBPD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 The only certainties in this entire debate is: 1. We simply do not know what is causing global warming, and we don't know the true scale and scope of the warming. 2. Some people, and some politicians are psychologically committed to man-made global warming not only being the exclusive answer, but one that demands an immediate end to our way of life. 3. The people in #2 should be psychologically committed. They are no different than the religious zealots they abhor...and the fact that they either can't or won't see that simple truth...is all the evidence we need to prove that they are insane. Both want us to believe in something we can't see, can't falsify, and can't reproduce in an experiment. Therefore, both want us to completely reject all scientific methodology, and simply take what they say on...faith. Worse, they want to do violence to others both physically and economically based solely on that faith. The only difference between these people is that: the religious one will cry "heretic!" before taking the life/property of others. the evirontologist one will cry "denier!" before take the life/property of others. The day that politics became a religion was a bad day for all of us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 The day that politics became a religion was a bad day for all of us A practice which didn't begin with Global Cooling Warming Climate Change We Can Believe In®. Politics and Religion have been dating for millenia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts