Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. (Read 636443 times)

Cool drawing idea is one of the best channel for amazing cool drawing ideas!

Are you saying that it's obvious the LIA was caused by a GSM? Yes or no.

As previously stated (apparently not understood)

We (much later) conceptually tag 1300-1800 or 1500 - 1800 whatever with LABEL. Then we look for CAUSE of LABEL.

That's not the way it works in natural systems with chaotic behavior. That's our brains trying to understand things.  That's you trying to fixate on single CAUSE-->single EFFECT.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128045886/evidence-based-climate-science

Do you understand the relation between cosmic rays, cloud cover, the solar wind variations and weather on Earth? I had earlier noted the CLOUD experiments at CERN, but maybe you did not see the connections? These were only speculative theories in 2010 and 2012, but the CLOUD experiments provided some definitive data. That is why I noted that you cannot disregard solar influences by focusing on TSI as only changing very slightly during the LIA. That is junk science.

What I am saying is that virtually nobody argues that the TSI change during any solar cycle, including GSM, causes significant weather or climate change on the Earth. Thus any that argue against this made-up theory have only created a straw man to knock down.

From the abstract and chapter summary noted above.

The solar irradiance was almost constant during the Maunder minimum and about 0.24% (or about 0.82 W m−2) lower than the present value (see Panel (a) in Fig. 5), but CR intensity and air surface temperature varied in a similar manner – see above sections; with increasing CR intensity there was a decrease in air surface temperature (see Panels (b) and (c) in Fig. 5). The highest level of CR intensity was in 1690–1700, which corresponds to the minimum of air surface temperature [49] and also to the coldest decade (1690–1700).

...It is well known that many internal and external factors influencing the climate are unstable, for example, decreasing the Earth's temperature leads to an increase of snow and the decreasing of the solar energy input into the system leads to a further decrease in the Earth's temperature. From this it follows that even energetically small factors may have a major influence on climate change. From our point of view, cosmic rays and cosmic dust, through their influence on cloudiness, are important factors in understanding climate.


The simple fact is that the creation of a 500 year more less period of cold requires an energy balance to accommodate that reality. The only way that can be accomplished is the aggregate joules of heat on the Earth are less than in "normal times."

Sunspots are not a cause, but a visual symptom of tremendous changes in the Sun, internally. Cosmic rays are particles, each single one with an energy about equal to a hardball thrown by a professional player. Clouds exist only because nucleation media in the atmosphere promotes them.


That's nice, but not relevant to the physical reality of these events, and the known effects of major EMF.

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-would-happen-if-solar-storm-wiped-out-technology-geomagnetic-carrington-event-coronal-mass-ejection

It sounds like something out of a disaster movie, but it's not the stuff of fiction. Conservative estimates suggest we could be looking at up to US$2 trillion of damage in the first year of such a calamity, with a recovery effort that could take a decade for the world to pull off.

On the more extreme side, others say US$20 trillion is a more reasonable figure – an inevitable damage bill that should perhaps make us reassess the risk factors of space-borne destruction.

"In terms of risk from the sky, most of the attention in the past was dedicated to asteroids," astrophysicist Abraham Loeb from Harvard University explained to Universe Today last year.

"But a century ago, there was not much technological infrastructure around, and technology is growing exponentially. Therefore, the damage is highly asymmetric between the past and future."

Yes.  The articles are clear.  None of them suggest that a GSM was the cause of a LIA or that another LIA is likely to occur in the near future.

If any of the articles support your theory that the LIA was caused by a GSM, then yes, please.

I never said that, so no, I haven't tossed it out.

---

Are you saying that it's obvious the LIA was caused by a GSM? Yes or no.

Have you reviewed any of the articles you have been provided? Yes or no. What was not clear?

Would you like me to quote directly from them, so that there is less of a need for you to read?

Also, have you completely tossed out your silly ideas that solar flares, and the atmospheric events known as Carrington events, are not a huge threat to our modern world?

Yes or no please.

Are you saying that it's obvious the LIA was caused by a GSM? Yes or no.

Here is a short summary of work on climate & solar etc. as it affects the Maunder period.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/maunder-minimum

I am not sure what part of this you are having trouble understanding.

Are you saying that it's obvious the LIA was caused by a GSM?  Or that there's any evidence that suggests there will be another LIA in the near future?

If so, are you aware of any peer reviewed scientific study to back up your claim.

This isn't a personal attack.  I'm honestly just looking for answers. 

The Sun warms the Earth, so we must look somewhere else, other than the Sun, if the Earth cools as it did in the Little Ice Age.

Let's see how logical that is. "Winter" is the result of orbital factors and planetary tilt, affecting Solar watts per square meter on a given part of the Earth.



And even a "Little" Ice Age is worse than a "winter."

But solar effects are not the cause, you say? Well, where did all that heat go? I'm sure the people in the LIA who starved during the "Year without a Summer" would really like to know that one. They blamed witches, often or not. The very conception of witches today dates from those time.

"Cold as a Witch's Tit"?

Now where did that saying come from?

And a good one.  The decade has peer-reviewed the fuck out of the white-paper.  I'm liking how it turned out.

Same question on a different thread, so same answer:

In climate-change-land a few names of people who I have confidence in:

  Richard Lindzen
  Judith Curry
  Freeman Dyson
  Murray Salby

I'll add here that one of the BIG reasons I have some confidence in these people is BECAUSE people and organizations who I don't trust at all have tried to do hatchet-jobs on them, and in ham-fisted ways which are clearly bogus when one takes the time to study the whole story.  In vax-land a counterpart would be Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

Both of you are posting on bitcointalk.org, a forum which exists because of a single 9 page un-peer-reviewed paper.

Just a reminder...

Nothing beats direct observation and empirical measurement, except corruption and peer pressure.

Measured directly, the Sun is 32 minutes or nautical miles wide.

If you think scientific peer reviewed studies are a sham, I get it. 

But what's better?  Your own research?  Something else?  When it comes to science, what do you consider the most reliable source?

As we learned from climate-gate, the 'peer review' process in climate-land is a meaningless circle-jerk of scientpriest conspirators.

You'd have to look pretty hard a 'peer-review' of anything which doesn't support the fraud because anyone who did so will be black-listed from academia and will have to find a new line of work.

On the flip side, a 'peer review' of the most flawed and ridiculous 'climate-change-caused-foo' paper will sail right through the 'peer review' process in it's current implementation.  So 'peer review' is doubly meaningless.

I have not been able to find a single peer reviewed scientific study that suggest that the GSM (or any GSM) was the likely (much less 'obvious') cause of the LIA.

Are you saying that it's obvious the LIA was caused by a GSM.

If so, are you aware of any peer reviewed scientific study to back up your claim.

THere's no need to dodge the direct questions.

Here's the way I see it. We (much later) conceptually tag 1300-1800 or 1500 - 1800 whatever with LABEL. Then we look for CAUSE of LABEL.

That's not the way it works in natural systems with chaotic behavior. That's our brains trying to understand things.

In climate science one is always looking ... guessing ... at the secular curve. The climate on which the external events are superimposed on and which they affect. Definitely, volcanoes have a part.

Secular curve was lower in LIA. Solar effects are the cause of that. Naming the four "GSM" does not clearly deliniate or define the extent of solar effects, which goes far, far beyond GSM TSI.

Today the political correct tendency, if you have a half degree unexplained warming, attribute it to GW. Can't do that for LIA, which makes it very interesting. We don't have an accurate scaler for solar, no more than we have one for human effects on climate or for CO2. We've got some guesses,  but numerous areas of this are poorly understood.

Ok, to be clear - are you claiming that the Wolf Minimum is the obvious cause of the LIA?

My intentions are not to personally attack you.

"THE" ?

So like, I've emphasized getting basically familiar with the historical record, right?

Another good read is Brittanica. https://www.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-Age

Wolf minimum   1280-1350
Spörer Minimum   1450-1550
Maunder Minimum   1645-1715
Dalton Minimum   1790-1820

These are ALL grand solar minimums.

The closest star is 25.6 trillion miles away according to the sodomites at The American Astronomical Society. A quick angular size calculation on that number exposes these Jesuit fags as liars, their claims are in blatant violation of some very basic laws of optical physics.