Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 3. (Read 636462 times)

I meant Grand Solar Minimum.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011JD017013

First, I think we can agree that the truly huge changes occurring during the last GSM (Grand Solar Minimum) warrant careful consideration of the implications of such an event today. The question is not the effect of a SM, but a GSM. And history of the last GSM simply negates your argument that such cooling would be trivial.

Lets start with this one:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1237178/weather-warning-ice-age-earth-sun-hibernates-solar-minimum-long-range-forecast


Have you checked any of these out yet?

I'm not seeing anything research suggesting that the solar minimum that we're entering will cause cooling more than fraction a degree in cooling (between 0.06 and 0.1 K), and it will be temporary.

It doesn't work for you to make up things like that. I have advanced degrees and studies, have no difficulty in reading peer-reviewed scientific literature, and am quite happy to discuss it on it's merits.

Apparently you are not. You'd like to denigrate ideas because they found their way into popular mass media publications. But only of course, if they were contrary to your personal beliefs.

Enough of your dodging and ducking the subject. Either directly discuss the physics and statistics of solar phenomena or move on to another subject. I don't have time for your nonsense.

^^^ What right do you have to any opinion on science whatsoever? You believe that a mass of pressurized spinning gas can exist in a hard vacuum without a container!

You want to have an authoritative opinion on the weather but can't grasp the basic concepts of high and low pressure systems...

You'll notice in the OP, complaining about climate change deniers banned from r/science also posted a link to a tabloid.

Climate change deniers, anti vaxers and conspiracy theorists in general have a tendency to read lots of tabloids, and use them to 'prove' whatever hypothesis they have that is in conflict with something that the scientific community has come to a consensus on after decades of research being scrutinized.

Don't fall for the sensationalized, easy to read tabloids, and then look for specific facts just to back up what the tabloid convinced you is true.  Try looking at things more objectively, try to disprove your own theories without looking at it as a personal loss if you were wrong, or a victory to be right. 

Suite yourself. Might be better to argue based on hard science, though, don't you think? You're not arguing whether the tabloid got the science right or not, seems you are just arguing against the tabloid.

I'm sure you would like peer reviewed articles. But you are posting on bitcointalk.org, which as as it's origin a 9 page non-peer-reviewed article.

Deal with it.

Linking a tabloid article with a sensationalized headline to defend your hypothesis on what the greatest risk to the planet is... kind of silly imo.

Okay, good. Because it would result in mass starvation such as the world has never experienced.

Well, check out the FEMA report. It's quite interesting. I have many other references. It's important to cross check them critically.

So let's go back to the issue of Global Cooling. What do you think the relative death count would be, for a period of serious global cooling versus the same period of global warming?

Oh, one more thing. Is it clear that linking to news articles is NOT a bad thing, and that criticizing them as not being scientific journals is not a valid criticism? It's simple enough to ask for scientific references. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with the linking to popular media references.

Unless the actual science does not support the concepts pushing in the popular media.

Wait, that's exactly the case with Alarmist Climate Hysterical articles, isn't it?

How about that.

You're misquoting me.  I didn't say that, I do my best to avoid making personal attacks even when I am personally attacked.

No.  I didn't say that.

No you've got it wrong, belief is something you have in regards to living on the surface of a spinning ball in a vacuum. I know the earth is flat and motionless, I know because flat and motionless is the default condition and, you, you and your shitty faith with the church and their heavenly spheres of theoretical impossibility, you look like fucking idiots with your fucking trash pseudoscience and circular logic.

If you think pressurized gas can stick the surface of a ball spinning a thousand miles an hour in a hard vacuum, you've gone full retard!

What I chose to present to you may not be my sources. News articles are fine. But certainly, scientific sources must be available. My life is fine. How is yours going now that your Serious Discussion has came to an end?


Really? So you think a Carrington event would be some minor, unimportant thing?

Might want to reconsider that.

Immediate effect: a loss of approximately 15% of the satellite fleet

After 8 days.
Landline and cellular wireless voice and data services will not be available. Broadband internet services will not be available.
Iridium and other satellite providers will lose operations centers if not resupplied, resulting in the eventual loss of satellite communications through loss of data centers and ground control stations.
In the worst-case scenario, the following systems will be usable if local power is available:
• HF and HF ALE for voice and low-bandwidth non-secure and secure nationwide communications (MERS, FNARS).
• Local VHF, UHF, and microwave line-of-sight voice communications (5-80 miles depending on system and setup) (MERS).

4-10 years to restore the US power grid

Summary: THE END OF LIFE AS YOU KNOW IT

How often do these events occur? According to the NOAA SWPC, there are on average 4 05 geomagnetic storms per solar cycle. The 1859 Carrington-Hodgson event is the strongest on record in the approximately 500 years of data that is available. Anecdotal observational records of low-latitude red aurora hint that the largest events may occur roughly every 500-600 years (Silverman, 2005). However, events strong enough to severely impact modern systems may occur as frequently as once in 100 years

https://www.governmentattic.org/24docs/UnpubFEMAgeomagRpts_2010.pdf

ABC
Both articles are sensationalized and poorly sourced.  Barely sourced at all really, especially the Carrington one that keeps referencing a report I can't find anywhere written by an insurance company.

Lets say the articles are accurate though, they still don't support your hypothesis that the sun is the biggest threat to earth due to Carrington events and global cooling.

From the Carrington article:
"An event such as this is predicted to happen once every 100-250 years"
“The total U.S. population at risk of extended power outage from a Carrington-level storm is between 20-40 million, with durations of 16 days to 1-2 years."

And the scientist quoted in the 'Mini Ice Age' article basically said if it happened it could affect crops and another scientist said global warming would vastly offset any Grand Solar Minimum effects.

I encourage you to go read some science journals.  If you just look for articles with headlines that support your hypothesis, you'll always find them somewhere on the internet.  Try searching for the topic you're interested in and read the abstract and conclusion if the abstract is interesting. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/

The scientists that write them put a ton of effort into citing every thing and they are peer reviewed many times before being published.

Like I said. So where is your problem with my post (A) only that it linked news, not studies (B) GC (C) Carrington.

notbatman is either the real deal or one of the greatest trolls of all time.  I've got pretty good troll radar, and I'm pretty sure he actually believes the nonsense he spews. 

He's been keeping it up for almost 5 years in his OT thread. (16k posts, over a million views)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/flat-earth-1009045

Maybe some of these climate change deniers will go look at his thread and realize how much in common they have with him.

Nobody believes stuff like this and flat-earth.  It's a tool developed to divert attention away from things which the developers don't want to have a discussion about (because they lose.)  Vaccination and global warming are two such issues.

Whenever I see anyone (seriously) talking about flat-earth or other such nonsense (e.g., reptilians) I assume that they are operatives trying to give legitimate people with legitimate concerns a bad name.  Quite often such people will make really good and valid points on other  counter-narative issues.  That's part of the game.

A related part of the tool is to avoid legitimate questions and discussions by lumping it with 'flat earth' class psyops and rejecting the whole thing without touching to real questions and the real issues.  You see it over and over and over again.  The tool has become completely reflexive to many/most pro-vaxers and warmunista by this time.

He's not trolling, he really believes this.

He also believes the earth is flat and the moon is a holographic projection.

These assholes are lying to you, all their trashy propaganda about how the Sun works is nonsense, like outer space and the whole dog-on Copernican system. The Sun is not a million mile wide thermonuclear bomb that never stops exploding in your face, you damn dirty apes!

The Sun is a close small disk of sonoluminescent electrical plasma in an upper atmospheric plane, the image of this disk is reflected off of a concave mirror (the firmament) to create the holographic projection we see. The Sun directly measures 32 minutes (nautical miles) across.





"... Seven of the 20 fake articles written by the trio were accepted by journals after being approved by peer-review committees tasked with checking the authors' research. A faux study claiming that "Dog parks are Petri dishes for canine 'rape culture'" by one "Helen Wilson" was published in May in the journal Gender, Place and Culture. The article suggests that training men like dogs could reduce cases of sexual abuse. ..." -- https://phys.org/news/2018-10-real-fake-hoodwinks-journals.html

There's a bunch of peer reviewed research on the Solar Minimum published on AGU. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/


Here are a few:
On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth
What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near‐surface temperature changes?
Could a future “Grand Solar Minimum” like the Maunder Minimum stop global warming?

Ah, but the research certainly does exist, and can be linked to.