mpitfield - my Grandmother used to say: "There are none so blind as those that will not see"
Your Grandmother was a wise woman.
mpitfield - my Grandmother used to say: "There are none so blind as those that will not see"
Yes, I think the Sunspot minimum is linked to lower solar output and will likely will trigger an
other "Little Ice Age". I also think, the concept of global warming caused by man is a hoax
of bad science.
Seems that one article, by a reputable source PBS and Nova; lists solar output as first on the
list of things that effect climate, such as glaciation; and recent history, the "little ice age" and
the Maunder Minimum correlate well. I would say that sun spot activity and solar output, by
the empirical evidence do seem to correlate well.
I think if the predictions of very low to no sun spots could push the climate in to another little
ice age and with a cooling planet, the oceans will cool and absorb more C02. So CO2 level
may drop as well. Cold liquids hold more dissolved gas than warm liquids do.
Here is a NASA on the subject.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_03.php
Now my question and only time will prove it out is if the sun spot minimum activity going to
continue into the next few decades or not?
Except for the little detail that the little ice age started a few decades before the Maunder Minimum and that the difference in forcing from sunspot minimum to maximum is only about 0.2 degrees F. (Less than the change in temperature over the last 100 years and an order of magnitude less than the expected change.)
Then there is the problem that the little ice age was pretty much a European rather than a global thing.
A prolonged sunspot minimum will not save us from our own foolishness.
I can't help but wonder if Man and his activities were completely eliminated from the equation, would Earth's climate vary, i.e., change? And if it did, who would know?
I must go feed my catfish.
I will agree that they do not correlate exactly, and there is still a lot we do not understand
about our Sun, and its complexities. The fact that the Maunder Minimum and the little ice
age do occur so close in start and stopping, I cannot just negate it as happenstance.
Hey Thirsty,
Did you sleep in a Holiday Inn...
This article has some very clear graphics demonstrating the observed changes in global climate against the observed changes in all the potential climate change factors (including solar output - relevant to this thread):
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
For the wider climate change discussion - this article has an in depth argument about energy production, usage, probable climate impact and results from that climate impact (and then moves on to Tesla):
https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html
mpitfield - my Grandmother used to say: "There are none so blind as those that will not see"
One of mans' activities is flying black powder rockets. The combustion of black powder produces carbon dioxide which is the propellant for most hobby rockets. The SCOTUS has ruled CO2 to be a "greenhouse gas" and thus a potential hazard to the Earth's environment. Let's all find another hobby and keep Our Planet Green. It's the responsible thing to do.
So, all CO2 is NOT created equally? Who knew?
If atmospheric CO2 is the problem, what difference does it make with regard to the type of fuel that is being burned? Fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and petroleum were all once living bio-mass. Perhaps we should all just stop exhaling CO2 and walk to the launch events with your water rockets? Better yet, devise a perpetual motion machine.
The most plentiful greenhouse gas is water vapor...clouds. These precede rain events, something you Californians could use right now.
Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more
carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today? Who is to day what the right level of CO2 it?
180ppm or 2000ppm or 7000ppm? Maybe the flux is part of God's plan.
Wait a minute! Did I hear someone say "global warming"? WTF, over, I thought that term had been abandoned in favor of "climate change".
So Thirsty, what are we (mankind) supposed to do with all this buried treasure we inherited from Earth's ancient past? Make it into a museum? Save it for the End Times? Or use it wisely until someone stumbles upon a viable alternative?
Trees eat CO2, create wood and release O2. I wonder who thunk of that?
I use the terms "global warming" and "climate change" interchangeably. "Global warming" used to be the most common term, but at some point a conservative political strategist suggested "climate change" would be preferable from a messaging point of view, because it sounds less threatening than "global warming" and more like a natural process of change. So that term became more common. Now often you hear political pundits suggest that environmentalists wanted to change the term for their own messaging purposes. It's a stupid distraction. It doesn't matter who prefers what term or what you call it as long as people know what you are talking about, and I'm pretty sure people know those two terms refer to the same thing.
Ah ha, I see! Sort of like the old "environmentalists" versus "tree huggers" debate. :rofl:
I guess I should shelve my...
Coal fired rocket idea...
So as not to contribute...
To our demise...
Reminds me of my last trip to Mexico...... the "Macklin Maximum" which causes more spots in my shorts than normal. :surprised:
Only time will prove that our species did or did not contribute to global warming, at which time it may be too late, if not already. Sadly even if our species lives long enough to realize this, there will likely be the naysayers, or conspiracy theorists as there are with the moon landings or 911, because that just seems to be human nature.
My personal belief, not based on science but rather common sense, is that I would find it hard to believe that we as a species could exploit the resources to the degree that we have as well as develop things like nuclear and hydrogen bombs and some how none of this would have an appreciable effect on our planet. This is simply a preposterous notion to me, which defies reason and logic, and further demonstrates that we are a narcissistic species.
I would agree that many, especially in America, are narcissistic. However the word I would use to describe those that subscribe to the faith of anthropogenic climate change is megalomania.They believe that we as humans have the power to change mother nature. There is a large body of evidence on both sides of the argument, but I have always subscribed to the concept of follow the money. The largest high profile proponents, and many less obvious ones, are proponents for one of a couple of reasons, power, money or both. Who of them, that you are aware of, do not contribute 10,000 time the carbon footprint of the average American, let alone the average world citizen? They expect everyone, except the ruling class or themselves, to reduce their standard of living to "fix the planet". They also make great profits by the fixes that they prescribe. This simply is not going to sell in 2nd and 3rd world countries that have seen what they can have on the internet and won't stop until they get it. I personally do everything I can to "think globally and act locally", however I am a pragmatist. The situation will eventually be resolved by mother nature. We as a species will survive or not depending on our personal actions. As a combat arms guy of 21 years I believe that when it's your turn, it's your turn and it is always your turn sooner or later, but you can try to leave things better for your contemporaries or those that follow. Do what you can personally and influence those close to you, it is the only way a movement actually starts. The ruling class is not your friend if money or power is at stake and I don't care what side of the political spectrum you come from. Sorry about the long screed, but I am really tired of the manipulation of major situations for benefit.
Whenever I hear the term "consensus" I remember the minutes of the last school board meeting wherein the secretary noted "...the decision of the Board was unanimous."
Winston, the original poster of this thread, referenced a number of scientific studies that seem to challenge the herd mentality currently in vogue by suggesting that internal dynamics of the Sun might have an effect upon Earth's climate. That view sounds perfectly logical to me. YMMV
Consensus is the business of politics...
Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world...
In science consensus is irrelevant...
~ Michael Crichton ~
Enter your email address to join: