Global Cooling on the Rise?

I say bring back the stockades! A week or two of standing in the mall square in your underwear with a big sign plus internet write up saying what you got put there for would likely produce a substantial reduction in crime plus many other things that are wrong in our country.

We've gotten too nice and civilized over criminal punishment. There's not enough of a punishment for doing such things so people go and do them knowing if they do get caught no ones going to do much about it.

I'd support that.

The following link is about solar activity influencing the Holocene period.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/294/5549/2130

"The ‘mini ice age’ hoopla is a giant failure of science communication

July 23, 2015 11.21pm EDT

This month there’s been a hoopla about a mini ice age, and unfortunately it tells us more about failures of science communication than the climate. Such failures can maintain the illusion of doubt and uncertainty, even when there’s a scientific consensus that the world is warming.

The story starts benignly with a peer-reviewed paper and a presentation in early July by Professor Valentina Zharkova, from Northumbria University, at Britain’s National Astronomy Meeting.

The paper presents a model for the sun’s magnetic field and sunspots, which predicts a 60% fall in sunspot numbers when extrapolated to the 2030s. Crucially, the paper makes no mention of climate.

The first failure of science communication is present in the Royal Astronomical Society press release (https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2680-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo - sorry, link no longer available) from July 9. It says that “solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s” without clarifying that this “solar activity” refers to a fall in the number of sunspots, not a dramatic fall in the life-sustaining light emitted by the sun.

The press release also omits crucial details. It does say that the drop in sunspots may resemble the Maunder minimum, a 17th century lull in solar activity, and includes a link to the Wikipedia article on the subject. The press release also notes that the Maunder minimum coincided with a mini ice age.

But that mini ice age began before the Maunder minimum and may have had multiple causes, including volcanism.

Crucially, the press release doesn’t say what the implications of a future Maunder minimum are for climate."

http://theconversation.com/the-mini-ice-age-hoopla-is-a-giant-failure-of-science-communication-45037

All bogus...

got anything from THIS year?

July 23, 2015 11.21pm EDT

This is the same scientist in my link 2 of post 92. If you had read it or watched the video in it, you would have seen that the whole point is that the magnetic field is the thing that is important. It was recently discovered that magnetic field loops are the reason the sun's corona is 2 million degrees while the surface is only 10,000 degrees. If I find the article I will post it.

Here is an article to support my statement above:

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2013/10/astronomers-find-clues-to-decades-long-coronal-heating-mystery

thats good stuff

The two most overwhelming things I find highly suspicious in the whole AGW issue is that there is never any discussion of any positive aspects and there is absolutely no interest in any other aspect that can't be taxed or regulated.

There is never any discussion of where the climate has improved and what that may support for future life application and adjustment.

If it's bad and it happened in someone else's backyard it's proof that AGW is real yet if your backyard improved in the given timelines it's just an local anomaly to be played down or ignored both now and in future speculations that does not count.

That in itself is the #1 bias I have a problem with.

There is no second side to this coin that can be discussed. Either its negative and thusly a real and negative threat (even if it did go away never to occur since) or its circumstantial and of no value to be studied or discussed even if it's been a steady and stable positive change to a large region for decades streight.

As pessimistic as I can be I have a very hard time looking at my backyard and not thinking, 'Damn! Things weather and climate wise have gotten better here in the last 30+ years so what ever caused it I really would like it to keep doing what it's doing here!'

But maybe that's just me and my backyard and since it's positive change thusly doesn't count becaseu lets face it, Good weather, better growing seasons and all around better living conditions don't scare people into giving up their freedoms and money to fight things they have no control over that made their life better in some way.

When Grant Money is divided out equally , to both sides of the research, is when we will get a real view of the problem. One group, who controls funding and Group Think, gets to control the Press, and the "Hysterical" potential outcomes, suck the teat of Political hacks, who then get to control more of the money flow . Follow the money.. BTW-- A good example is to follow the history of the California Environmental Crusader , who has donated more money into Democratic Ca. politics this cycle than anyone, Tom Steyer...Seems to create money wherever he goes.. Former Oil and Gas Hedge Fund manager, who has "Seen the way and errors of his deeds".. He just never gave the money back... He used it to weasel into the Green Party of California and stands to make just as much money using the Environmental movement as he did the Oil and Gas groups... Gag---

That lack of unbiased division of research is what I have so many issues with.

If anyone says something has improved they get questioned and proclaimed to be biased even when they have substantial proof that what they are seeing measuring and reporting is true and not just an isolated incident but a widely observable and new climatic condition.

The thing is people largely settle and develop a society where they do in the numbers they do because that location is at the time favorable for some reason.

Since the beginning of human history they always have and at every point in time in history there has been a location where the climate shifted to being less favorable ultimately leading people leaving that location to go where the climate made a formerly less favorable location now favorable due to the development of new conditions that they prefer.

Every major region of every continent has seen a human society and culture develope collapse and redevelop a number of times and every time a large human population and related society collapsed and left it was because the climate shifted and made the area less than favorable to continue to support it's population base for the reasons it was initially chosen.

Every major war between two more more peoples was driven by that aspect. 'By our standards our area changed and now sucks and yours doesn't any more so we want to settle in your area but if we can't we try and take it over by force and a war proceeds.'

As seen here, 12 societies that vanished. Either direct climate change to their regions pushed them out or changes in a neighboring region pushed another people in causing a war or other devastating man made event.

To me what is happening is what has clearly always happened. The global system is always and forever slowly changing and readjusting to the uncountable number of variables that are forever in play and blaming each other won't stop it or make it go back.

If you don't like how your location is anymore pack up and move or die. Don't demand that people whose location got better give it and their improvements up.

stop injecting truth, it unsettles those that buy the Tooth Fairy story.

'.... Either direct climate change to their regions pushed them out or changes in a neighboring region pushed another people in causing a war or other devastating man made event.....'

.

You are laying the ultimate blame for every one of the disappearances of those civilizations squarely at the feet of climate change?

Can you prove otherwise in a rational logical counter argument to explain those past mass culture and societal events that at some point does not include heavy influence from local climate changes and long term weather pattern shift events?

Otherwise I am not only claiming it was climate change (That all natural stuff no one want to acknowledge let alone talk about that still runs 99.99% of the show on this planet) but pre industrial revolution climate change we had absolutely zero contrived influence on.

Can you prove in a rational logical coherent argument that you are not in fact the reincarnation of the Queen of Sheba? Okay then, you highness, let's proceed.

.

'...Can you prove otherwise...' fails on the 'rational logical' criteria for substantiation. Unless, you highness would prefer to put that conclusion on the back burner for a moment and relish in your royalty a while longer.

.

Either way 'proving otherwise' is sufficient for disproving an assertion, even if 'failure to prove otherwise' isn't sufficient for genuine substantiation.

If your highness will please turn her attention to the Minoan civilization. She should note that the Minoan civilization is generally considered to have been wiped out by the expanding Mycenaean civilization with their warrior elite structure.

Your highness should further note that the Mycenaean civilization left written records including some that appear to be final notes detailing hasty preparation for yet another in a series of attacks, possibly by the Dorian people.

.

Seems pretty straight forward that at the very least the Minoan civilization and probably the Mycenaean civilization was not lost to climate change nor even heavily influenced by it...rendering your assertion that all the societies referenced were lost due to climate change effectively disproved.

.

Was that a sufficiently rational logical counter argument for your highness?

Not really.

If you can obviously get my gender wrong after having been on this forum as long as you have and attribute that to some whimsical pseudoscience religious belief then I have strong reasons to consider the high likelihood that you have missed and or misinterpreted much greater details in your reference material in this situation.

Ad homenem much? Also a logical fallacy.

At any rate, I am just going on the premise that you are the reincarnation of the Queen of Sheba, until such time as you prove in a logical rational argument that you are otherwise, or alternately until you realize the folly of substantiation in the form of lack of proof to the contrary and indicate so within this blog.

I certainly didn't intend to ruffle her highness's corset.

There are medications for that type of belief fixations.

I may play a part in your delusions but that does not make them my problem. Really!

Or at least not mine until I wake up at 3 AM with you standing at the foot of my bed which in that case a whole world of my problems will very quickly become yours as well.

The two most overwhelming things I find highly suspicious in the whole AGW issue is that there is never any discussion of any positive aspects and there is absolutely no interest in any other aspect that can't be taxed or regulated.

Even though, I agree there are issues, I got suspicious when politicians began cashing in the AGW issue. They were the biggest detriment to the AGW understanding.

Please go to Wattsupwiththat.com, with all of the charts and links necessary to give one the DATA one needs...all of the links and charts are condensed into a single site with multitudes of others...

As we collectively beat this dead horse I ask that we pause a moment to consider the following.

Has human activity significantly changed our planet’s albedo?

Has human activity significantly changed atmospheric composition?

Has human activity significantly changed the amount of photosynthesis that is taking place?

If any of those questions can be answered in the affirmative then can it be inferred that human activity has influenced climate?

Given Henry's Gas Law and the dynamic relationship between Ocean and Atmosphere gas concentrations; “Global Warming” concerns me not a bit. There is a much more time critical relationship in play.

Henry’s Gas Law is quite fundamental, how that fundamental law would indicate that ocean solute is artificially supporting atmosphere O2 levels is quite obvious, regardless of how ignored it is.

In any case; as long as we can avoid nuclear conflagration, or some other genetic altering event, and are lucky enough to avoid an extinction impact event our species should survive the reset; albeit, at some small fraction of number. I don’t believe this will be the first time our species has survived a near extinction event.

Of interest is how the human immune system will respond to long term decreasing O2 levels. Since we operate on oxygenated redox chemistry, and believing our immune system is the most sensitive subsystem to that chemistry, the demise of billions will not come through hypoxia, drowning, or starvation; but through exposure to common pathogens; probably common Rhinoviruses.

nah, I'm catching the next comet outta here like the brilliant Heaven's gate crew

Just a note: Henrys gas law will not be enough to describe CO2 interaction with the Oceans because CO2 reacts with the water. The solubility factor is very much reduced because of this.

Bear in mind solubility is not the same as dissociation.

'...Henry’s Gas Law is quite fundamental, how that fundamental law would indicate that ocean solute is artificially supporting atmosphere O2 levels is quite obvious, regardless of how ignored it is....'

.

No one of consequence is disrespecting Henry or his gas law. Henry's gas law just fails to be useful for making predictions in a system this complex.

Some of the complexities that render Henry's gas law inapplicable are:

gasses are being added and removed from the liquid by sources other than the gas in contact;

the system is far from equalibrium in temperature, chemistry, gas concentration;

currents exist with surface interaction periods on the order of 1000 years.

Those render any evaluation relying predominantly on Henry's law grossly oversimple.

If you doubt this, ask yourself how there can by huge hypoxic areas of 'dead' sea when atmosphere is above 20% O².

"Henry's gas law just fails to be useful for making predictions in a system this complex."

Really. Fails to be useful? Other than temperature, could you share with us ONE variable of equal or greater importance when considering the gas transfer between ocean and atmosphere?

"currents exist with surface interaction periods on the order of 1000 years." - which would be much slower than diffusion rates?

"If you doubt this, ask yourself how there can by huge hypoxic areas of 'dead' sea when atmosphere is above 20% O²." --- Thats a no brainer. Eutrophication.

Henry's Law is THE defining variable when considering the unsustainable role the ocean plays in maintaining atmospheric O2 levels.

Nothing else was said than that there is more acting than just Henrys Law and that it is a complex system. With bringing up Eutrophication you actually agree to this!

I was always thinking that the land plants had a lot to do with maintaing the O2 on this planet, but I guess I need to read up on the topic.

Henry''s law describes a relationship at equilibrium in a very simple case of just a gas and a liquid.

The case of the oceans and the atmosphere is definitely not at equilibrium. That alone means Henrys law doesn't work. Additionally there are factors of salinity, temperature, non gas liquid additions and removals, chemical conversions, pressure variations, and flow that does not allow uniform diffusion.

Sure you can get a vague indication of what generally should be occurring over a long period with assumptions of great simplification, but that can't still be rightfully called a law. If you still feel like trumpeting it, call it 'Henry's half-Hint', or perhaps 'Henry's quasi-thumb rule'...

..but do the laws a favor and respect their limits.

I can tell you from experience that people adapt pretty well to living in a reduced oxygen environment, even for extended periods. Healthy adults can go for months at around 19% oxygen at standard pressure.

LOOK! The horse isn't dead at all! It's getting up!

..."Although Trump has portrayed himself as the ultimate outsider, in putting together a transition team the New York real estate mogul has chosen veteran Washington insiders, many of them lobbyists for fossil fuel companies and skeptics about climate science.

Oil industry executives were delighted.

“It sure looks a whole lot friendlier than it would have under President Podesta … I mean President Clinton,” Stephen Brown, vice president of government relations for the oil refiner Tesoro, said, referring to John Podesta, the Clinton campaign chairman who views steps to slow climate change a high priority and who led climate efforts under Obama.

Brown predicted that the Paris climate accord “will be scrapped quickly,” obstacles and “procedural hurdles” to infrastructure projects such as pipelines would be reexamined, and regulations about the social cost of carbon and other environmental impacts would be “gone.”

“The Clean Power Plan will die a slow death,” he said, adding that public lands permitting for oil and gas drilling would open up."...

..."Trump himself has called the concept of global warming everything from a “hoax” to “bulls—” to a scheme “created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

Segal said a Trump administration would be “clearly in favor of enhanced exploration and production of oil and gas as a tenet of energy, economic and national security policy.” His key advisers have included Oklahoma-based shale oil producer Harold Hamm and North Dakota Rep. Kevin Cramer (R). Trump has spoken to conferences on shale drilling in both North Dakota and Pennsylvania, rich shale drilling territory.
Segal said that Trump has said he would ” ‘revoke policies that impose unwarranted restrictions on new drilling technologies,’ which may be an oblique reference to new restrictions proposed on methane emissions from oil and gas production.”"...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/09/trump-victory-reverses-u-s-energy-and-environmental-priorities/

Your wish is granted....

Here is a more recent article about the sun's magnetism causing the coronal heat:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150824064742.htm

"Powerful emission of corpuscles, which can reach the Earth’s surface, arise periodically during the high solar activity."

Really,-------- "corpuscles."

You just gotta love these folks.

Again; your sources seem to be a bit lacking in credibility; but when you are trying to deny the obvious you cant be to choosy.

What are you trying to pull? The word corpuscles is not found in that article. Your credibility is gone.

Dear Standards Guy;

It is often helpful to read the entire article.

In addition the entire premise defies Stefan - Boltzman Law.

Its there in this paragraph near the end.

"The notion that solar activity affects the climate, appeared long ago. It is known, for example, that a change in the total quantity of the electromagnetic radiation by only 1% can result in a noticeable change in the temperature distribution and air flow all over the Earth. Ultraviolet rays cause photochemical effect, which leads to the formation of ozone at the altitude of 30-40 km. The flow of ultraviolet rays increases sharply during chromospheric flares in the Sun. Ozone, which absorbs the Sun’s rays well enough, is being heated and it affects the air currents in the lower layers of the atmosphere and, consequently, the weather. Powerful emission of corpuscles, which can reach the Earth’s surface, arise periodically during the high solar activity. They can move in complex trajectories, causing aurorae, geomagnetic storms and disturbances of radio communication."

I will try to show some grace here. Really.

well said

Again, you are quoting from another article. It says nothing about climate. Here are the last 3 paragraphs:

The simulations further reveal that this resonant flow along the surface of a thread can become turbulent. The appearance of turbulence is of great importance since it is effective at converting wave energy into heat energy. Another important effect of this turbulence is to enlarge the resonant flow predicted in the models to the size actually observed.

This model can explain the main features of the observations as the results of a two-step process. First resonant absorption transfers energy to the torsional motions, producing a resonant flow along the surface of the prominence thread. Then turbulence in this strengthened resonant flow converts the energy into heat.

This work shows how the power of multiple satellites, such as Hinode and IRIS, can be combined to investigate long-standing astrophysical problems and will serve as an example for other research looking for similar heating in other solar observations.

These results were published in The Astrophysical Journal, Vol 809 in August, 2015.

Merriam-Webster seems to be okay with that use.

Full Definition of corpuscle

1. 1: a minute particle

(No 'funny .gifs' yet on "Hurricane Irma is God's punishment for ignoring Climate Scientists," but give it time.)

And if I can spread fear by taking science and adding my little twist, making false claims, instill fear into peoples hearts and preaching to 'do as I say and not as I do' and make money off it. its cool,... because the base started out as fact before I molested and profited off it. Right?

Because that's what spokesman do.

So you really are convinced that 95% of the worlds scientists are engaged in a Global Conspiracy to fabricate evidence of Climate Change?

Let me consult a sell-respected scientist on that:

https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/906893575916445696

"Anyone who thinks scientists like agreeing with one another has never attended a scientific conference."

-Neil deGrasse Tyson

So you really are convinced that 95% of the worlds scientists are engaged in a Global Conspiracy to fabricate evidence of Climate Change?

No, you're making assumptions, btw, false assumptions at that... My initial post was that the credibility of CC was damaged from political hacks trying to make a fast $$.

And to support their 'findings' they'd used actors, or people would appear to be credible...

Here's an examples of the above... plus it is also my take of CC... and coincidently similar to our discussion we are currently having.

There is a difference between a consensus and fact.