I have read everything you've posted. You haven't provided any evidence that a LIA is likely to happen in the near future. However if you would like to continue believing that a LIA and the GSM are separate and unrelated events that somehow circumstantially occur together, instead of the GSM being the obvious cause of the LIA, have fun with that.
The GSM was ~350 years after the LIA began. The little ice age was from ~1300 to 1850, the GSM occurred from ~1645 to 1715. The GSM was not the cause of the LIA. |
|
|
|
...
Is there any peer reviewed scientific research to support this.
Do a better job of reading, and understanding. You've been provided adequate information. Which peer reviewed scientific articles should I read? You haven't provided any and all the ones I've found on my own contradict the basis of your claims. The livescience article you linked "How Often Do Ice Ages Happen?" quotes a scientist saying that because of our carbon emissions it will probably be another 100,000 years before the next big ice age, and only mentions that there's a difference between big and little ice ages. I don't see how this is relevant to the claims you've made about global cooling.... Ah. The article I quoted all but the last paragraph left you to find. How is it relevant? Gee I guess it pertains to earlier in this thread presentation: future T (LIA temp DECREASE - GW temp INCREASE) = nominal or inconsequential.
Should be obvious where this comes from. Total morons argue this. Now let's get back to what your are doing. Yet one more time, you've created a BS process argument. Go back and read your early Lockwood again, and ask some intelligent question. But instead you ask where does this equation come from, that article is not a real science thing, blah blah blah.So now do you see the relevance of this equation? Do a better job of reading, and understanding. You've been provided adequate information. The livescience article you linked "How Often Do Ice Ages Happen?" quotes a scientist saying that because of our carbon emissions it will probably be another 100,000 years before the next big ice age, and only mentions that there's a difference between big and little ice ages. I don't see how this is relevant to the claims you've made about global cooling.... Which peer reviewed scientific articles should I read? You haven't provided any and all the ones I've found on my own contradict the basis of your claims. More likely you have misunderstood the things you read, or cherry picked certain sentences. Repeating again from the prior posts. Here is a similar derivation of climate sensitivity.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2769
Of course to understand it, you must go sideways a bit and first understand the numerical meaning of "climate sensitivity."
Here is a study of a sort that is quite interesting.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2011JCLI4145.1
It shows a significant temperature decrease during the LIA. That destroys the Al Gore "Hockey Stick" pseudoscientific and false temperature fabrication, which only was presentable by denying the existence of the MWP and the LIA.
Denying history is quite stupid, since realistically we should be concerned with what would be the effects of another LIA occurring. How many would die?
Or if you wish to stick with the claim that there will be no LIA because it is offset by GW, then please consider where that leads. The thing is, you haven't provided any evidence that a LIA is going to happen in the next couple centuries, only a GSM, which will only have a temporary effect ( -0.3 C a by the year 2100 is the most drastic estimate I've found) "Since the Maunder Minimum, global average temperatures have been on the rise, driven by climate change. Though a new decades-long dip in solar radiation could slow global warming somewhat, it wouldn't be by much" "the likely reduction in the warming by 2100 is found to be between 0.06 and 0.1 K, a very small fraction of the projected anthropogenic warming." "a moderate temperature offset of no more than −0.3°C in the year 2100 relative to a scenario with solar activity similar to recent decades. This temperature decrease is much smaller than the warming expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century." https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011JD017013https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010GLhttps://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aaa124/meta |
|
|
|
"The FISA court's top judge wrote in a secret ruling on January 7 that at least two of the four spy warrants against Carter Page were invalid and not lawfully authorized."
That's basically what the IG report said also. The FISA process was fucked up. Also there was an agent who falsified some records. imo Page's rights were violated and something should be done to prevent that from happening again and hopefully page will get some sort of compensation or something. The IG was taking all of this into account when he issued the report and the recent ruling only addresses one aspect of the investigation, the FISA warrants that the original report already called out. I was just pointing this out to anyone that may have a tendency to speculate and make assumptions based on headlines alone. Horowitz concluded the FBI was legally justified in launching its inquiry into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. There was no "documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI’s decision to conduct these operations," the report said.
The 400-page report debunks claims by the president and his allies that political bias played a role in the FBI's decision to investigate members of the Trump campaign for possible coordination with Russia. The inspector general also said there was "no evidence" the FBI placed any undercover sources or agents in the Trump campaign or had them attend campaign events. |
|
|
|
2020 peace prize awarded for..... christina aguilera remix 'do something or ill scowl at you' (say something im giving up on you)
No way that beats You Need to Calm Down |
|
|
|
Horowitz concluded the FBI was legally justified in launching its inquiry into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. There was no "documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI’s decision to conduct these operations," the report said.
The 400-page report debunks claims by the president and his allies that political bias played a role in the FBI's decision to investigate members of the Trump campaign for possible coordination with Russia. The inspector general also said there was "no evidence" the FBI placed any undercover sources or agents in the Trump campaign or had them attend campaign events. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6571579-FISA-120919-Examination.html |
|
|
|
^^^ You two are on the same page
You're probably right when it comes to most things science related. You guys are working together to gaslight me
No. That's definitely not true. |
|
|
|
The PM from Theymos was unsolicited and a response to the thread I linked, but feel free to just invent whatever narrative you prefer to proliferate like you always do.
Do you still believe that Theymos tried to extort you after adding a feature to DT 'just for you'? |
|
|
|
I was explicitly directed by Theymos to make a post about any future complaints I have in Meta.
Stop pretending that you're interested in what is or is not fair. All you care about is whether or not someone agrees or disagrees with your actions. If they agree - all good! If they disagree, you're the victim, they're the enemy, and you'll do or say whatever you can think of to make them look bad and you look like a victim. Theymos on TECSHARE:Your constant obsessive ramblings about this prove that you don't belong in the default trust network.
TECSHARE on Theymos: The real question is, why did Theymos feel it was necessary to have me excluded even though I am already removed from the default trust list? Why is it necessary for these exclusions to cascade down the default trust tree instead of just removing me from Theymos's personal trust? If the trust is not moderated, then why is the ADMIN of the site punishing me with an exclusion for a trust rating as some one not on the default trust any longer?
Unhappy that I dared to have an opinion of my own Theymos then added a brand new feature just for me
On the forum, Theymos is the admin, he is not just some guy like the rest of us some times when convenient, and the admin when appropriate. Even as just another user he still carries the authority of admin of the site. Why did he feel it was necessary to use all of this force against me personally over a SINGLE trust rating? This is not something he does often.
|
|
|
|
...
Is there any peer reviewed scientific research to support this.
Do a better job of reading, and understanding. You've been provided adequate information. Which peer reviewed scientific articles should I read? You haven't provided any and all the ones I've found on my own contradict the basis of your claims. The livescience article you linked "How Often Do Ice Ages Happen?" quotes a scientist saying that because of our carbon emissions it will probably be another 100,000 years before the next big ice age, and only mentions that there's a difference between big and little ice ages. I don't see how this is relevant to the claims you've made about global cooling. Besides the GSM, what other factors, if any, lead you to believe that that global cooling similar to that of the MIA will occur in the near future? Are there any peer reviewed scientific research to support this? |
|
|
|
Given most of the posts on this page and the previous page, I guess any serious Trump impeachment discussion has ended and is now devolving into conspiracy talk, Trump worship and the like. Awesome. I thought those that worship Trump and conspiracy theories had their own derivative thread to do that in.
Fair. The 'serious' part of the discussion has definitely been going down hill. Since the impeachment is over, I changed the subject to US Politics and updated the rules a little in OP in hopes a civil discussion can continue. A thread for civil discussion on US national politics, formerly known as "Donald Trump has been Impeached [Serious Discussion]" and "Donald Trump has been Impeached, what's next? [Serious Discussion]" Local Rules: - No baiting, trolling or flaming. - If you aren't interested in the opinions of those you disagree with, do not post in this thread. - If you aren't willing to make an effort at being objective, do not post in this thread. - No personal attacks, name calling, tantrums, circular arguments. - Don't be an asshole. - No spam. If you have a signature from a spammy signature campaign, and you make vague post about US politics, I'll probably just delete it. If you don't like these rules, TECSHARE created a thread that isn't self moderated: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5201320.0
Please guys, at least make an attempt to consider each situation objectively ( ask yourself "would I have the same view of a specific situation if the parties were reversed?" ), avoid personal insults and responding to posts with political talking points from either side. I don't like deleting posts, I'm doing it because there's obviously no intention of trying to have a serious discussion in these posts, not because I disagree with you. Examples of things that will get your post deleted: They even got their conspiracy theories to the Senate this time!! Impressive!!
The piss tape conspiracy wasn't half bad either.. Good entertainment.. What's next?
Trump's been Impeached.
What's next?
Twitch recommends cheating the Wall Street Journal
So what's next?
Flynn gets off. What else is next?
Trump-Hate-a-GoGo.
State of the Union.
The babies cry about their Trump-hate.
Formal vote on "impeachment."
More Trump-hate.
Highest rating ever for Trump.
The reeking stink of the Trump-haters.
What else is next? Ever heard of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution?
(don't bother babbling that it does not apply to Trump) So, you've lost. I hope you and your similarly minded propagandists and socialist operatives are finally finished with this nonsense. |
|
|
|
....
The summary of all that, rather than attempting to look at a question such as "How much colder was it" and conclude xyz degrees C, it's wiser to look at "To what extent was it cold enough to disrupt our live and kill people." The LIA did a very thorough job of the latter.
How are you able to use the data from the LIA to predict the effects of a future GSM if we don't know what caused the LIA? Here's a grad student talking about this issue. I'm keeping everything really simple here, of course. https://www.livescience.com/58407-how-often-do-ice-ages-happen.htmlBig ice ages account for about 25 percent of Earth's past billion years, said Michael Sandstrom, a doctoral student in paleoclimate at Columbia University in New York City.
The five major ice ages in the paleo record include the Huronian glaciation (2.4 billion to 2.1 billion years ago), the Cryogenian glaciation (720 million to 635 million years ago), the Andean-Saharan glaciation (450 million to 420 million years ago), the Late Paleozoic ice age (335 million to 260 million years ago) and the Quaternary glaciation (2.7 million years ago to present).
These large ice ages can have smaller ice ages (called glacials) and warmer periods (called interglacials) within them. During the beginning of the Quaternary glaciation, from about 2.7 million to 1 million years ago, these cold glacial periods occurred every 41,000 years. However, during the last 800,000 years, huge glacial sheets have appeared less frequently — about every 100,000 years, Sandstrom said.
This is how the 100,000-year cycle works: Ice sheets grow for about 90,000 years and then take about 10,000 years to collapse during warmer periods. Then, the process repeats itself.
....
]It's much more realistic to look at the actual on-the-ground effects of the GS minimum which we know and understand as occurred and as is documented historically, isn't it? In actual fact, we know the decrease in the growing seasons of that time precisely, so we could back out from that a multiplier effect that compared your "0.06 and 0.1K" with the actual temperature decrease, thus accounting for the space weather effects. The actual decrease in temperature during the LIA has been estimated at 2.0C (3.6F). Taking the higher of your numbers, 0.1k, the scaler would 20x TSI -- > actual solar effect. ( X = 2.0C/0.1C(K)) Still very interested in any research you know of to back this up ^^^ The approximate 100,000 year cycle noted above is well understood to be based on orbital mechanics. Nobody disputes that. As for the specifics of the LIA, I already noted the CERN CLOUD experiments. Perhaps you did not notice? Lets make sure we're on the same page here. You claimed that the sun was the greatest threat to the planet due to solar storms and global cooling events. In regards to the global cooling part, you referenced the Grand Solar Minimum. After some research, I shared several science journals articles, all peer reviewed, that argued that a future GSM would have very little effect on the climate (between 0.06 and 0.1 K), and would only mitigate a small proportion of future warming. I was unable to find any articles that said otherwise. You disputed this research ( and provided a calculation that I can't find any source for, please share if you used one) by saying that the MIA effects would make global warming effects inconsequential. Besides the GSM, what other factors, if any, lead you to believe that that global cooling similar to that of the MIA will occur in the near future. Is there any peer reviewed scientific research to support this. |
|
|
|
Because the LIA is a term used to refer to an approximate 500 year long section of history, its wrong to conceptualize single "causes." 500 years is a long time. For a first approximation one needs to look at history. Might as well start with Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Agehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_SummerThen note that attempting to guess at something like the exact temperature changes during that period is a bit too broad of an approach. There was not a 500 year period of famine, there were numerous years or decades during that period which are noted to be famine. So if you look at temperature changes even over 50 year averaging (0.6 - 1.5C) , that may average out the temperature changes that induced crop failures and which killed 10% of a population. Hence it's wise to simply note the existence of the extreme years (if you like, consider that to be an increase in extreme climate relative to the average. ). Arguments such as "LIA caused by changing ocean" blah blah blah. "Changing ocean currents" is an argument used that's rather nonsensical but also in the category of a logical error "irrefutable hypothesis." Science looks at the provable. Arguments such as "LIA caused by volcanoes" are silly. Volcanoes ALWAYS lay a couple years of cooling on top of then existent climate. (so called secular curve or average underlying trend). Something like 50 year averaging has use, though if one wanted to derive factors for atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 or for TSI impact or lack of on climate. Obviously, people may try to see how the dramatically colder years of the LIA correspond with the 11 year solar cycle, or with volcanoes, etc. The summary of all that, rather than attempting to look at a question such as "How much colder was it" and conclude xyz degrees C, it's wiser to look at "To what extent was it cold enough to disrupt our live and kill people." The LIA did a very thorough job of the latter. How are you able to use the data from the LIA to predict the effects of a future GSM if we don't know what caused the LIA? It's much more realistic to look at the actual on-the-ground effects of the GS minimum which we know and understand as occurred and as is documented historically, isn't it? In actual fact, we know the decrease in the growing seasons of that time precisely, so we could back out from that a multiplier effect that compared your "0.06 and 0.1K" with the actual temperature decrease, thus accounting for the space weather effects. The actual decrease in temperature during the LIA has been estimated at 2.0C (3.6F). Taking the higher of your numbers, 0.1k, the scaler would 20x TSI -- > actual solar effect. ( X = 2.0C/0.1C(K)) Still very interested in any research you know of to back this up ^^^ Science looks at the provable. And the unprovable. There's nothing unscientific about a theory that is unlikely or impossible to prove. |
|
|
|
You have done a very good job and it shows your intelligence, competence and quality management skills. But it would still have been much easier to just ask us.
He did just ask you.... Why would you do this?
Depending on how you look at it and don't have enough information you might say that this information is not true. But this is not the case.
It's definitely not true. The transactions are fake. You want users to believe they are real. we want to give the clients an insight into the transaction situation without publishing specific client data.
Just put a banner that says something like "We average X transactions per hour". |
|
|
|
I have been such a vocal opponent of trust system abuse, as I was one of the prototypical targets of it.
You can keep playing the victim card all you want, but you were one of the first people to abuse the trust system.  And you've continued to do it ever since (it's been almost 5.5 years): Yeah, for the last few weeks he has been putting aside his morals and belief structure to get back on DT. He stopped distrusting everyone and started trusting many others, hoping for retaliatory trust. It was a good example for Theymos to see just how easily idiots can get on DT right now. This is correct. TECSHARE has been trying to get reciprocal inclusions for a few months now. Its finally paid off. The DT1s that he has nothing in common with except for reciprocal inclusions are: WhiteManWhite (Russian local board poster) Kalemder (Turkish local board poster) bobita (Turkish local board poster) Matthias9515 (Turkish local board poster) (left a positive trust for TS on 6/29, was added by TS a month later, during the first week that Matthias was on DT1) mhanbostanci (Turkish local board poster) He's never interacted with these users as they all post exclusively on their local boards (except when they make the exception to visit Meta or Reputation to address trust-related issues). I'm going to assume that he doesn't speak enough Russian or Turkish to understand the ratings left by these users and (for the most part) they don't speak enough English to understand his, and the only reason he included them was to gain enough votes to be back out of the negatives on DT. Without them, he would be back at -4. He also included two other Turkish posters soon after they were added to DT1, PHI1618 and by rallier whom he subsequently dropped (I imagine it was for not getting the reciprocal trust he was hoping for) He's still waiting for Vispilio to reciprocate, probably unaware that he just fell off DT1 for not having the minimum number of inclusions. Outside of OP's issue with ABitNut, this is exactly the kind of behavior that should be discouraged in the DT system. As a wise man once said: Your constant obsessive ramblings about this prove that you don't belong in the default trust network.
|
|
|
|
All of TECSHAREs outrage over something trust related threads are variations on the same theme that have been going on for well over half a decade now. This is ridiculous. (I'm just finding the thread now) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=853522.msg10909003#msg10909003The real question is, why did Theymos feel it was necessary to have me excluded even though I am already removed from the default trust list? Why is it necessary for these exclusions to cascade down the default trust tree instead of just removing me from Theymos's personal trust? If the trust is not moderated, then why is the ADMIN of the site punishing me with an exclusion for a trust rating as some one not on the default trust any longer? I understood not removing my rating for Armis would result in my removal from the default trust list, but I didn't care about that as much as I cared about the staff attempting to extort me into removing it with threats of removal, so I let them remove me.
Unhappy that I dared to have an opinion of my own Theymos then added a brand new feature just for me |
|
|
|
Still most curious as to how you lost DT the first time Tecshare? (were you ever on DT? i don't wanna assume anything at this point) It does add to the scope of all of this and is 100% necessary info.
Haven't read the whole thread, but I think this might answer your question? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=846683.0 . (he abused his default trust status and defended it by trying to play the victim)  Edit; Looks like it was that thread, I think, and Theymos was the one that removed him. I could be wrong though, this is from almost 5 months later: If TECSHARE doesn't deserve Default Trust, almost nobody does. Especially not that begging, hectoring collectivist Bitchnellski.
He's not in defaulttrust? Nope. I was removed over a single negative trust rating dispute. Of course this is acceptable for people like Vod, but not any one else. I also got to be the VERY FIRST test case for trust exclusions (amazing the timing of the creation of this "feature"). Theymos excluded me over this, basically in effect putting a permanent cap on my trust ranking and nuking 3 years of hard earned trust, because no matter how many people trust me, Theymos will always rank higher. So if some one who trusts me also trusts the default trust, then I become untrusted. Of course, Theymos does not moderate trust ratings! So if some one who trusts me also trusts the default trust, then I become untrusted.
That's not how it works. If someone adds you directly to their trust list, then no exclusions will cause you to be removed. Your constant obsessive ramblings about this prove that you don't belong in the default trust network. It does in fact cascade down the default trust and make sure only people who explicitly add me or do not add default trust, trust me, and even then those people who trust me do not factor into my own trust rating score. You for some reason felt it was appropriate to nuke my years worth of trust earned for a single trust rating you personally did not approve of in addition to removing me from the default trust (which I never once asked to be on BTW, and still don't want to). After all you do not moderate trust right? I get removing me from the default trust list, that is fine if the rules are the same for everybody, but if you do not moderate trust ratings why did you exclude me, harming my trust score, because of a single rating I left that you demanded I remove but I refused? That sure seems like moderation of the trust to me. I tried to have a private discussion with you, but you are unwilling to communicate with me, turning me to the general public of the forum. Trust exclusions are just a back door way for you and the highest ranking in the trust to take quiet retribution upon contributing members who have worked to build their reputations while not taking responsibility for it because no one really sees it, unlike a trust rating where you have to explain yourself and everyone can see it. |
|
|
|
I would like to say that it is not upon me to prove my innocence, it is upon an accuser to prove the validity of their accusations. This is a base standard of any system of law or justice.
Playing the 'law and order' card is pretty rich considering you don't hold yourself to the same standard when the roles are reversed. You can't have it both ways and always be the victim. I think he just overlooked the possibility that you were responding to my post in a thread I didn't post in.
Are you accusing him of lying about deleting your post? Seems unlikely to me, but this isn't the first time he has explicitly told you that he didn't delete a post from your "FLYING HELLFISH - SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT AND CENSORSHIP" thread, and you seem to just not care.
If you think he's lying, call him out on it and maybe we can get to the bottom of it.
If you don't think he's lying, then remove the posts he says he didn't delete.
Or do nothing if you don't care if your accusations against FH are accurate or not. I don't care what he did or says. A moderator deleted those posts, this is a fact as evidenced by the quotes. Him claiming not to have done it in a section he is in charge of and just saying it was "some one else" is not a resolution, even if he thinks it is for him. I have absolutely no way to verify anything he says. |
|
|
|
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.
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. 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. 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. 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. Lets start with this one: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1237178/weather-warning-ice-age-earth-sun-hibernates-solar-minimum-long-range-forecastHave 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. 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. I meant Grand Solar Minimum. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011JD017013the likely reduction in the warming by 2100 is found to be between 0.06 and 0.1 K I agree with the thrust of the article, " In the years following previous grand maxima, solar activity sometimes dropped to very low “grand minimum” levels, with a 8% chance that within 40 years of the end of the current high activity level that the Sun will be in similar state to that during the Maunder Minimum [Lockwood, 2010]. However, there is a 50% probability that this will occur in the next 100–200 years.
"
However it is 2012 and is obsolete, because it examines the impact and change of TSI, and not the other aspects of space weather that affect climate, as shown by the CLOUD experiments of CERN. In 2012, although it was known that solar effects were nowhere near explained strictly by TSI, it was a mystery as to what the other effects might be. Here is a study and some discussion of this issue. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160825113235.htmIt's much more realistic to look at the actual on-the-ground effects of the GS minimum which we know and understand as occurred and as is documented historically, isn't it? In actual fact, we know the decrease in the growing seasons of that time precisely, so we could back out from that a multiplier effect that compared your "0.06 and 0.1K" with the actual temperature decrease, thus accounting for the space weather effects. The actual decrease in temperature during the LIA has been estimated at 2.0C (3.6F). Taking the higher of your numbers, 0.1k, the scaler would 20x TSI -- > actual solar effect. ( X = 2.0C/0.1C(K)) Your are attempting to indicate that a GS minimum is not a big deal... Lockwood DID NOT SAY THAT! And in making that argument you are seriously going against a historical record. Are you really that much of a True Believer in global warming or what, because that makes no sense. Of course, you could argue that future T (LIA temp DECREASE - GW temp INCREASE) = nominal or inconsequential. But you have not done that (and there are issues with that approach). Could you provide sources for your calculations. A lot of what you just said is in direct conflict with the paper. I don't think an 8 year old study like this is obsolete, but there are plenty of others published more recently. Feel free to cite any of them. Let's stick to peer reviewed scientific journals though. ?? You want sources now for 8th grade algebra? It does not matter what "you think." 8 years is before CERN Cloud results. And Lockwell himself talks about uncertainty due to those issues in the paper you cite. Nothing I said should be in conflict with Lockwell 2012.  By the way, earlier in another thread you asked/wanted to argue about "FBI entrapment" as related to Flynn. You are now entrapped, similarly. It all looked so innocent at the start, and like such a simple issue. But now it's a quagmire, and worse, it is a subject matter that you know little about, and are vainly trying to maintain with google. And the guy you are talking about actually does know this stuff. That's what's called "Full Disclosure." That's only fair to say that. That's essentially what would have been fair with Flynn. I'm not asking for sources on how to do math. Where are you getting the formulas involving the solar irradiance? Simple question. I assume you refer to these. These are mad ramblings of a clear mind. LIA = estimated at 2.0C (3.6F). (Historical) Taking the higher of your numbers, 0.1k, the scaler would 20x TSI -- > actual solar effect. ( X = 2.0C/0.1C(K)) Derivation of scaler to match actual historical T with calculated TSI future T (LIA temp DECREASE - GW temp INCREASE) = nominal or inconsequential. Should be obvious where this comes from. Total morons argue this. Now let's get back to what your are doing. Yet one more time, you've created a BS process argument. Go back and read your early Lockwood again, and ask some intelligent question. But instead you ask where does this equation come from, that article is not a real science thing, blah blah blah. Either ask intelligent questions, or my responses to you on this subject stop. How are you getting from the 2.0C that happened during the LIA to what would happen during a GSM? Are you saying the LIA was caused primarily by a solar cycle? I'm finding that while it was primarily caused by volcanic activity, and some lasting effects on sea ice - if you have some research that says otherwise, please do share. The Maunder minimum and the Little Ice Age: an update from recent reconstructions and climate simulations
Mathew J. Owens1*, Mike Lockwood1, Ed Hawkins1,5, Ilya Usoskin2, Gareth S. Jones3, Luke Barnard1, Andrew Schurer4 and John Fasullo61 Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire, UK
2 ReSoLVE Centre of Excellence and Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory, University of Oulu, Finland
3 Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
4 School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
5 National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire, UK
6 National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USAthe LIA can be most readily defined as an approximately 480 year period spanning AD 1440–1920, although not all of this period was notably cold. While the MM occurred within the much longer LIA period, the timing of the features are not suggestive of causation and should not, in isolation, be used as evidence of significant solar forcing of climate. Section 2 goes in depth on the relation between the LIA and MM. Again, it would be much appreciated if you could point me in the direction of any peer reviewed scientific research that I can read up on. I'm not an expert on this stuff, but I'm open minded and find this stuff fascinating. Some other articles I've gone through: Long-term global temperature variations under total solar irradiance, cosmic rays, and volcanic activityAbrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea‐ice/ocean feedbacks |
|
|
|
Not saying that it NEVER happens, but I suspect many supposed cases are schizophrenia or some similar mental illness..
Exactly this. My advice for anyone that thinks this is happening is to speak with a professional about it, or an objective friend or family member. |
|
|
|
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.
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. 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. 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. 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. Lets start with this one: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1237178/weather-warning-ice-age-earth-sun-hibernates-solar-minimum-long-range-forecastHave 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. 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. I meant Grand Solar Minimum. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011JD017013the likely reduction in the warming by 2100 is found to be between 0.06 and 0.1 K I agree with the thrust of the article, " In the years following previous grand maxima, solar activity sometimes dropped to very low “grand minimum” levels, with a 8% chance that within 40 years of the end of the current high activity level that the Sun will be in similar state to that during the Maunder Minimum [Lockwood, 2010]. However, there is a 50% probability that this will occur in the next 100–200 years.
"
However it is 2012 and is obsolete, because it examines the impact and change of TSI, and not the other aspects of space weather that affect climate, as shown by the CLOUD experiments of CERN. In 2012, although it was known that solar effects were nowhere near explained strictly by TSI, it was a mystery as to what the other effects might be. Here is a study and some discussion of this issue. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160825113235.htmIt's much more realistic to look at the actual on-the-ground effects of the GS minimum which we know and understand as occurred and as is documented historically, isn't it? In actual fact, we know the decrease in the growing seasons of that time precisely, so we could back out from that a multiplier effect that compared your "0.06 and 0.1K" with the actual temperature decrease, thus accounting for the space weather effects. The actual decrease in temperature during the LIA has been estimated at 2.0C (3.6F). Taking the higher of your numbers, 0.1k, the scaler would 20x TSI -- > actual solar effect. ( X = 2.0C/0.1C(K)) Your are attempting to indicate that a GS minimum is not a big deal... Lockwood DID NOT SAY THAT! And in making that argument you are seriously going against a historical record. Are you really that much of a True Believer in global warming or what, because that makes no sense. Of course, you could argue that future T (LIA temp DECREASE - GW temp INCREASE) = nominal or inconsequential. But you have not done that (and there are issues with that approach). Could you provide sources for your calculations. A lot of what you just said is in direct conflict with the paper. I don't think an 8 year old study like this is obsolete, but there are plenty of others published more recently. Feel free to cite any of them. Let's stick to peer reviewed scientific journals though. ?? You want sources now for 8th grade algebra? It does not matter what "you think." 8 years is before CERN Cloud results. And Lockwell himself talks about uncertainty due to those issues in the paper you cite. Nothing I said should be in conflict with Lockwell 2012. By the way, earlier in another thread you asked/wanted to argue about "FBI entrapment" as related to Flynn. You are now entrapped, similarly. It all looked so innocent at the start, and like such a simple issue. But now it's a quagmire, and worse, it is a subject matter that you know little about, and are vainly trying to maintain with google. And the guy you are talking about actually does know this stuff. That's what's called "Full Disclosure." That's only fair to say that. That's essentially what would have been fair with Flynn. I'm not asking for sources on how to do math. Where are you getting the formulas involving the solar irradiance? Simple question. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
