Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[TwitchySeal]

...
The Sun is a close small disk of sonoluminescent electrical plasma in an upper atmospheric plane,  ...

He's not trolling, he really believes this.
...

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.

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://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.0

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

[Spendulus]

The biggest threat to the Earth?

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

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1207877/space-weather-news-solar-storm-2019-space-weather-forecast-geomagnetic-space-news

It's the Sun. Combine the possibilities of solar storms causing Carrington events, and wiping out our electronics, with the Global Cooling possibilities.

Your sources are not researchers. Your sources are news articles. What are you even doing with your life?

I post the PIOMAS from the Polar Science Center. Notice how their website is a .edu And their data I'm sure is backed by teams and teams of scientists doing rigorous research.

You post news articles.

Article 1: Based on the opinion of one "Expert" No studies found during skimming
Article 2: Some sensational nonsense about solar storms.


You're barely on topic.

If this was a forum for serious climate discussion and I was asked whether your post had any merit or added to the discussion in any way, it'd be a thumbs down. Do other people who respect their time need or even want to read this?

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

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?

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

[TwitchySeal]

The biggest threat to the Earth?

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

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1207877/space-weather-news-solar-storm-2019-space-weather-forecast-geomagnetic-space-news

It's the Sun. Combine the possibilities of solar storms causing Carrington events, and wiping out our electronics, with the Global Cooling possibilities.

Your sources are not researchers. Your sources are news articles. What are you even doing with your life?

I post the PIOMAS from the Polar Science Center. Notice how their website is a .edu And their data I'm sure is backed by teams and teams of scientists doing rigorous research.

You post news articles.

Article 1: Based on the opinion of one "Expert" No studies found during skimming
Article 2: Some sensational nonsense about solar storms.


You're barely on topic.

If this was a forum for serious climate discussion and I was asked whether your post had any merit or added to the discussion in any way, it'd be a thumbs down. Do other people who respect their time need or even want to read this?

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

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?

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

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.

[Spendulus]

....
Your sources are not researchers. Your sources are news articles. What are you even doing with your life?
....

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?

....

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.

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

[notbatman]

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.

He's not trolling, he really believes this.

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

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!

[TwitchySeal]

....
Your sources are not researchers. Your sources are news articles. What are you even doing with your life?
....

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?

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

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

No.  I didn't say that.

[Spendulus]

....
Your sources are not researchers. Your sources are news articles. What are you even doing with your life?
....

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?

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

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

No.  I didn't say that.

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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.

[Spendulus]

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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. 

[notbatman]

^^^ 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...

[Spendulus]

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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-forecast

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?

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.

[Spendulus]

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-forecast

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?

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.

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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-forecast

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?

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.

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/10.1029/2011JD017013

the likely reduction in the warming by 2100 is found to be between 0.06 and 0.1 K

[Spendulus]

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-forecast

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?

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.

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/10.1029/2011JD017013

the 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.htm

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))

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).

[TwitchySeal]

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-forecast

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?

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.

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/10.1029/2011JD017013

the 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.htm

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))

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.

[Spendulus]

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-forecast

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?

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.

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/10.1029/2011JD017013

the 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.htm

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))

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 with (me) 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.

[TwitchySeal]

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-forecast

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?

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.

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/10.1029/2011JD017013

the 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.htm

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))

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.

[Spendulus]

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-forecast

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?

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.

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/10.1029/2011JD017013

the 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.htm

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))

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.