Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[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.

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 Fasullo6

1 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, USA

the 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 activity
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea‐ice/ocean feedbacks

[notbatman]

Full disclosure is that you can measure the Sun yourself with a sextant, this is possible because the aperture size of the human eye and, the wavelengths of sunlight are known. The Sun is 32 minutes or nautical miles across when measured directly.

The nautical sextant comes with a welding glass filter for looking directly at the Sun.

[Spendulus]

...]the 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 activity
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea‐ice/ocean feedbacks

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_Age

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

Then 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.

[TwitchySeal]

...]the 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 activity
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea‐ice/ocean feedbacks

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_Age

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

Then 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.

[Spendulus]

....
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.html

Big 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?

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?

[TwitchySeal]

....
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.html

Big 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.

[Spendulus]

...
Is there any peer reviewed scientific research to support this.

Do a better job of reading, and understanding. You've been provided adequate information.

[TwitchySeal]

...
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?

[notbatman]

^^^ You two are on the same page, you both agree the Sun is a million mile wide thermonuclear bomb a hundred million miles away. You guys are working together to gaslight me with your pseudo-scientific heavenly spheres. Your fucking balls contradict both the Bible and the laws of physics!

[TwitchySeal]

^^^ 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.

[Spendulus]

...
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.

[Spendulus]

^^^ You two are on the same page, you both agree the Sun is a million mile wide thermonuclear bomb a hundred million miles away. You guys are working together to gaslight me with your pseudo-scientific heavenly spheres. Your fucking balls contradict both the Bible and the laws of physics!

But I would like to see you get some balls.

[TwitchySeal]

...
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/10.1029/2011JD017013
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010GL
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aaa124/meta

[Spendulus]

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)

The thing is, you apparently cannot or will not read the references provided, and persist posting as if the references provided do not exist.

This does not pass a Turing test.

Also, for your three references, the first is previously noted Lockwood 2012, superseded by more recent research. The second is a bad link. The third has no relevance to the current discussion.

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.

[TwitchySeal]

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.

[notbatman]

The closest star is 25.6 trillion miles away according to the sodomites at The American Astronomical Society. A quick angular size calculation on that number exposes these Jesuit fags as liars, their claims are in blatant violation of some very basic laws of optical physics.

[Spendulus]

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.

"THE" ?

So like, I've emphasized getting basically familiar with the historical record, right?

Another good read is Brittanica. https://www.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-Age

Wolf minimum   1280-1350
Spörer Minimum   1450-1550
Maunder Minimum   1645-1715
Dalton Minimum   1790-1820

These are ALL grand solar minimums.

[TwitchySeal]

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.

"THE" ?

So like, I've emphasized getting basically familiar with the historical record, right?

Another good read is Brittanica. https://www.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-Age

Wolf minimum   1280-1350
Spörer Minimum   1450-1550
Maunder Minimum   1645-1715
Dalton Minimum   1790-1820

These are ALL grand solar minimums.

Ok, to be clear - are you claiming that the Wolf Minimum is the obvious cause of the LIA?

My intentions are not to personally attack you.

[Spendulus]

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.

"THE" ?

So like, I've emphasized getting basically familiar with the historical record, right?

Another good read is Brittanica. https://www.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-Age

Wolf minimum   1280-1350
Spörer Minimum   1450-1550
Maunder Minimum   1645-1715
Dalton Minimum   1790-1820

These are ALL grand solar minimums.

Ok, to be clear - are you claiming that the Wolf Minimum is the obvious cause of the LIA?

My intentions are not to personally attack you.

Here's the way I see it. We (much later) conceptually tag 1300-1800 or 1500 - 1800 whatever with LABEL. Then we look for CAUSE of LABEL.

That's not the way it works in natural systems with chaotic behavior. That's our brains trying to understand things.

In climate science one is always looking ... guessing ... at the secular curve. The climate on which the external events are superimposed on and which they affect. Definitely, volcanoes have a part.

Secular curve was lower in LIA. Solar effects are the cause of that. Naming the four "GSM" does not clearly deliniate or define the extent of solar effects, which goes far, far beyond GSM TSI.

Today the political correct tendency, if you have a half degree unexplained warming, attribute it to GW. Can't do that for LIA, which makes it very interesting. We don't have an accurate scaler for solar, no more than we have one for human effects on climate or for CO2. We've got some guesses,  but numerous areas of this are poorly understood.

[TwitchySeal]

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.

I have not been able to find a single peer reviewed scientific study that suggest that the GSM (or any GSM) was the likely (much less 'obvious') cause of the LIA.

Are you saying that it's obvious the LIA was caused by a GSM.

If so, are you aware of any peer reviewed scientific study to back up your claim.

THere's no need to dodge the direct questions.