A Sun with no sunspots

[CrusaderFrank]

I'll bet that each of he Plagues of Egypt were cause by an increase in CO2.

Had to be.

What else has the destructive power?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

wow, no answer from the Warmers on the extent of the unhideable decline last time there were no Sunspot....gee I wonder why?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

this "Settled science" is long on insults and short on answers

 

[skookerasbil]

Chris, I need help understanding this. Hopefully you won't flee like OR.

What does this mean for the climate?

Well, dumb ass Franky, it means that it will not be as warm as it would have been had we the normal sunspot cycle. However, even with the low solar activity and reduced TSI, plus a record low La Nina, the global temperature barely dipped below the zero mark for this year. And, as the temperature is rapidly ratcheting up again, the median, by Dr. Spencer's figures, lowest point will be higher than the previous high points excepting 1998. And we tied that high point median last year.

There ain't gonna be a cooling trend, folks. Just warming at a lower rate than would otherwise have been the case. And when the normal cycle resumes, one hell of a spike in temperatures and consequences of those temperatures.

You arent going to see most of this cycle shit s0n..........so I wouldnt worry about it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Notice how quickly the Warmers abandoned the thread?

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually, as much as I'd like to grandstand on the warmers about the spots.

This is going to suck and suck a lot.

Warming leads to us having more liquid water. It we over warmed there would be flooding on the coasts, and it would suck to be them.

If we cool, our liquid water turns to ice and we start having droughts, and much shorter growing periods for food. Now these 2 things will lead us to start dying off or killing each other.

This is not funny, this is deathly serious.

Silly ass, a major deviation either way has the same results. It affects food production in a major way, and the population dependent on that food production faces a major reduction.

Right now, the middle provinces northern areas in Canada are in a drought, as is Northern Europe and Siberia. In the meantime, from the Canadian border to the Gulf of Mexico, the Missouri and the Mississippi are flooding. If the drought in Northern Europe continues, that will again create a massive crop loss in the grains that are normally grown in that area. Australia has already had a massive loss of wheat in Queensland. And the area around the Missouri is not expected to dry out until August.

We are warming and warming rapidly. And the results can now be seen clearly.

Well, so much for having a reasonable conversation.

If someone other than one of the boards jackasses would like to respond, that would be much appretiated.

Two Thumbs, you will never get civil posts from me unless I see you doing the same toward me. You and the others here constantly post insults, then cry like little girls when they come back your way.

And you are correct, significant climatic moves in either direction is bad news when there are about 7 billion humans on the planet. That leaves little extra room for people to move to more livable areas, and the amount of area that has to be in agriculture for that many people simply will not be possible during a climate change.

But those of us the post the evidence that the warming is leading to a climatic change get constant insults on this board. And you are one of the insulters.

I don't turn the other cheek. With me, it's tens times over.

If you wish a civil conversation, don't expect it until I see a number of civil posts. Just one simply means that you are off your daily form. And, if the subject is science, post from real scientific sources. Scientists do not know everything, but they certainly know more of their subject than laymen.

 

[boedicca]

In their evasion from committing to a position, Warmers have lied themselves into an untenable position yet again.

The warmers also forget that the genesis of the CO2 Global Warming hypothesis was an idea that CO2 could be used to combat Global Cooling.

Looks like we may need it.

 

[Chris]

Notice how quickly the Warmers abandoned the thread?

That's because some of us have jobs, Frank.

The fact that the earth is heating up in spite of the fact that the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, shows just how strong the influence of increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% really is.

 

[Chris]

In their evasion from committing to a position, Warmers have lied themselves into an untenable position yet again.

The warmers also forget that the genesis of the CO2 Global Warming hypothesis was an idea that CO2 could be used to combat Global Cooling.

Looks like we may need it.

Link?

 

[Old Rocks]

That, Boedicca, is bullshit.The geneisis of the GHG Global Warming Theory was with Joseph Fourier;

Joseph Fourier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discovery of the "greenhouse effect"In the 1820s Fourier calculated that an object the size of the Earth, and at its distance from the Sun, should be considerably colder than the planet actually is if warmed only by the effects of incoming solar radiation. He examined various possible sources of the additional observed heat in articles published in 1824[9] and 1827.[10] While he ultimately suggested that interstellar radiation might be responsible for a large portion of the additional warmth, Fourier's consideration of the possibility that the Earth's atmosphere might act as an insulator of some kind is widely recognized as the first proposal of what is now known as the greenhouse effect.[11]


Bust of Fourier in GrenobleIn his articles Fourier referred to an experiment by de Saussure[12], who lined a vase with blackened cork. Into the cork, he inserted several panes of transparent glass, separated by intervals of air. Midday sunlight was allowed to enter at the top of the vase through the glass panes. The temperature became more elevated in the more interior compartments of this device.[1]. Fourier concluded that gases in the atmosphere could form a stable barrier like the glass panes. This conclusion may have contributed to the later use of the metaphor of the 'greenhouse effect' to refer to the processes that determine atmospheric temperatures. Fourier noted that the actual mechanisms that determine the temperatures of the atmosphere included convection, which was not present in de Saussure's experimental device.

 

[syrenn]

Silly ass, a major deviation either way has the same results. It affects food production in a major way, and the population dependent on that food production faces a major reduction.

Right now, the middle provinces northern areas in Canada are in a drought, as is Northern Europe and Siberia. In the meantime, from the Canadian border to the Gulf of Mexico, the Missouri and the Mississippi are flooding. If the drought in Northern Europe continues, that will again create a massive crop loss in the grains that are normally grown in that area. Australia has already had a massive loss of wheat in Queensland. And the area around the Missouri is not expected to dry out until August.

We are warming and warming rapidly. And the results can now be seen clearly.

Well, so much for having a reasonable conversation.

If someone other than one of the boards jackasses would like to respond, that would be much appretiated.

Two Thumbs, you will never get civil posts from me unless I see you doing the same toward me. You and the others here constantly post insults, then cry like little girls when they come back your way.

And you are correct, significant climatic moves in either direction is bad news when there are about 7 billion humans on the planet. That leaves little extra room for people to move to more livable areas, and the amount of area that has to be in agriculture for that many people simply will not be possible during a climate change.

But those of us the post the evidence that the warming is leading to a climatic change get constant insults on this board. And you are one of the insulters.

I don't turn the other cheek. With me, it's tens times over.

If you wish a civil conversation, don't expect it until I see a number of civil posts. Just one simply means that you are off your daily form. And, if the subject is science, post from real scientific sources. Scientists do not know everything, but they certainly know more of their subject than laymen.

That is just it old rocks. The earth doesn't care about us. It never has and never will. The earth does what it does. Hot, warm, cold. Its humans tough luck that they thrive in the warm. We are nothing but dinosaurs, adapt or die out.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Notice how quickly the Warmers abandoned the thread?

That's because some of us have jobs, Frank.

The fact that the earth is heating up in spite of the fact that the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, shows just how strong the influence of increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% really is.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. You just magically changed CO2 properties overnight and no one was supposed to notice.

How much lower were the temps when there were no sunspots?

 

[Chris]

Notice how quickly the Warmers abandoned the thread?

That's because some of us have jobs, Frank.

The fact that the earth is heating up in spite of the fact that the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, shows just how strong the influence of increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% really is.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. You just magically changed CO2 properties overnight and no one was supposed to notice.

How much lower were the temps when there were no sunspots?

Sorry, Frank. It really hard to take you seriously when you are talking jibberish.

Meanwhile the earth continues to heat up in spite of the fact that the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

Why is that?

 

[elvis]

That's because some of us have jobs, Frank.

The fact that the earth is heating up in spite of the fact that the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, shows just how strong the influence of increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% really is.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. You just magically changed CO2 properties overnight and no one was supposed to notice.

How much lower were the temps when there were no sunspots?

Sorry, Frank. It really hard to take you seriously when you are talking jibberish.

Meanwhile the earth continues to heat up in spite of the fact that the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

Why is that?

because you pulled your head out of that sheep's asshole. Time to show us you're committed to your cause.

 

[editec]

How ironic it might be to discover that our burdening our atmostphere with excess carbon turns out to be a boon for mankind.

I'm obviously not saying that is going to happen, but it is fairly apparent to me that while anthropogenic atmosphere change is obviously happening, that does NOT mean that we are masters of our fate.


Mankind's fate, much like the fate of every individual, is always a mixture of things we can control and things over which we have no control whatever.

 

[Liability]

So we should be in a cooling trend now because of the lack of sunspots?

Or a warming trend moderated by the lack of sunspot activity.
that is my theory on it.

The Solar Flares have been causing all the planets to heat up.

3/10/2011 - Boom! Sun unleashes yet another huge solar flare

Did anybody ever stop to THINK that maybe the AGW shit we are dioing ALSO has some influence on the SUN?

Huh?

Huh?

Huh?

Didja ever think about THAT?

Fuckin' humans.

 

[uscitizen]

Or a warming trend moderated by the lack of sunspot activity.
that is my theory on it.

The Solar Flares have been causing all the planets to heat up.

3/10/2011 - Boom! Sun unleashes yet another huge solar flare

Did anybody ever stop to THINK that maybe the AGW shit we are dioing ALSO has some influence on the SUN?

Huh?

Huh?

Huh?

Didja ever think about THAT?

Fuckin' humans.

HUH?
I hope for your sake that was sarcasm.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's because some of us have jobs, Frank.

The fact that the earth is heating up in spite of the fact that the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, shows just how strong the influence of increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% really is.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. You just magically changed CO2 properties overnight and no one was supposed to notice.

How much lower were the temps when there were no sunspots?

Sorry, Frank. It really hard to take you seriously when you are talking jibberish.

Meanwhile the earth continues to heat up in spite of the fact that the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

Why is that?

Why do you never have an answer? Because your "Theory" that a 200PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperatures 5-7 degrees has never been proven in a lab even one time.

You're now claiming that in a lab we should see the 5-7 degree increase PLUS an increase equal to whatever the cooling was the last time we had no sunspots. Which is probably why you won't answer. It's more likely that the Earth is a 6,000 year old flat plane at the center of the Universe than a 200PPM increase in CO2 raises temperatures 5-7 degrees.

How much lower were temperature the last time there were no sunspots, Genius?

 

[sparky]

Why do you never have an answer? Because your "Theory" that a 200PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperatures 5-7 degrees has never been proven in a lab even one time.

well, seems we need an explanation of how the rise in Co2 occured in the first place Frank

was in volcanic activity? increase in jellyfish population? Al Gore's incessant howling?

Greenhouse gas emissions hitting record highs - Global warming - Salon.com


regardless of blame, is there anyone who thinks we don't need to deal here?


Chris Hedges: The Sky Really Is Falling - Chris Hedges' Columns - TruthdigWe are going to have to adapt a good deal,” said McKibben, with whom I spoke by phone from his home in Vermont. “It is going to be a century that calls for being resilient and durable. Most of that adaptation is going to take the form of economies getting smaller and lower to the ground, local food, local energy, things like that. But that alone won’t do it, because the scale of change we are now talking about is so great that no one can adapt to it. Temperatures have gone up one degree so far and that has been enough to melt the Arctic. If we let it go up three or four degrees, the rule of thumb the agronomists go by is every degree Celsius of temperature rise represents about a 10 percent reduction in grain yields. If we let it go up three or four degrees we are really not talking about a planet that can support a civilization anything like the one we’ve got.

 

[Toronado3800]

The fact that we are still seeing record heat in spite of the fact that the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years is proof of just how powerful AGW is.

No record heat in Oaklandtown. Today's forecast high is 32 DEGREES BELOW the record high.

If you were teying to make a joke I apologize.

Individual days do not matter, just the climate data. If I told you st louis had a handfull of record highs this month that would not be proof of global warming anymire than a record low is proof of cooling.