Grand Solar Minimum, not a problem

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,345
Reaction score
7,231
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
The numbers and history showing that even if we have a repeat of the Maunder Minimum, it will make little difference to the warming of the Earth.

 

Dekster

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
7,674
Reaction score
1,405
Points
275
Bad Boy Bad Boy What You Gonna Do When They Come for You.....

DVh-WcYXcAAlNCe.jpg
 

Dekster

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
7,674
Reaction score
1,405
Points
275
They ignore the sun at great peril, if for no other reason than the sun greatly affects ocean currents. They turn everything into "carbon equivalents" and then model as if it is carbon because otherwise it is "too difficult" to model. And lastly even the IPCC research side admits, and its political side tries to bury, that there is no carbon cliff, point of no return etc etc the Deadlines Make Headlines crowd peddle.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
58,266
Reaction score
12,898
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
The numbers and history showing that even if we have a repeat of the Maunder Minimum, it will make little difference to the warming of the Earth.

Who the heck is this guy and what is JHAT? I've heard these excuses before and I'm not buying..But I'll listen to a dude that you didn't identify or tells us WHY "a grand solar minimum" DOESN"T MATTER....
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
58,266
Reaction score
12,898
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
The numbers and history showing that even if we have a repeat of the Maunder Minimum, it will make little difference to the warming of the Earth.


LAWD that was painful... Same old song.. Only with more deception or at least ignorance from "Just Have a Think" LOL....

Here's the deal old friend.. Total RECOVERY from the last Grand Solar minimum took over 80 YEARS... That's MORE than just "one solar cycle" and the total recovery in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) was about 0.8 Watts/M2...

What these naive comparisons DON'T take into account is the DIFFERENCE between power and energy.. A loss of a LITTLE power over time can INTEGRATE into a lot of cooling..

That's the entire argument for the both the short time and long time "residency time constants" for FORCINGS that are CO2 based.. They accumulate heating EVEN IF THEY ARE STABLE until a new long term equilibrium is reached in the atmosphere and at the surface..

So what's GOOD for CO2 forcing effects is DOUBLY good for solar irradiation effects -- ESPECIALLY the direct incoming reduced flux of WIDEBAND solar "light" that tends to warm (or cool) the oceans much more EFFICIENTLY than the back radiation from CO2..

So this horseshit of JUST looking at the forcing doesn't tell you in the LEAST what the effect or long term effects on the climate will be... Just as CO2 forcings "stick around" for quite awhile when those levels change...

And the best guesses I've heard, is that after the 60 or 80 years of a solar minimum -- We'll have reduced the global anomaly to about 1/4 or 1/2 of it's current value....
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
65,067
Reaction score
16,952
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
The numbers and history showing that even if we have a repeat of the Maunder Minimum, it will make little difference to the warming of the Earth.




Olfraud! You're back! Been missing your nonsense posts so thanks for the laugh.

But let's look at your OP, I see it is yet another in a long line of computer modeled fiction.

Tell you what, I will stick to the historical record, and you can keep bleating about your science fiction.

I know which one is going to be found accurate.
 

Billy_Bob

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
22,458
Reaction score
6,837
Points
1,080
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
The numbers and history showing that even if we have a repeat of the Maunder Minimum, it will make little difference to the warming of the Earth.

Tell me old fraud;

What is going to happen when the earth cools and growing seasons shorten? When cold weather and temperatures kill crops? When people begin to starve because your deception here is total bull shit, will that make you proud?

I see the mantra is changing from 'were gonna fry' to ' the cooling wont be bad at all and it will warm up fast'.... :spinner:
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
58,266
Reaction score
12,898
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Ends of the earth are melting but the earth is cooling. Makes sense.
Not cooling YET... Takes a while to move the Earth's climate.. But you need to look it up... "Next solar grand minimum"... Use any source you want -- just educate yourself.. Also read the historical accounts of the LAST solar grand minimum... Was not the mass delusion that the 0.6DegC change in worldwide temperature during your lifetime has wrought...
 
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
28
Reaction score
3
Points
1
Ends of the earth are melting but the earth is cooling. Makes sense.
You are a moron... Antarctic's mass is increasing and its ground temperatures are at theoretical minima -80 deg C (-158 Deg F) were setting records again down south..
Noted use of ad hominem and lack of empirical evidence. Very scientist presentation of facts. LMBO
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
113,492
Reaction score
25,057
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
Ends of the earth are melting but the earth is cooling. Makes sense.
You are a moron... Antarctic's mass is increasing and its ground temperatures are at theoretical minima -80 deg C (-158 Deg F) were setting records again down south..
Noted use of ad hominem and lack of empirical evidence. Very scientist presentation of facts. LMBO
While we're on the topic, what does the empirical evidence regarding the link between CO2 and temperature, is there ANY measurable increase in temperature when CO2 increases from 280 to 400ppm?

What? Was that a 'no'?
 

Billy_Bob

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
22,458
Reaction score
6,837
Points
1,080
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Ends of the earth are melting but the earth is cooling. Makes sense.
You are a moron... Antarctic's mass is increasing and its ground temperatures are at theoretical minima -80 deg C (-158 Deg F) were setting records again down south..
Noted use of ad hominem and lack of empirical evidence. Very scientist presentation of facts. LMBO
LOL... noted failure to think or use cognitive thought process...
 

baileyn45

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
4,926
Reaction score
2,582
Points
1,030
Dear Lord people, not one human being can give a logical, rational explanation of how the average temperature of planet Earth is derived today. And yet we're going to argue the temperature today vs 20 yrs ago, 100 yrs ago, 1000 yrs ago, 10,000 yrs ago? What afriggin joke.
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,896
Points
280
Ends of the earth are melting but the earth is cooling. Makes sense.
You are a moron... Antarctic's mass is increasing and its ground temperatures are at theoretical minima -80 deg C (-158 Deg F) were setting records again down south..
Noted use of ad hominem and lack of empirical evidence. Very scientist presentation of facts. LMBO
I failed to note any precision...or facts from you.. Double standard much? Post up something that at least looks like fact in support of AGW and you will get more precise facts putting it down than you, being a useful idiot, would ever care to look at...
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,896
Points
280
Dear Lord people, not one human being can give a logical, rational explanation of how the average temperature of planet Earth is derived today. And yet we're going to argue the temperature today vs 20 yrs ago, 100 yrs ago, 1000 yrs ago, 10,000 yrs ago? What afriggin joke.
I have often wondered of what value anyone thinks an "average global temperature" is on a planet whose daily maximum and minimum temperatures span 200+ degrees...not counting the fact that most of the earth's surface is not covered by data stations so most of the "average" consists of fabricated temperatures.
 

baileyn45

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
4,926
Reaction score
2,582
Points
1,030
Dear Lord people, not one human being can give a logical, rational explanation of how the average temperature of planet Earth is derived today. And yet we're going to argue the temperature today vs 20 yrs ago, 100 yrs ago, 1000 yrs ago, 10,000 yrs ago? What afriggin joke.
I have often wondered of what value anyone thinks an "average global temperature" is on a planet whose daily maximum and minimum temperatures span 200+ degrees...not counting the fact that most of the earth's surface is not covered by data stations so most of the "average" consists of fabricated temperatures.
If you listen to planetary scientists, they have no interest in surface temps. They are interested in the atmosphere. Funny that the only info we get from "climate scientists" is surface. Funny that.
 

baileyn45

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
4,926
Reaction score
2,582
Points
1,030
Dear Lord people, not one human being can give a logical, rational explanation of how the average temperature of planet Earth is derived today. And yet we're going to argue the temperature today vs 20 yrs ago, 100 yrs ago, 1000 yrs ago, 10,000 yrs ago? What afriggin joke.
I have often wondered of what value anyone thinks an "average global temperature" is on a planet whose daily maximum and minimum temperatures span 200+ degrees...not counting the fact that most of the earth's surface is not covered by data stations so most of the "average" consists of fabricated temperatures.
The real question is of what use are surface temps? Surface temps are basically useless on a global scale. Particularly when you do not have long term global coverage. I get into this argument all the time. Current surface temps are worthless, both from a surface temps tell us nothing of the global situation and we have nothing to compare it from the past anyway.
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,896
Points
280
Dear Lord people, not one human being can give a logical, rational explanation of how the average temperature of planet Earth is derived today. And yet we're going to argue the temperature today vs 20 yrs ago, 100 yrs ago, 1000 yrs ago, 10,000 yrs ago? What afriggin joke.
I have often wondered of what value anyone thinks an "average global temperature" is on a planet whose daily maximum and minimum temperatures span 200+ degrees...not counting the fact that most of the earth's surface is not covered by data stations so most of the "average" consists of fabricated temperatures.
The real question is of what use are surface temps? Surface temps are basically useless on a global scale. Particularly when you do not have long term global coverage. I get into this argument all the time. Current surface temps are worthless, both from a surface temps tell us nothing of the global situation and we have nothing to compare it from the past anyway.
They are useful if your objective is to push an alarmist narrative...that's what climate science is all about since it got co opted by politics.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top