Navitron Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum

Announcements & News => Astronomy & Science => Topic started by: Nickel2 on January 20, 2014, 11:11:56 AM



Title: Solar minimum.
Post by: Nickel2 on January 20, 2014, 11:11:56 AM
It's time to look at the sun again and how it determines our climate. Are we heading for a new mini ice-age?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25743806


Title: Re: Solar minimum.
Post by: Quakered on January 20, 2014, 12:15:00 PM
I think this post should be deleted for such an heretical view. We all know that it is an undeniable truth that the world is warming due to human activity. This view is accepted by 105% of world scientists  and the rest of us must accept it or risk the Climate Inquisitors burning as at the stake (with carbon neutral wood!)

How can anyone possible believe that the Sun has a greater impact on our climate than mums dropping their little darling off at school in their Chelsea tractors?

I confess as a slight sceptic once I heard that 120% of scientists agreed that global warming was inevitable, a disaster and our fault, I thought I better prepare for a new ice age and therefore got the house well insulated. I hope I live long enough too see the winter fairs return to the Thames!


Title: Re: Solar minimum.
Post by: dhaslam on January 20, 2014, 12:32:49 PM
Fossil fuels  won't  last forever so it won't always be possible to keep polluting the atmosphere.   


Title: Re: Solar minimum.
Post by: Philip R on January 20, 2014, 01:11:52 PM
Quakerred,

Do not be so hysterical, your attitude is that of the Roman Catholic church and the heresy committed by the likes of Galileo and Copernicus stating that the sun is the centre of our solar system and not the earth.!!!! :fume. Your request should be taken down, not that of Nickel2.

I too saw this clip on the BBC and in my opinion, it  is not denying man made climate change, although it references it in context of changes made by man due to the industrial revolution.

If we are heading for a period of colder winters in Europe, then we need to make lots of radical changes to the way we power our society and to bolster the infrastructure homes and agriculture to survive such rigours.

Philip R


Title: Re: Solar minimum.
Post by: Quakered on January 22, 2014, 12:59:25 PM
Well I confess all the florid talk from the climatists over the last twenty years rather irritated me with the certainty of their position and their total inability to countenance the possibliity that they might be wrong. As such your analogy is surely the wrong way round. It was the climatists who took the position of the Church in demanding total acceptance and the "deniers" the position of Galileo and Copernicus.  Any decent scientist should surely welcome, or at least countenance, alternate theories. If we can question Einstein's theories then why not climate change?

The pitch was that, as it was then called, "Global Warming" was going to cause the Sahara to extend to the Pyrenees and the polar ice would melt causing destruction of most of the world's cities and we had to reduce carbon dioxide emissions radically to mitigate this eventuality. When it became apparent that the globe was not warming they changed the name to "Climate Change" but did not change the script and continued to propagate the global disaster message and the need to radically reduce CO2

It now looks like the predictions that underpinned the argument is out by 180 degrees and the real problem is global cooling and that this has absolutely nothing to do with human activity. I fear this will lead to a mighty backlash against all the good things that the climatists wanted and suspect it has already started with the EU abandoning CO2 reduction targets and instead focussing on reducing energy bills to help drag the euro area out of its decline and I suspect, to make the EU less unpopular with the electorate.


Title: Re: Solar minimum.
Post by: skyewright on January 22, 2014, 02:34:30 PM
It now looks like the predictions that underpinned the argument is out by 180 degrees and the real problem is global cooling and that this has absolutely nothing to do with human activity.
A solar minimum is a different (& counter) effect, rather than an argument against the manmade climate change models. Both chalk & cheese exist, but they are different.

PS.
Quote
"If you want to go back to see when the Sun was this inactive... you've got to go back about 100 years," he says.
Err, 100 years ago? Don't I recall that weather in the UK (& elsewhere?) was unusually warm in the lead up to WWI?


Title: Re: Solar minimum.
Post by: dhaslam on January 22, 2014, 03:35:58 PM
What is annoying about  scientists  talking about  climate change   now is that  it jumped to prominence without  much  long term development  of the related science.   It wasn't until the 1960s that the subject became a bit more prominent and then it was  related to a forthcoming ice age.    What is different now is that fossil fuels are being burned at unprecedented  rates and the real problem is that the fuel is running out fast. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere is almost  irrelevant in comparison  but  pictures of things like urban flooding, almost entirely  unrelated,   keep getting publicised as "evidence" of climate change.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm


Title: Re: Solar minimum.
Post by: AlanM on January 22, 2014, 04:06:56 PM
Dhaslam, its not just urban flooding its everything, or nearly everything... Just when you thought you'd heard it all
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html

Alan


Title: Re: Solar minimum.
Post by: martin on January 22, 2014, 04:21:17 PM
Oh lordy, I note the presence of what I can only view as "denialist tosh" in this thread , and feel it apposite to reiterate what I've said down the years on the subject - there is now not a scintilla of doubt that mankind is causing dangerous climate change, to say otherwise is somewhat akin to claiming we have a flat earth. If for some ghastly acid-flash moment the assorted swivel-eyed loons (Lawson, Delingpole, Peiser, Melanie Philips etc) were correct, and the climate is actually cooling or doing a rumba, it matters not a jot - there are too many of us, doing too much stuff, we are using up the earth's precious resources at a frantic rate, and poisoning the entire environment along the way - we need to take action against climate change (whichever direction it is going in), and the measures we need to take are surprisingly similar - use less fossil fuels, stop poisoning the environment, get a grip on overpopulation - we can argue up hill and down dale the minutiae of "how" we halt our demise as a species, but there are no excuses from the loonies that can possibly give us an excuse for "more of the same", which is what they seem to be advocating (on behalf of the major planet-despoiling corporations) whistle


Title: Re: Solar minimum.
Post by: smegal on January 22, 2014, 05:07:24 PM
Oh lordy, I note the presence of what I can only view as "denialist tosh" in this thread , and feel it apposite to reiterate what I've said down the years on the subject - there is now not a scintilla of doubt that mankind is causing dangerous climate change, to say otherwise is somewhat akin to claiming we have a flat earth. If for some ghastly acid-flash moment the assorted swivel-eyed loons (Lawson, Delingpole, Peiser, Melanie Philips etc) were correct, and the climate is actually cooling or doing a rumba, it matters not a jot - there are too many of us, doing too much stuff, we are using up the earth's precious resources at a frantic rate, and poisoning the entire environment along the way - we need to take action against climate change (whichever direction it is going in), and the measures we need to take are surprisingly similar - use less fossil fuels, stop poisoning the environment, get a grip on overpopulation - we can argue up hill and down dale the minutiae of "how" we halt our demise as a species, but there are no excuses from the loonies that can possibly give us an excuse for "more of the same", which is what they seem to be advocating (on behalf of the major planet-despoiling corporations) whistle

Hear Hear.

We certainly disagree on the how, but we agree on the end that we are trying to achieve.


Title: Re: Solar minimum.
Post by: Tiff on January 22, 2014, 05:32:19 PM
Oh lordy, I note the presence of what I can only view as "denialist tosh" in this thread , and feel it apposite to reiterate what I've said down the years on the subject - there is now not a scintilla of doubt that mankind is causing dangerous climate change, to say otherwise is somewhat akin to claiming we have a flat earth. If for some ghastly acid-flash moment the assorted swivel-eyed loons (Lawson, Delingpole, Peiser, Melanie Philips etc) were correct, and the climate is actually cooling or doing a rumba, it matters not a jot - there are too many of us, doing too much stuff, we are using up the earth's precious resources at a frantic rate, and poisoning the entire environment along the way - we need to take action against climate change (whichever direction it is going in), and the measures we need to take are surprisingly similar - use less fossil fuels, stop poisoning the environment, get a grip on overpopulation - we can argue up hill and down dale the minutiae of "how" we halt our demise as a species, but there are no excuses from the loonies that can possibly give us an excuse for "more of the same", which is what they seem to be advocating (on behalf of the major planet-despoiling corporations) whistle

I also agree with this 100%, well said Martin.

I believe that the issues of resource consumption, population growth, energy supplies and pollution of air, land and water will impact on us sooner than the impacts of climate change. So even if climate change does not exist, we still have a major issue to deal with. Climate change combined with all the of the above =  sh*tfan:

If the planet only had to support a static population of a few hundred million then none of this would be a problem.



Title: Re: Solar minimum.
Post by: Nickel2 on January 22, 2014, 05:49:15 PM
'Swivel-eyed loons' still makes me chuckle!

(http://s27.postimg.org/6z7uq55lb/attack_of_the_swivel_eyed_loons_tshirt_design.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/6z7uq55lb/)


Title: Re: Solar minimum.
Post by: Bodidly on January 22, 2014, 05:55:05 PM
As someone who has no scientific background and not much understanding of all the  work done around global warming/climate change I look to the media for what is going on. I will add when I say the media I mean science programs like Equinox, Horizon or whatever else looks interesting not the Daily Mail. Over the years we hear new and sometime what appear contradictory information of how our weather is changing. After a while you become distrustful of the latest prediction and begin to doubt all these supposed experts.

Now I don't personally doubt that we are affecting our weather with all the cr@p we pump into our atmosphere and that we should have far less dependence on fossil fuels but if predictions don't happen for whatever reason (CO2, global dimming, maunder minimum etc) Jo public will loose faith in scientific predictions probably to the detriment of our planet. What I am trying to get at is when Martin says "it matters not a jot" I would argue it does matter. Hope that makes sense  :-\


Title: Re: Solar minimum.
Post by: M on January 22, 2014, 09:37:12 PM
Something I find odd, is people's reluctance to just get on with it anyway.

I don't expect my house to burn down, or fall down, not even a 1% chance each year, but I have buildings insurance anyway. So if almost all of the scientific world tell us the planet is in trouble, then why would we not take out some insurance, and address the problems just in case.

Or to put it another way, "What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing."

Mart.


Title: Re: Solar minimum.
Post by: wookey on January 22, 2014, 11:17:26 PM
Quote
Fossil fuels  won't  last forever so it won't always be possible to keep polluting the atmosphere

There is more than enough already known about to radically alter the climate. We have a budget of approx 1000GTonnes over a couple of centuries to keep climate change under 2C. We've already burned 500Gt, and there is ~3000Gt available in total (so far). So yes, whilst the total amount of fossil fuels available provides a limit, it's not a very useful one.

Bodidly. The doubt you are talking about is largely manufactured. The methods are now well known (see 'Merchants of Doubt' book about how it was cone over smoking/lung cancer). The evidence is steadily collecting and making a consistent picture, always with some unknowns around the new stuff. The shrill things you read in the media and on the net are often there just for the purpose of keeping people doubtful. And it works, even though we understand how it's done.

That doubt is enough for most people to ignore it and carry on burning, hoping that 'it'll be alright'. That's looking less and less likely.


Title: Re: Solar minimum.
Post by: daserra on January 22, 2014, 11:26:22 PM
They'll be defending "Intelligent Design" next. Surely the science has been done here and a consensus has been reached. It's such a shame when self sufficiency and independence get rolled up with "the right to bear arms","drinking your own urine","palm reading" and now climate change denial.
 facepalm


Title: Re: Solar minimum.
Post by: M on January 23, 2014, 07:21:45 AM
I was going to try to describe the new season of 'The Daily Show, with Jon Stewart', as he took on Fox News and their anti global warming argument.

The basis is that if parts of America are cold, then global (yes global) warming isn't happening. But I couldn't do it justice, so here's the segment (the first 2 minutes set up the joke, then it's all guns blazing):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTdjNt2LWiU

Mart.


Title: Re: Solar minimum.
Post by: Tiff on January 23, 2014, 08:37:45 AM
I was going to try to describe the new season of 'The Daily Show, with Jon Stewart', as he took on Fox News and their anti global warming argument.

The basis is that if parts of America are cold, then global (yes global) warming isn't happening. But I couldn't do it justice, so here's the segment (the first 2 minutes set up the joke, then it's all guns blazing):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTdjNt2LWiU

Mart.

The daily mail had a piece the other day about how mild December has been this year. Now if it was cold the comments would of been full of 'global warming is a scam'. However, when its warm the comments for some reason dont say "gosh, we we were wrong, its been really mild so global warming must be true"

I do understand the difference climate and weather by the way, just having a dig at the DM commentards.


Title: Re: Solar minimum.
Post by: going green on March 29, 2014, 01:05:30 AM
rub 2 sticks together  :hysteria