US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers

Beefbisquit said:

I call it like I see it.

Water exists.
The ocean exists.
My tub exists.
The temperature of the ocean affects my tub water.

Click to expand...

ginjawarrior said:

does the ice cubes in my drink mean the ice caps arent melting?

Click to expand...

"there is at present little or no convincing evidence of statistically significant or practically useful correlations between sunspot cycles and weather or climate on intermediate time scales. This conclusion seems justified despite massive literature on the subject ... evidence suggests that if ... more data and better analyses ... succeed in verifying ... significant relationships, they will ... account for so little of the total variance in the meteorological record as to be of little practical value."

Click to expand...

Beefbisquit said:

I call it like I see it.

Water exists.
The ocean exists.
My tub exists.
The temperature of the ocean affects my tub water.

Doesn't make much sense does it?

Click to expand...

Doer said:

Solar variation causes changes in space weather, weather, and climate on Earth. It causes a periodic change in the amount of irradiation from the Sun that is experienced on Earth.

Click to expand...

Doer said:

The space weather is largely un-known in terms of Solar Climate, We need more exploration.

But, here is the hint. The sun is hot. It is in the main sequence. (you may have to look that up.)

As such it will never be cooler that it was at the last solar minimum..

You realize we have just peaked Solar Max, this year we think,

Now we move to Solar Min. but that Min, will be natually higher than the one from 22 years ago.

So, discuss facts...the real one. If you think man is doing this, I don't care. I certain image we are some small part of it maybe,.

But., Oacums Razor says we must also consider these years have been last gasp for profit as we know we were moving to Solar Max.

No chance for profit in Solar Min...or is there? Ah HA. Climate Changes. No one will deny that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

Solar variation causes changes in space weather, weather, and climate on Earth. It causes a periodic change in the amount of irradiation from the Sun that is experienced on Earth.

It is one component of solar variation, the other being aperiodic fluctuations.

aND

Click to expand...

One of the main reasons for this is that the bulk of the solar radiation, which lies mainly in the visible and near infrared parts of the EM spectrum, shows very little change over historical time scales. Most of the variation occurs in the lower and upper parts of the solar spectrum; the radio and X-ray bands. At these wavelengths, the solar radiation can vary by many orders of magnitude. These variations are very noticeable in the ionosphere, but since none of the X-ray radiation in particular, penetrates below about 60 km there is no reason to believe any changes would be noticed in the mesosphere "climate" takes place.

Galactic cosmic rays have much higher energies than do solar cosmic rays (protons), and these make it through several atmospheric interactions all the way to the ground, mostly in the form of mu-mesons. This galactic cosmic ray flux is subject to solar influence in the form of heliospheric magnetic fields that can deflect and thus decrease the intensity of the flux. It has been speculated that this variation could cause precipitation variations with cosmic ray interactions providing condensation nuclei ("seeds" for initiating precipitation) in the upper troposphere. Again the evidence is not strong.

Click to expand...

Doer said:

And space weather can't affect Climate?

The space weather is largely un-known in terms of Solar Climate, We need more exploration.

But, here is the hint. The sun is hot. It is in the Main Sequence. (you may have to look that up.)

As such it will never be cooler than it was, at the last solar minimum..

You realize we have just peaked Solar Max, this year we think, maybe '16, by the calculations.

Now we move to Solar Min. but that Min, will be naturally higher than the one from 22 years ago. The Main Sequence for our star class, is why.

So, discuss facts...the real ones. If you think man is doing this, I don't care. I can certainly imagine we could be some small part of it maybe.

But., Oacums Razor says we must also consider these years have been last gasp for profit as we know we were moving to Solar Max. Consider that it is not a conspiracy but a natural pile on, from the greed of man, beginning with Sagan.

No chance for profit in Solar Min...or is there? Ah HA. Climate Changes. No one will deny that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

Solar variation causes changes in space weather, weather, and climate on Earth. It causes a periodic change in the amount of irradiation from the Sun that is experienced on Earth.

It is one component of solar variation, the other being aperiodic fluctuations.

aND

Click to expand...

Doer said:

I think you are being generally and intentional rude, Mr. Beef.

Click to expand...

Doer said:

You certainly fall back on the Church of Agrees with Buck.

Click to expand...

Doer said:

It is funny how both of you are shadow boxing. You seem to think I am defending a position or something. I thought we were discussing the ins and outs of Space Weather, what we know, what we don't, the implications of solar cycles and even unknown planets. I heard they may have found a big one.

But, you guys, go ahead and defend what you think needs defending in the Church of We Agree.

Science needs no defense.

Click to expand...

Doer said:

I never said that. You need to pay more attention. We were discussing terms and semantics about weather, as I remember. You don't know the power of a neutral stance. It is being studied. It is not discounted. You are rude. Separate topic.

I really doubt you understand this topic.

http://www.ips.gov.au/Space_Weather
http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/1/3/3

Solar Driven Global Climatic Change
Whilst a 0.1% variation is unlikely to produce measurable climatic change (particularly with a period of just a decade), a 4% variation would certainly be noticeable. Alternatively, a variation with a much longer period and amplitude under 1% could well influence global climate. John Eddy and others (3,22) have claimed such climatic changes have occurred in the past, one particular association being a colder epoch in Europe during an apparently complete absence of sunspots over a 70 year period in the 17th century. Such claims have generated interest particularly amongst those who challenge the majority belief of enhanced greenhouse warming caused by man's recent activities (23).

Science is constantly challenged and scientists are not at all sanguine about that. It is the nature of the business.

Click to expand...

One of the main reasons for this is that the bulk of the solar radiation, which lies mainly in the visible and near infrared parts of the EM spectrum, shows very little change over historical time scales. Most of the variation occurs in the lower and upper parts of the solar spectrum; the radio and X-ray bands. At these wavelengths, the solar radiation can vary by many orders of magnitude. These variations are very noticeable in the ionosphere, but since none of the X-ray radiation in particular, penetrates below about 60 km there is no reason to believe any changes would be noticed in the mesosphere "climate" takes place.

Particulate radiation from the Sun is also subject to extremely wide fluctuations. However, most of the particles have energies below (and usually well below) 100 MeV. The Earth's magnetic field is very effective in deflecting and/or trapping this radiation with most particles not reaching altitudes below about 50 km. The exception to this may be in the polar regions, although even particles travelling downward along the near-vertical polar magnetic field lines will generally be stopped by the dense layers of atmosphere. Occasionally very high energy particles (some with relativistic energies) do make it to ground level. This occurs just a dozen or so times per solar cycle and is referred to as a Ground Level Event (GLE).

Galactic cosmic rays have much higher energies than do solar cosmic rays (protons), and these make it through several atmospheric interactions all the way to the ground, mostly in the form of mu-mesons. This galactic cosmic ray flux is subject to solar influence in the form of heliospheric magnetic fields that can deflect and thus decrease the intensity of the flux. It has been speculated that this variation could cause precipitation variations with cosmic ray interactions providing condensation nuclei ("seeds" for initiating precipitation) in the upper troposphere. Again the evidence is not strong.

Click to expand...

Full spectrum cavity radiometers on board 7 spacecraft have now monitored the total electromagnetic radiation output from the Sun, called the solar constant, over about 20 years (1,4). The average value of the solar constant at the mean distance of the Earth from the Sun (referred to as the Astronomical Unit and equal to 1.496x10^11 m) is about 1370 watt/square metre. This has shown an intrinsic solar variation of just under 0.1% in the last two decades (figure 1). [There is also a variation due to the Earth's elliptical orbit, but the measurements in question are standardised to a distance of 1 A.U.] It is uncertain how indicative this recent variation is, measured over just 20 years, of variation in solar radiation.

Recent work has attempted to identify the source of these changes (4). It is now believed that most solar irradiance variations originate in solar surface magnetic activity. Approximately 80% of the measured variation can be accounted for by the two main visible features on the solar disk; sunspots and faculae. Sunspots are small dark areas on the solar disc whereas faculae are bright areas which form complex networks. Both of these phenomena occur around "active regions" where the magnetic field strengths are particularly high. Around sunspots the magnetic field strength can rise to thousands of gauss, whereas the average field is on the order of 1 gauss. The presence of faculae is highly correlated with the presence of sunspots, and hence with Sunspot Number (SSN). Over long time scales of months or greater it appears that increased irradiance due to the bright faculae exceeds the deficit due to the darker and cooler sunspots (Figure 2).

There has been a claim that solar irradiance from one minimum to another ( [an 11 year period], when no spots or faculae are visible, does show a small change, but the general consensus is that any such non-magnetic variation, if it exists, is within the noise level (maybe 0.02%).

It is thus thought that sunspot number is a good proxy for solar irradiance changes, and historical variations in this number have led to a belief that the total variation of solar irradiance over time scales of thousands of years is unlikely to exceed 1%. This assumes that no non-magnetic related effects are likely to show up in the longer time scales.

The other way to approach the problem is to examine a sample of sun-like stars for irradiance fluctuations. When this is done, the Sun does appear to be abnormally quiet. A recent report suggests that the average G type (sun-like) star shows a 4% irradiance variation over a timescale of decades (9). Further, this variation may well be due to non-magnetically related activity, and is thus a phenomenon that we do not see at present in our Sun.

Figure 1
Solar irradiance variations as recorded by a composite of satellite sensors for the latter part of the 20th Century. The continuous line is an 81 day running average. (from reference 4)

Figure 2
Solar satellite irradiance data showing modelled contributions due to sunspots and faculae separately. (from reference 4)

Solar Driven Global Climatic Change
Whilst a 0.1% variation is unlikely to produce measurable climatic change (particularly with a period of just a decade), a 4% variation would certainly be noticeable. Alternatively, a variation with a much longer period and amplitude under 1% could well influence global climate. John Eddy and others (3,22) have claimed such climatic changes have occurred in the past, one particular association being a colder epoch in Europe during an apparently complete absence of sunspots over a 70 year period in the 17th century. Such claims have generated interest particularly amongst those who challenge the majority belief of enhanced greenhouse warming caused by man's recent activities (23).

Click to expand...

Doer said:

I haven't denounced anything. I have said very recently, in this thread, if we are doing something major I would not be surprised, since I always believed that we were...until lately.

Now, I see the viciousness of Mother Jones and Rolling Stone, and you, and now I'm not so sure. This seems something to resist to me, now. Who cares if we are whatever? I am way past that in my life.

This is a representation of Thought Forcing, bullying and tyranny, to me. And none of what I have EVER said on RIU has anything to do with defending a position.

That is not how science works. That is the working of the mob. I have typed pages on the the mob aspect of this, regardless of the subject. I think it has tipped past a certain point now. 97% certainty. There will be blood. There has already been blood.

We all should fear what we set in gear.

Ask Robespierre's head.

Click to expand...

Doer said:

You have polls and claims of majority.

Click to expand...