Stevie Wonder Opens Hurricane Benefit By Slamming Climate Change Deniers

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

11 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  The cycle is 88 years, as the article said. That would have made the midpoint of the last maximum somewhere around 1959 or 1960. Theoretically we are still near the start of a solar minimum, and solar activity should trend towards decreasing for the next 30 years or so before it begins increasing again. If you are asking me if I'm sure that's going to happen, I'll have your answer in 30 years or so.

 

  The study is interesting. I don't know if it's saying the cycle is changing, just that there is more solar activity than would normally be expected right now. I'm not sure what they can predict from that. They do say the increased solar activity does not explain the degree of warming that we have seen. 

 

   

"From the 1400s to the 1700s, for example, Europe and North America experienced a "Little Ice Age." For a period of about 50 years during that time, there were almost no sunspots."  Makes sense.  Less solar activity, cooler temps.

 

 

"The study's finding: Sunspot activity has been more intense and lasted longer during the past 60 to 70 years than at anytime in more than eight millennia."     And we are seeing new record high temps.  Seems logical to me to deduce that increased sunspot activity would cause the temps to rise.

 

"Scientists in other fields have shown that during the past 11,000 years, Earth's climate has had many dramatic shifts."

And this is what causes me to believe man isn't as responsible for climate change as some would have us believe.

 

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

"From the 1400s to the 1700s, for example, Europe and North America experienced a "Little Ice Age." For a period of about 50 years during that time, there were almost no sunspots."  Makes sense.  Less solar activity, cooler temps.

 

 

"The study's finding: Sunspot activity has been more intense and lasted longer during the past 60 to 70 years than at anytime in more than eight millennia."     And we are seeing new record high temps.  Seems logical to me to deduce that increased sunspot activity would cause the temps to rise.

 

"Scientists in other fields have shown that during the past 11,000 years, Earth's climate has had many dramatic shifts."

And this is what causes me to believe man isn't as responsible for climate change as some would have us believe.

 

 

 

 

   You do realize the study you are referencing is from 2004?  It was the end of the solar maximum.  Solar activity has not reached that level since. I'm not convinced that solar activity is as neat and tidy as to be following 88 year cycles, but there definitely are cycles, and 2007 is generally given as the end of the modern maximum.

 

  AS far as the Maunder minimum (little ice age), there was a medieval warming period as well just prior, which consisted of higher solar activity. Changes in solar activity obviously are a driver of temperature. Just not the only one. 

 

   Over geological time, all of these radiative factors, ie. solar activity, greenhouse gasses, volcanic activity, surface albedo, ozone levels etc., all contribute variable amounts of positive and negative radiative influence. You have to go back a lot more than 8 millennia to find the last time CO2 was above 400ppm.  It's only going to go higher at this point. It's possible that the radiative effect of greenhouses gasses can be offset by lower solar activity for a while, but that won't last for ever. 

   

[eieio 1,594]

3 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

 

   You do realize the study you are referencing is from 2004?  It was the end of the solar maximum.  Solar activity has not reached that level since. I'm not convinced that solar activity is as neat and tidy as to be following 88 year cycles, but there definitely are cycles, and 2007 is generally given as the end of the modern maximum.

 

  AS far as the Maunder minimum (little ice age), there was a medieval warming period as well just prior, which consisted of higher solar activity. Changes in solar activity obviously are a driver of temperature. Just not the only one. 

 

   Over geological time, all of these radiative factors, ie. solar activity, greenhouse gasses, volcanic activity, surface albedo, ozone levels etc., all contribute variable amounts of positive and negative radiative influence. You have to go back a lot more than 8 millennia to find the last time CO2 was above 400ppm.  It's only going to go higher at this point. It's possible that the radiative effect of greenhouses gasses can be offset by lower solar activity for a while, but that won't last for ever. 

   

So the end is near? How long do we have to live?

[Dashinka 24,952]

3 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

 

   You do realize the study you are referencing is from 2004?  It was the end of the solar maximum.  Solar activity has not reached that level since. I'm not convinced that solar activity is as neat and tidy as to be following 88 year cycles, but there definitely are cycles, and 2007 is generally given as the end of the modern maximum.

 

  AS far as the Maunder minimum (little ice age), there was a medieval warming period as well just prior, which consisted of higher solar activity. Changes in solar activity obviously are a driver of temperature. Just not the only one. 

 

   Over geological time, all of these radiative factors, ie. solar activity, greenhouse gasses, volcanic activity, surface albedo, ozone levels etc., all contribute variable amounts of positive and negative radiative influence. You have to go back a lot more than 8 millennia to find the last time CO2 was above 400ppm.  It's only going to go higher at this point. It's possible that the radiative effect of greenhouses gasses can be offset by lower solar activity for a while, but that won't last for ever. 

   

It is?  Has the earth stopped converting the CO2 back to other organic compounds? 

[Ban Hammer 13,705]

18 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

 The study is interesting. I don't know if it's saying the cycle is changing, just that there is more solar activity than would normally be expected right now. I'm not sure what they can predict from that. They do say the increased solar activity does not explain the degree of warming that we have seen. 

 

   

maybe their model is wrong too, just like the model that shows the earth warming drastically but it isn't?

[Boiler 46,353]

 

 

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

It is?  Has the earth stopped converting the CO2 back to other organic compounds? 

  Are you suggesting we have reached an equilibrium? If not CO2 will continue to rise. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Ban Hammer said:

maybe their model is wrong too, just like the model that shows the earth warming drastically but it isn't?

 

    What climate models are not showing an overall trend towards warming?

   

[Dashinka 24,952]

3 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

  Are you suggesting we have reached an equilibrium? If not CO2 will continue to rise. 

I really have no idea, and from what I can see, I am not sure anyone else knows either.

[Ban Hammer 13,705]

4 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    What climate models are not showing an overall trend towards warming?

   

don't know, don't care.  my point was that the models indicated higher warming than what is going on.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

 

   You do realize the study you are referencing is from 2004?  It was the end of the solar maximum.  Solar activity has not reached that level since. I'm not convinced that solar activity is as neat and tidy as to be following 88 year cycles, but there definitely are cycles, and 2007 is generally given as the end of the modern maximum.

 

  AS far as the Maunder minimum (little ice age), there was a medieval warming period as well just prior, which consisted of higher solar activity. Changes in solar activity obviously are a driver of temperature. Just not the only one. 

 

   Over geological time, all of these radiative factors, ie. solar activity, greenhouse gasses, volcanic activity, surface albedo, ozone levels etc., all contribute variable amounts of positive and negative radiative influence. You have to go back a lot more than 8 millennia to find the last time CO2 was above 400ppm.  It's only going to go higher at this point. It's possible that the radiative effect of greenhouses gasses can be offset by lower solar activity for a while, but that won't last for ever. 

   

Yes, I saw the date of the study.  And the new minimum cycle began 4 years later.  It may not be "neat" that solar activity affects our climate, but I would argue with anyone who says it doesn't affect it at all.

 

Yes, CO2 is on the rise, but there are many factors involved as you said.  Obviously, as we cut down trees and foliage to construct "stuff", the earth's ability to consume that CO2 diminishes.  That's mostly man's fault.  We tend to destroy in the name of progress.  But back "in the old days" before there were men, or even dinosaurs, CO2 levels were 2000~4000 ppm, compared to 405 ppm today. And yet, we had an ice age during that time.  Therefore, increased CO2 does not by itself mean the atmosphere will continue to warm up.

[Boiler 46,353]

I will be cutting trees down this afternoon, need to get my wood in.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    What climate models are not showing an overall trend towards warming?

   

No one said the earth is not warming.  It is, but much more slowly than some would lead us to believe.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/earth-s-climate-may-not-warm-quickly-expected-suggest-new-cloud-studies

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

On 9/22/2017 at 11:30 AM, Ban Hammer said:

don't know, don't care.  my point was that the models indicated higher warming than what is going on.

 

 

On 9/22/2017 at 12:05 PM, IDWAF said:

No one said the earth is not warming.  It is, but much more slowly than some would lead us to believe.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/earth-s-climate-may-not-warm-quickly-expected-suggest-new-cloud-studies

You do realize that you are quoting another study , reaffirming other studies that shows that warming and climate change is real, caused by co2 emmisions from human activity? 

[Dashinka 24,952]

42 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

 

 

You do realize that you are quoting another study , reaffirming other studies that shows that warming and climate change is real, caused by co2 emmisions from human activity? 

So time to get rid of the humans?