The Sun Is Nearly Spotless, Hinting at Solar Lull

Discussion in 'Global Issues' started by Sharpie, Mar 25, 2017.

  1. Canell

    Canell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,269
    Likes Received:
    1,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The calm before the storm? :peace:
     
  2. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, but I asked if we could know anything after 20 years

    I mean we have all heard repeated arguments that the sun is the driver of climate
    We all know that solar activity is responsible for climatic changes
    And now we know that the sun has entered a less active phase
    And that will result in climate cooling.
    And that there is a lag of 10-15 years

    Ok
    Check

    But if we agree to all the above... will we EVER know anything?
    Will looking at the climate after 20 yearstell us anything
    Is there any falsifiable prediction that sceptics have, or will ever make?
    Or is the baseline position that we know nothing
    and can never know anything About climate except that man had no impact?
     
    Montegriffo likes this.
  3. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think we know a lot but there is also a lot we know we don't know and things we are not yet aware of yet. Even if it cools in 10 years it will still be possible we won't really know the actual mechanism other than the main contributor, the sun. For instance it is another hypothesis that lower solar activity allows more cosmic rays to enter the atmosphere causing more clouds. Since none of this is reproducible as a check it is all unfalsifiable.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2017
  4. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,608
    Likes Received:
    2,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We have to build giant solar powered magnets at the poles and pull them back into place, or at least as a substitute the ones that are moving. If I recall correctly from science class, all we need are some copper wires, a power source and a couple really big nails.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2017
  5. Maximatic

    Maximatic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2012
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    If you've had you truck for a long time, your carbon footprint can easily be smaller than that of the guy who buys a new Prius every other year.
     
  6. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But I asked about what we know if it keeps warming in the face of a less active sun?

    Ok...
    If I understand you correctly
    Your view is that given the inevitable reproducibility problem
    We can never be certainly n on the issue
    And therefore
    Even if the warmist are right in every respect. (just a thought experiment)
    Your position is that no evidence could ever be presented that would validate doing anything
    Correct?
     
  7. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think you are correct in the abstract. Since none of this can be reproduced, only time will tell and even then it could be misunderstood and/or misrepresented. The fact that we really have very little in actual direct measured science over time leaves plenty of room for valid skepticism of the current popular hypothesis. That and one of the foundations of this hypothesis remains wanting and that is it is supposed to show warming in the troposphere first. Instead only the surface records show warming above any rate in the troposphere. Many believe that is due to bias in the surface record.
     
  8. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But that is my point... time will not tell
    Because there will never be absolute proof
    But, there is reproducibility in knowing that gh gasses have certain physical characteristics
    And those would tend to add heat to the system absent other impacts
    Impacts that remain unquantifiable

    Gh gas is well measured
    And, actually I agree that there is room for skepticism
    But, and it is a very big but
    It is equally reasonable to be skeptical of the so called skeptics position
    These are also (at best) unprovable
    So, we are left not knowing for sure
    We do not know if there is a human caused problem
    We do not know if we can do anything about warming what ever the cause
    And, if there is a problem, we are not certain of the the size of the impact
    But we DO KNOW that very many smart people think there IS A HUMAN CAUSED PROBLEM
    AND so there is an unquantifiable risk
    And in most circumstances
    An organization faced with such a risk would devote some resources to mitigating the risk

    As In the Y2K issue
    In that case we all knew there might not be a problem
    But spent resources to mitigate risk... just in case
    We could discuss such technical issue forever and not make progress
    But imo there are two incontestable facts
    Gh gas concentrations are rising
    And gh gasses have well tested physical characteristics
    That taken in isolation would increase temperatures
    For example
    Lets say we changed the atmosphere to 25% co2
    Would we expect temp to increase?
     
    Montegriffo likes this.
  9. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only thing really 'known' about AGW are first principles like we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that by itself can absorb and reflect energy. We know that greenhouse gases are necessary to keep the planet habitable, at least for us. We know the Earth has warmed since 1890 in waves. We know we create CO2. Beyond that it is all hypothesis, how much sensitivity there is in the atmosphere to CO2. Is the CO2 hypothesis that water vapor actually multiplies the effect true since the hypothesis relies on this. Are there other pathways for energy to escape that we have not taken into account (some say there are). How does it all work in a chaotic non-linear system. How much uptake there really is, still unknown. Is rising CO2 also a response to a warmed planet.

    If we burned all available fossil fuel on the planet the % of CO2 in the atmosphere would never reach 25% but only increase the meager amount now by a small percentage. BTW, we are putting back into the atmosphere that was taken out by living organisms that thrive on CO2. Most of today's plant life came into existence when CO2 was much higher than today by as much as 10 times. Since we are in a 2.5 million year ice age interspersed with short mild periods like the one we are in now, CO2 has dropped to bare existence levels. 280 PPM is about as low as you can go without harming life.

    One thing is certain, without knowing how much CO2 is natural, one cannot know how much is man-made. All the figures you see are estimates, not measurements.
     
  10. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am not sure how you use the phrase sensitivity in the atmosphere... unless that means the combined effect of all inputs and dynamics... but we have long ago agree

    Yes, there are innumerable possibilities
    Which brings it back the fundamental uncertainty
    But, at least there are some fundamental and KNOWN REASONS to consider that gh gas would cause warming....all other things being equal.

    And this is my point. Yeah, There is much uncertainty so little is sure. But there are solid reasons that agw is a non zero possibility... presumably you agree there is no absolute proof it is not possible
    And if agw is possible, it is a risk that should be mitigated

    That was simply a hypothetical question to determine if we agree that co2 would affect temps at some concentration.

    All true, but not relevant to discussing agw today

    280 ppm was the near term stasis point before the Industrial Age... life was fine
    In any case, we are not going back there
    And the question before us is what happens to TEMPS TODAY when we inNCREASE GH GASS concentrations
    Seems like we have a very good idea how much is man made
    Concentrations have risen from 280 to 400 in a short period of time
    And no scientist has proposed any alternative reason for the increase
    Likewise, we can quantify the carbon we dump into the system
     
  11. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course other scientists have proposed that at least part of the increase is due to warming temperatures. We can only estimate how much we put out.
     
  12. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you have a link on this
    I am aware of the methane issue, but that is not co2
    Btw, co2 is also dissolving in the ocean causing increased acidity
     
  13. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again that is projection based on an hypothesis and models. What they claim the increase is in the oceans is well within the uncertainty range which means it could be zero increase. Acidity values change more than that in a single month.
     

Share This Page