Thread: No Surprise, Nature Wants To Kill Us.

Possibly not through localized tornadoes, tsunamis, etc., which are bad enough and kill many more people than the dreaded nuclear power or even the DEADLY CARBON DIOXIDE, but through our old "friend", jolly old Sol, beloved so much by Greenie crackpot cultists everywhere:

Solar Climate Change: Doug L. Hoffman: Quiet Sun, Deadly Sun | Solar Cycle 25

There would be one in the eye for the AGW cult, do you not think? Tell Prince he is wrong about this one as he wishes desperately to be so.

Originally Posted by The Finger Prince

There would be one in the eye for the AGW cult, do you not think?

Why? It has nothing to do with anthropomorphic global warming or the basis for its science.

I think the point about large CME(s) was interesting...an 1859 event would cripple us today.

AGW cult has no basis in science. If such solar influence is truly in store for us, greenhouse gas and all the hot air expended regarding it will be the least of our worries. Historically cooling events cause more casualties than those attributed to warming.

http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/helfandpaper.pdf

AGW cult has no basis in science.

So how do heat-seeking missiles work, or CO2 lasers?

If the radiative properties of CO2 (and other GHEs) are so mistaken, why do devices based on those exact properties work so well?

Finger....the "cult" thing is the sort of heated rhetoric that got you a vacation last time. Knock it off, it doesn't lend itself to good conversation.

Originally Posted by The Finger Prince

There would be one in the eye for the AGW cult, do you not think? Tell Prince he is wrong about this one as he wishes desperately to be so.

What is it in that article, or in any associated research that would have you believe that another very large CME (Coronal Mass Ejection) would lead to widespread deaths? The economic impact through damage to infra-structure would be considerable, but the number of resultant, indirect deaths would surely be no more than from a year or two of driving cars. Do you have reason to think otherwise?

I am certain that many of those of us who share a deep concern for the consequences of global warming would welcome the possible relief from a downward temperature trend afforded by solar activity. And while we are at it, why are you so keen to deliver 'one in the eye' to a group who disagree with you? Natural human vindictiveness?

There is a relationship between warming/cooling of the planet and solar activity. The last decade has been one of low solar activity, and global warming has been slower than predicted. Let us hope the sun remains quiet, and that helps to slow global warming in the future.

As far as a coronal discharge is concerned, we are now in the position to get a few days warning before it hits the Earth. The signal telling us of a discharge travels at light speed (8 minutes to tell us), while the actual discharge takes days to get here. If that information is used wisely, it will turn the event into an inconvenience rather than a disaster. It may require shut down of satellites, radios, GPS etc, along with the electrical distribution network. However, that is a damn sight better than permanently burning them out.

global warming has been slower than predicted

But hot enough to produce the hottest decade ever recorded.

This Skeptical Science piece points our the influence of brown sky East Asia on total aerosols and therefore temperature. Why Wasn't The Hottest Decade Hotter?


As for solar activity. It's not just the latest decade where solar activity doesn't line up with increasing warming. Take a look at the 'Radiative Forcings' graph on this page. Could global brightening be causing global warming?

Solar coasts along from 1870 near the zero forcing line ( along with a few other items). Regularly fluctuating which makes the orange line stand out a bit from the others, but almost flat on average. While GHG forcing steadily increases until it's soaring above that zero line.
And the only substantial negative forcing offsetting the GHG ? Aerosols. See the blue and dotted purple lines rapidly accelerated downwards forcing on that figure.

Which brings us full circle back to brown sky East Asia.

Originally Posted by skeptic

The last decade has been one of low solar activity, and global warming has been slower than predicted.

I can't find any evidence that global warming has been "slower than predicted" recently.

I can't find any evidence that global warming has been "slower than predicted" recently.

I think this notion might be expressed better as 'Our hottest ever temperatures were marginally less than we've any right to expect'.

And there's a lot of work being done to tell us just how hot it will become when China cleans up its act and aerosols decrease. They'll drop out of the atmosphere in a few short years and the CO2 will stay right where it is for centuries if not millennia and keep on doing its radiative forcing thing untrammelled by any such limitations.

Has science found any evidence that the biodiversity in the history of the planet due to their activities created the symptoms that lead up to the past extinction events? It seems that if they didn't contribute to the cause of those events and they are normal cycles of the planet then what we are doing shouldn't make that much of a difference since they are going to happen anyway.

... what we are doing shouldn't make that much of a difference since they are going to happen anyway.

What should have happened anyway is that we were already entering a very long, very slow process (by human standards at least, pretty standard for geological) of temperature decline. Which without our out-of-synch GHG releases of 100s of millions of years worth of sequestered carbon would eventually, say 15-30,000 years, have led to a glaciation. Our CO2 addition to the atmosphere means that that particular cooling won't happen. It's also fairly likely, given our refusal to give up the habit, that we've knocked out potential glaciations for 100,000 years or more. (Those glaciations are driven by Milankovitch cycles, or perhaps should have been driven is a better way to put it.)

Getting so much hotter, and particularly as fast, as we're initiating is not something that would ever have happened in the next quarter of a million years or so without our folly. The fact that the earth will eventually burn up along with the sun in several billion years time is totally irrelevant.

the normal pattern appears to be a saw-tooth one, with a quick rise in temperature when coming out of a glacial period, and a slower, erratic downward trend when returning to glacial conditions
i remember seeing a graph (but can't seem to find it right now) showing how the expected decline (if other interglacials are taken as a guide) failed to materialise in the Holocene, presumably as a result of the effects of agriculture

nature or nurture
interrogation point
this is the perennial question
but nobody
is rash enough to say that
nurture wants to kill us

Originally Posted by archy

but nobody
is rash enough to say that
nurture wants to kill us

You haven't tried my wife's cooking.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by archy

but nobody
is rash enough to say that
nurture wants to kill us

You haven't tried my wife's cooking.

This guy thinks he is a cockroach! How do you know he hasn't been IN your wife's cooking? Like that scene in the stupid "Prince of Tides" movie where she feeds the husband dog food- home economics with a vengeance...

You sure have an eclectic community around here, I'll give you that.

But yeah, realistic review of the history of mankind shows that nature is indifferent to our survival and often downright hostile, so why people get all sentimental about "Mother Nature" is beyond me. What else is new?

People go to great lengths to get AWAY from nature, it is called "CIVILIZATION", wow, what a novelty.

Nature is killing us? How strange that a living organism fights for its survival by attacking that which is attempting to exterminate it.

Old news, Princie baby, I knew about this back in SEPTEMBER, get with the program, you royal putz:

Mens Solen sover

Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile

Nature is killing us? How strange that a living organism fights for its survival by attacking that which is attempting to exterminate it.

Cool, now the SUN is "a living organism". Big surprise for the astronomers AND the biologists I'm sure. Do you want to DEVELOP this theory for us, Aristarchus?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Finger....the "cult" thing is the sort of heated rhetoric that got you a vacation last time. Knock it off, it doesn't lend itself to good conversation.

Just because a group constantly forecasts some kind of apocalypse if we don't all repent immediately is no reason to call it a "cult".

Arthur, if you'd actually bothered to read the thread you decided to resurrect and than make trivial statements about, you'd realize that Finger, who's no longer participating in this forum, is the one that used "cult."

Yeah, I saw that. He's a nut. Saw that too. But the Sun is doing some noteworthy stuff lately, CMEs and the like. Shouldn't this be in the astronomy section?

It probably belongs in the Trash...