No actually, that statement is not from that study. It is from Ref 3, someone else's study. That is what I find is usually the case with global warming studies. You read through supposed claim of proof, only to find out, as usual, the supposed scientific evidence is just some footnote to another study. Why that is will be an interesting topic for scientific historians to understand. Besides the actual surprising result of this study, is how a mere reference to another study was allowed to swamp out the real science here when this study was reported on a "science skeptic" website.
I haven't checked whether the other study is a mere rehashing on the usual solar flux numbers, because the brief description doesn't suggest they considered cloud formation, or the time-delayed feedback effect of carbon dioxide coming out of the ocean, or who knows what else could really be going on.
What this study does go on to say is:
Assuming the previous episodes
of high activity to be typical, we can estimate the probability with
which the solar activity level will remain above a sunspot number of
50 over the next decades. The result is given in Fig. 4b, which shows
that there is only a probability of 8% that the current high activity
episode will last another 50 years (and thus reach a total
duration of 115 years), while the probability that it will continue
until the end of the twenty-first century is below 1%.
No actually, that statement is not from that study. It is from Ref 3, someone else's study. That is what I find is usually the case with global warming studies. You read through supposed claim of proof, only to find out, as usual, the supposed scientific evidence is just some footnote to another study. Why that is will be an interesting topic for scientific historians to understand. Besides the actual surprising result of this study, is how a mere reference to another study was allowed to swamp out the real science here when this study was reported on a "science skeptic" website.
Uhm, that quote is from Solanki, et al (2008) and reference 3 is Solanki, et al (2003).
I guess metaphysically Sami Solanki in 2003 was a completely different person from Sami Solanki in 2008, though, which is why we can selectively pick and choose our quotes to only accept statements which reinforce our beliefs.
There is also an obvious phase-mismatch in all the figures in this paper. That makes it highly likely that a better phase-matched correlation is something else with a yearly cycle -- like the external temperature or how hard the A/C or heater in the building is running. The phase shift also makes the proposed physics very weird and unlikely.
The phase shift also makes the proposed physics very weird and unlikely.
Oh, you are questioning their suggestion of "seasonal variations in fundamental constants?"
I think there was a recent experiment reminiscent of the Michelson Morley experiments, but focused on looking for interactions with dark matter. It looked at the rate of some other reaction seasonally so that the Earth was in a different position of the Sun's gravitational field relative to the movement through the galaxy. Maybe there is some interaction being found here, and that would account for the phase shift. Or it could just be a delay effect caused by some intermediate state that effects the decay rate. All speculation now.
The phase shift also makes the proposed physics very weird and unlikely.
Oh, you are questioning their suggestion of "seasonal variations in fundamental constants?"
I think there was a recent experiment reminiscent of the Michelson Morley experiments, but focused on looking for interactions with dark matter. It looked at the rate of some other reaction seasonally so that the Earth was in a different position of the Sun's gravitational field relative to the movement through the galaxy. Maybe there is some interaction being found here, and that would account for the phase shift. Or it could just be a delay effect caused by some intermediate state that effects the decay rate. All speculation now.
Unfortunately your speculation isn't grounded in any understanding of physics. The proposed mechanism is solar neutrinos and the difference in neutrino mixing caused by the Earth's orbital parameters (which is probably measurable at super kamiokande without a time lag, but I'm getting really tired of doing your research for you). That physics would not have a month-long time lag. Neither would the Sun's gravitational field show a month long time lag.
So your proposed physics is completely fantastic, while annual detector variability has not even been examined by the studies authors because they're reanalyzing someone else's data. My money is down on it being the apparatus rather than the physics.
Hey, this debating the obvious is real fun (real fun with evolution as well by the way), but did anyone notice that a really huge ice sheet just melted?
Hopefully we can keep on debating until the rest of the arctic is melted. Yay!
The proposed mechanism is solar neutrinos and the difference in neutrino mixing caused by the Earth's orbital parameters (which is probably measurable at super kamiokande without a time lag, but I'm getting really tired of doing your research for you).
Well, it's getting ad hominem again, so I will be tuning out until some possibly relevant information is mentioned, but I did want to clarify that I was not referring to the neutrino measurement being delayed, just throwing out the possibility that the neutrino reaction could put to Si nucleus into a semi-stable state that has a slightly different decay rate.
Hey, this debating the obvious is real fun (real fun with evolution as well by the way), but did anyone notice that a really huge ice sheet just melted?
Hopefully we can keep on debating until the rest of the arctic is melted. Yay!
The proposed mechanism is solar neutrinos and the difference in neutrino mixing caused by the Earth's orbital parameters (which is probably measurable at super kamiokande without a time lag, but I'm getting really tired of doing your research for you).
Well, it's getting ad hominem again, so I will be tuning out until some possibly relevant information is mentioned, but I did want to clarify that I was not referring to the neutrino measurement being delayed, just throwing out the possibility that the neutrino reaction could put to Si nucleus into a semi-stable state that has a slightly different decay rate.
it doesn't have enough energy to transfer to the nucleus to cause a change in nuclear state. It would have to hit a resonance where it caused beta decay to occur at a more rapid rate, which would occur when the neutrino flux was highest, when the earth was closest to the sun.
Hey, this debating the obvious is real fun (real fun with evolution as well by the way), but did anyone notice that a really huge ice sheet just melted?
Hopefully we can keep on debating until the rest of the arctic is melted. Yay!
There is always a lot of melting ice in the Artic in the summer...More in some years less in others....
The earth has warmed and cooled since the beginning of time...even before man discovered fire...How warm was your summer so far...That Global warming killing you? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
There is always a lot of melting ice in the Artic in the summer...More in some years less in others....
The earth has warmed and cooled since the beginning of time...even before man discovered fire...How warm was your summer so far...That Global warming killing you? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
You do know that global warming says nothing about the climate impact in a given area right? If global warming affected winds so we more often had wind blowing down on us from Alaska/Canada, the WA average temperature could decline while global averages increased. Nobody has models that can accurate predict this yet, well I guess we do have one model which will accurately predict what will happen, but since we live on it we also only get one chance to run the model.
Regarding arctic snow/ice, of course a lot of it melts annually. Nobodies concerned that some of it is melting this summer, they are concerned that too much is melting. What we've seen so far may not be unprecedented historical (it's not), but it is unprecedented in recorded history. Also, evolution means that any change, so long as it's gradual will be adapted to. The question is will this change be too rapid for many species to keep up with, and is that a problem.
The earth has warmed and cooled since the beginning of time...even before man discovered fire...How warm was your summer so far...That Global warming killing you? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
Yup, the Earth tends to oscillate betwen hothouse and icehouse Earths. We're currently actually in a cool, ice phase, with polar ice caps. The ice-ages over the past million years are just oscillations between cold and colder. The Earth has also gone through rapid climate change like the PETM (Paleocene-Eocine Thermal Maximum) when 50% of benthic lifeforms were destroyed in a massive extinction along with most coral life forms. The Earth has also suffered metorite impacts like the K-T event and supervolcano eruptions like lake toba. The Earth has recovered just fine after a few 10,000 years...
Comments
No actually, that statement is not from that study. It is from Ref 3, someone else's study. That is what I find is usually the case with global warming studies. You read through supposed claim of proof, only to find out, as usual, the supposed scientific evidence is just some footnote to another study. Why that is will be an interesting topic for scientific historians to understand. Besides the actual surprising result of this study, is how a mere reference to another study was allowed to swamp out the real science here when this study was reported on a "science skeptic" website.
I haven't checked whether the other study is a mere rehashing on the usual solar flux numbers, because the brief description doesn't suggest they considered cloud formation, or the time-delayed feedback effect of carbon dioxide coming out of the ocean, or who knows what else could really be going on.
What this study does go on to say is:
Uhm, that quote is from Solanki, et al (2008) and reference 3 is Solanki, et al (2003).
I guess metaphysically Sami Solanki in 2003 was a completely different person from Sami Solanki in 2008, though, which is why we can selectively pick and choose our quotes to only accept statements which reinforce our beliefs.
There is also an obvious phase-mismatch in all the figures in this paper. That makes it highly likely that a better phase-matched correlation is something else with a yearly cycle -- like the external temperature or how hard the A/C or heater in the building is running. The phase shift also makes the proposed physics very weird and unlikely.
Oh, you are questioning their suggestion of "seasonal variations in fundamental constants?"
I think there was a recent experiment reminiscent of the Michelson Morley experiments, but focused on looking for interactions with dark matter. It looked at the rate of some other reaction seasonally so that the Earth was in a different position of the Sun's gravitational field relative to the movement through the galaxy. Maybe there is some interaction being found here, and that would account for the phase shift. Or it could just be a delay effect caused by some intermediate state that effects the decay rate. All speculation now.
Unfortunately your speculation isn't grounded in any understanding of physics. The proposed mechanism is solar neutrinos and the difference in neutrino mixing caused by the Earth's orbital parameters (which is probably measurable at super kamiokande without a time lag, but I'm getting really tired of doing your research for you). That physics would not have a month-long time lag. Neither would the Sun's gravitational field show a month long time lag.
So your proposed physics is completely fantastic, while annual detector variability has not even been examined by the studies authors because they're reanalyzing someone else's data. My money is down on it being the apparatus rather than the physics.
Hopefully we can keep on debating until the rest of the arctic is melted. Yay!
Well, it's getting ad hominem again, so I will be tuning out until some possibly relevant information is mentioned, but I did want to clarify that I was not referring to the neutrino measurement being delayed, just throwing out the possibility that the neutrino reaction could put to Si nucleus into a semi-stable state that has a slightly different decay rate.
Well, it IS summer.
it doesn't have enough energy to transfer to the nucleus to cause a change in nuclear state. It would have to hit a resonance where it caused beta decay to occur at a more rapid rate, which would occur when the neutrino flux was highest, when the earth was closest to the sun.
There is always a lot of melting ice in the Artic in the summer...More in some years less in others....
The earth has warmed and cooled since the beginning of time...even before man discovered fire...How warm was your summer so far...That Global warming killing you? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
You do know that global warming says nothing about the climate impact in a given area right? If global warming affected winds so we more often had wind blowing down on us from Alaska/Canada, the WA average temperature could decline while global averages increased. Nobody has models that can accurate predict this yet, well I guess we do have one model which will accurately predict what will happen, but since we live on it we also only get one chance to run the model.
Regarding arctic snow/ice, of course a lot of it melts annually. Nobodies concerned that some of it is melting this summer, they are concerned that too much is melting. What we've seen so far may not be unprecedented historical (it's not), but it is unprecedented in recorded history. Also, evolution means that any change, so long as it's gradual will be adapted to. The question is will this change be too rapid for many species to keep up with, and is that a problem.
Yup, the Earth tends to oscillate betwen hothouse and icehouse Earths. We're currently actually in a cool, ice phase, with polar ice caps. The ice-ages over the past million years are just oscillations between cold and colder. The Earth has also gone through rapid climate change like the PETM (Paleocene-Eocine Thermal Maximum) when 50% of benthic lifeforms were destroyed in a massive extinction along with most coral life forms. The Earth has also suffered metorite impacts like the K-T event and supervolcano eruptions like lake toba. The Earth has recovered just fine after a few 10,000 years...