Did Tulio post a response and then delete it?

In answer to his deleted response:

There is no trend to back up your assertion of cycles with fewer sunspots.

The current cycle does not constitute a "trend". The only data contributing to any "trend data" from THIS cycle is the reappearance of the double-peak.

The current TREND is POSSIBLY towards double-peaks, and definitely towards more active solar cycles.

A single cycle does not constitute a "TREND". I can show you data back to the late 1950's to back my assertion.

You have WorldNutDaily and Infowars.com to back up yours (Yes, I checked).

Moot point anyway. Maybe you should check the archives at Science and Nature. Your Maunder Minimum crap has been seriously debunked to shreds. Given the fact that you are still spouting it, I have to ask, are you christian? [To the moderation team: An answer to that question is relevant to the topic at hand.]

---

Delidded i7-4790K (CLU/CLU) at 4.7GHz @ 1.310Vcore 24/7, 32GB DDR3-2400, Corsair H100i v2, Gigabyte Z97X-Gaming G1 WIFI-BK, MSI Radeon RX 480 Gaming 4G, HX-650 PSU, Corsair 750D

No, I did not delete any response.
Tullio

---

KC5VDJ yes you are correct about the doubble peeks Tullio is also correct about the Moulder Mundaine period all though 1 cycle is not a trend it is looking like we could be going into a Moulder Mundaine but with doubble peeking in stead of 1 large peek .

As for arguments about weather it's the sun causing GW all i know is if the sun has been causing the drop in the last 15 years in temp (which it hasn't i will place a link in green house which explains why not) then we are in even bigger trubble as the temp has not gone down which it should have as per Moulder Mundaine period , the temp is still going up just not much and at a slower pace .So what will happen when it goes to a more energenic phase !!!! ....We BURN !

Cherry picking info to suit your GW stance is not good and plays into the hands of those trying to influence the arguments to stop the world from doing the right thing and DO NO HARM to the planet spaceship called Earth

---

---

Delidded i7-4790K (CLU/CLU) at 4.7GHz @ 1.310Vcore 24/7, 32GB DDR3-2400, Corsair H100i v2, Gigabyte Z97X-Gaming G1 WIFI-BK, MSI Radeon RX 480 Gaming 4G, HX-650 PSU, Corsair 750D

Explosive Solar Flare Spotted By Sun-Watching Spacecraft


A bright solar flare leaps from the left side of the sun in this new photo. NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory obtained the image on Aug. 24, 2014.

The sun kicked off this week with an explosive solar flare that, while not aimed directly at Earth, may be a hotspot to watch over the next few days.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/27/solar-flare-sun-spacecraft-video_n_5721858.html

---

Thanks Lynn
I have been lazy lately i haven't visited SOHO for a while time to take a chook !

---

Thanks Lynn
I have been lazy lately i haven't visited SOHO for a while time to take a chook !

Same here Glenn.

---

Underground Experiment Proves What Powers The Sun

Scientists have long believed that the power of the sun comes largely from the fusion of protons into helium, but now they can finally prove it. An international team of researchers using a detector buried deep below the mountains of central Italy has detected neutrinos—ghostly particles that interact only very reluctantly with matter—streaming from the heart of the sun. Other solar neutrinos have been detected before, but these particular ones come from the key proton-proton fusion reaction that is the first part of a chain of reactions that provides 99% of the sun’s power.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/28/neutrinos-sun-physics_n_5728606.html

---

We've come a long way in 200 years. Back then they thought the sun was a giant lump of burning coal.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Great read Lynn . I mite put this up in the Climate Denial threads as it sems to prove the sun has not increased it's output in 100 million years which sort off makes the claims by so called denials for what they are all pay'd crack pots

---

Great read Lynn . I mite put this up in the threads as it sems to prove the sun has not increased it's output in 100 million years which sort off makes the claims by so called denials for what they are all pay'd crack pots

No problem, with linking the read to Climate Denial.

Thanks Glenn :)

---

it sems to prove the sun has not increased it's output in 100 million years

Not so fast. Do we have an inability to interpret data??

From the Robert Goddard Spaceflight Center:

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.

As with most other controversial scientific subjects it all depends on how the data is interpreted and who is doing the study.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

it sems to prove the sun has not increased it's output in 100 million years

Not so fast. Do we have an inability to interpret data??

From the Robert Goddard Spaceflight Center...

So... What link/reference please?

(What context...)


Note that our sun gives remarkably constant output. So constant and unchanging that it is only recently that we've been able to measure any variation. Meanwhile, the significance from our pollution and change of landscape is greatly more significant and immediate...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

So... What link/reference please?

The AR4 WG1 SPM claims (table SPM.1, page 7) that sea level is rising at 0.21 mm/yr over the period 1993-2003, due to melting of the Greenland ice sheet. But several published papers have found that in fact the Greenland ice is increasing or static:

H.J. Zwally et al, Growth of the Southern Greenland Ice Sheet, Science 281, 1251 (1998). They found an ice sheet thickening rate of about 5 cm/year.

C. H. Davis, C. A. Kluever, and B. J. Haines, Elevation Change of the Southern Greenland Ice Sheet. Science 279, 2086-2088 (1998). They found a small increase (1.5 cm/year) over the period 1978-1988.

R. Thomas et al, Mass Balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet at High Elevations. Science 289, 426-428 (2000). They find that "On average, the region has been in balance".

O. M. Johannessen, K. Khvorostovsky, M. W. Miles, and L. P. Bobylev, Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland. Science 310, 1013-1016 (2005) - They used satellite altimetry over the period 1992-2003, and found the "spatially averaged increase is 5.4 cm per year over the study area".

H.J. Zwally et al, Mass changes of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and shelves and contributions to sea-level rise: 1992-2002. J. Glaciol. 51, 509-527 (2005) - Found an overall mass gain of 11 GT/yr.

AR4 cites the last two of these (though they incorrectly refer to Zwally et al as 2006) but not the first two. AR4 also incorrectly shows Zwally et al as showing mass loss in fig 4.18. AR4 also attempts discredit Johannessen et

Here is where I get my data:
NASA Climate
Tullio

---

We had a summer rainfall never experienced before in 30 years. The Liguria coast has had many destructive tornadoes. Next year a study should start at climateprediction.net connecting the global warming to local violent phenomena. I hope to be able to take part on my new PC.I am currently crunching climate models of the Pacific North West. Most of my wingmen crash these models, But I am still getting credits since they are based on the trickles I am sending up to the servers.
Tullio

---

So... What link/reference please?

The AR4 WG1 SPM claims (table SPM.1, page 7) that sea level is rising at 0.21 mm/yr over the period 1993-2003, due to melting of the Greenland ice sheet. But several published papers have found that in fact the Greenland ice is increasing or static:

H.J. Zwally et al, Growth of the Southern Greenland Ice Sheet, Science 281, 1251 (1998). They found an ice sheet thickening rate of about 5 cm/year...

Looks like you're playing the old game of selective quoting to find what you want to show and obscure abbreviations to confuse anyone trying to follow the real detail... Also noted that you do not care to give direct links to allow us to see easily for ourselves...

So, you're basing your claims on just the one ice sheet increasing in some way?

For one or a few ice sheets, that can be expected. The important story is what is happening on a wider scale whereby you will find the story stubbonly stays the same that we are melting our planet, and ever more quickly, and that our pollution is directly the most significantly to blame.


H.J. Zwally is respected for remote sensing from satellites and more recently for the NASA ICE-Sat missions. So, for just one already old publication but a little more recent than your unlinked 1998 vintage quote:

2002: ICESat’s laser measurements of polar ice, atmosphere, ocean, and land (PDF)

... Based on very recent results, the Greenland ice sheet has a negative net balance, contributing almost 10% to the total observed sea-level rise (Krabill et al., 2000). Taken as a whole, the higher-elevation parts of the ice sheet are close to balance (Thomas et al., 2000a; Davis et al, H.J. Zwally et al. / Journal of Geodynamics 34 (2002) 405–445 411 2000), but there is significant near-coastal thinning (Krabill et al., 2000; Abdalati et al., in press), at rates up to 10 m/yr on one major outlet glacier (Thomas et al., 2000b). ...

... for 2 locations in West Antarctica showing a near-zero elevation change near Byrd Station (top) and a thinning of 17.6 cm/year inland of Thwaites Glacier...


That now old paper gives a good summary of ice sheet cover, change, and how we are measuring all that. Note that is all from over 10 years ago. We have raced on from there and the story remains the same but ever more detailed...


All a game of denial of the real (and inconvenient) science around you?...

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

AS I have said. Is the data valid, is it biased by one's beliefs, is it relevant to the question at hand. And do we understand statistics well enough to interpret the data correctly.

Some even say we are not warming--

The relevant questions of the day are:

Are we in fact warming ?
Are we in a cycle of solar activity?
Is climate shifting it's temperature zones in a more unstable fashion

If so what are the reasons ? It is far from reasonableness that Made Made CO-2 is a factor.

AS I have said. Is the data valid, is it biased by one's beliefs, is it relevant to the question at hand. ...

So... Now avoiding the question and discussion. Too inconvenient a message again?

You do not need grand physics or satellites to realize that world average temperature is increasing when you can see all around you how the ice is thinning and receding to cling to an ever smaller range around the poles or at ever higher mountain ranges. As it gets warmer, more of the ice melts.

... It is far from reasonableness that Made Made CO-2 is a factor.

Although you cannot see CO2 pollution with your unaided eye, the CO2 is very definitely there. You can still in effect see it if you can appreciate that all the dirty smoke pollution as very visibly seen in China indicates CO2 pollution also. It's just that in our 'more advanced' industrialized areas, we now insist that the worst of the smoke is cleaned up so as to not kill people too quickly.

CO2 is the next industrial pollutant that we must clean up if we are not to poison our air and our water and weather systems and the favourable climate that has allowed us to prosper.


The way that CO2 keeps our planet warm is well understood and well documented and now 200 years-old well established science. No denial possible there.

Over those 200 years, the sun's output has varied by such a small amount of fractions of a percent, that the variation was not measurable until recent times. In very stark contrast, we are well on the way to changing the atmospheric effect of CO2 to well over 200%...


That 200% very definitely ain't natural and of no significance.

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)