/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11030645

56KiB, 310x206, 310px-Solar-cycle-data.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Solar Minimum

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 07:00:02 2019 No.11030645 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11030649 >>11030669 >>11030738 >>11030745 >>11031212 >>11031460 >>11031498 >>11032574 >>11033547

If the Mayans died off because of a solar minimum (droughts and harsh weather) and we are currently going through one of the lowest solar minimums in the past 200 year, is this whats causing the <<< climate change >>> liberals are talking about?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 07:01:22 No.11030649 Report

Quoted By: >>11030653

>>11030645
What? What the hell are you going on about? How the fuck does this even work?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 07:04:42 No.11030653 Report

Quoted By: >>11031527

>>11030649
lower radiation levels are known to cause extreme weather conditions so...

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 07:08:32 No.11030656 Report

Quoted By: >>11030670 >>11031527

You are a fucking retard. Global warming is manmade, 99.999% of scientists agree. Disagree? Fuck you!

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 07:18:49 No.11030669 Report

Quoted By: >>11030996

>>11030645
For that to be true you'd have to ignore all the evidence about CO2 being a greenhouse gas

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 07:19:01 No.11030670 Report

Quoted By:

>>11030656
woah who let the retard in

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 07:50:01 No.11030715 Report

Quoted By: >>11031017 >>11031021

>solar variance is ~0,1%
>CO2 is up ~50%
>there are people unironically blaming the sun for climate change

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 08:07:05 No.11030738 Report

Quoted By: >>11030751 >>11031527

>>11030645
>the sun puts out less power
>this explains the rise in global average temperature...?
>and this cyclic phenomenon also somehow explains the recent amount and severity of natural disasters, despite being historically unprecedented

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 08:10:25 No.11030745 Report

Quoted By: >>11031011

>>11030645
>If the Mayans died off because of a solar minimum
Is there any evidence of this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 08:11:18 No.11030751 Report

Quoted By:

>>11030738
>recent amount and severity of natural disasters, despite being historically unprecedented
what a meme, i bet whoever measured it is ridden with methodological flaws

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 11:57:08 No.11030996 Report

Quoted By: >>11030997

>>11030669
proportion of co2 in air?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 11:58:55 No.11030997 Report

Quoted By: >>11031010

>>11030996
+50% compared to before industrialisation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 12:10:19 No.11031010 Report

Quoted By: >>11031015

>>11030997
You're eluding.
What is the proportion of co2 in the air?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 12:10:23 No.11031011 Report

Quoted By:

>>11030745
Just OP's new alternate history best seller

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 12:13:14 No.11031015 Report

Quoted By: >>11031023 >>11031176

>>11031010
How is that an argument for anything? What was Litvinenko's proportion of polonium in his body?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 12:14:17 No.11031017 Report

Quoted By: >>11031021

>>11030715
Doesn't take musch to affect a clinamen.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 12:17:13 No.11031021 Report

Quoted By: >>11031023

>>11031017
>>11030715
To put it in perspective: +100% CO2 would have the same effect as +2-3% of solar activity

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 12:18:31 No.11031023 Report

Quoted By: >>11031025 >>11031048 >>11031113

>>11031015
We're talking co2, not polonium,

0.04% of co2 in air.
Literally can't affect shit compared to h2o.
It always was a tax scam.

>>11031021
Lolno

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 12:19:54 No.11031025 Report

Quoted By: >>11031028 >>11031178

>>11031023
On clear days, CO2 is responsible for 1/4 of the greenhouse effect

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 12:22:27 No.11031028 Report

Quoted By: >>11031038

>>11031025
sourced from you.
A clear day does NOT reduce the amount of h2o in air in any signifiant way.
Are you under 20?
The scam was already run verbatim in the 90s in europe, which you would be familiar with were you not either a kid or a dullard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 12:27:38 No.11031038 Report

Quoted By:

>>11031028
Ok, can you give me a source on the impact of CO2 on earth's energy budget? Surely it must be way smaller than 1 W/m^2 if that's the range in which the solar activity fluctuates.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 12:31:30 No.11031048 Report

Quoted By: >>11031185

>>11031023
>We're talking co2, not polonium,
So the proportion of CO2 matters but for polonium it doesn't because...? The amount of other gases is irrelevant. If the same amount of CO2 made up the entire atmosphere the effect from CO2 would be the same.

If solar activity is causing climate change how is the temperature increasing while solar activity is decreasing? If water vapor is the cause, what is causing water vapor to increase?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 12:32:35 No.11031054 Report

Quoted By: >>11031074

>reminder that facts hardly change minds and most people are just houses for oversized amygdalas

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 37691060-BE99-4DD0-9D9C-A28A3203 (...).png, 135KiB, 640x410

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 12:39:22 No.11031068 Report

Quoted By: >>11031082

Oh wait, going from 300 to 600 ppm makes a difference of 3.39 W/m2. If we linearise and consider the increase of 150ppm, that gives us 2.2 W/m^2 of radiative forcing.

Let's look at the sun: since the earth is round, only 1/4 of its surface is illuminated. Also, 30% of the incoming energy is reflected anyway. So only 17.5% of the increase in solar activity actually reaches earth. So you'd need an increase of 12.5 W/m^2 in order to just be on par with the greenhouse effect. Clearly, the solar fluctuation is much less (see OP's picture), so the influence of the sun's instability on our climate is much smaller than the influence of the CO2 we pump in our air.

Please try to disprove scientifically, not the /pol/ way.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 12:40:44 No.11031071 Report

Quoted By:

There's no simple answer. You first have to consider that solar cycles ossilate according to several concurrent furmolae scuh as netwons principled of solid state turdification, x = 7J^tI.

Once you plug in all the numbers you can see that it is indeed incumbent to decude the exponent of theta ray ramifications.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 12:41:25 No.11031074 Report

Quoted By: >>11031079 >>11031165

>>11031054
A study of the vested interests in the carbon taxes sure changed my mind.

Climate science is like any other. You give the products that is wanted or you die homeless. There is an inherent mistrust that is needed toward any hypothesis.
Especially when the paradigm align so much with some banking interests.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 12:44:19 No.11031079 Report

Quoted By: >>11031082 >>11031190

>>11031074
This board is not about taxes or politics, so spare us your ramblings. Let's look at the phenomenon (greenhouse effect and potential global warming) from a dry, scientific point of view. Imagine, the outcome of the scientific investigations had no effect on your life in order not to bias yourself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 12:45:37 No.11031082 Report

Quoted By: >>11031084

>>11031068
>ctrl f: sun
only you

I correctted you on you misunderstanding on the role of co2.
Most problem of today are demographic not climatic.

For the purely climatic part, I don't know every factor, but it's not co2 only, and not even mainly.
>>11031079
You ramble about polonium and I'm the one rambling?
piss of kid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 12:51:10 No.11031084 Report

Quoted By:

>>11031082
>factor, but it's not co2 only, and not even mainly.
But can you see why it is at least an order of magnitude higher than the solar activity? You don't need to re every factor, but please name one that's bigger than CO2. And please don't say water vapour, the amount of water vapour in our atmosphere only depends on the temperature, so it "only" amplifies whatever other change you could have.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 12:56:23 No.11031093 Report

Quoted By: >>11031102 >>11031432

>when /pol/ hates reality and science so much they have a non-stop campaign to spam one of the least popular 4chan boards with climate and race threads

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 13:00:14 No.11031102 Report

Quoted By: >>11031114 >>11031432

>>11031093
We should defend our board with science. If /pol/tards don't have answers, maybe they'll leave?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 13:07:33 No.11031113 Report

Quoted By: >>11031189

>>11031023
>0.04% of co2 in air.
Somehow I think you won't be convinced but for the lurkers out there:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-carbon-dioxide-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas/

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 13:08:01 No.11031114 Report

Quoted By:

>>11031102
When you show them science, they just say it's a paid conspiracy or "the Jews" are covering everything up.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 13:16:04 No.11031120 Report

Quoted By: >>11031170

I thought grand solar minimum sounded dumb when I initially first heard of it, so I never really investigated it. OP doesn't make a super compelling case for his little theory, though. The rise in atmospheric pressure from a rising sea level is likely to blame for the weather phenomena we are getting, and we may even see an ice age if the polar ice caps melt at their (most pessimistic) predicted rates.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 13:37:37 No.11031165 Report

Quoted By:

>>11031074
I agree, the vested interests in a round earth prove the earth is flat.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 13:40:58 No.11031170 Report

Quoted By: >>11031440

>>11031120
>and we may even see an ice age if the polar ice caps melt at their (most pessimistic) predicted rates.
???

We are in an ice age, because the ice caps exist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 13:44:57 No.11031176 Report

Quoted By: >>11031181

>>11031015
How is correlation a sufficient statement for CO2 based GE produces GW?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 13:46:00 No.11031178 Report

Quoted By: >>11031179

>>11031025
>clear days means the rest of the gases just disappear
Clearly small brain energy

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 13:49:22 No.11031179 Report

Quoted By:

>>11031178
>0.25=1

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 13:51:34 No.11031181 Report

Quoted By:

>>11031176
>CO2 based GE
If you understood what that is, you wouldn't call it correlation. It's causation. CO2 absorbs IR and reemitts it omnidirectionally. Therefore, it "reflects" a part back towards earth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 13:54:28 No.11031185 Report

Quoted By: >>11031189

>>11031048
>If the same amount of CO2 made up the entire atmosphere the effect from CO2 would be the same.
You are correct but the rest of the entire atmosphere is there, and the highest radiative component of greenhouse is water vapor.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 13:56:56 No.11031189 Report

Quoted By:

>>11031185
Please read
>>11031113

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 13:57:58 No.11031190 Report

Quoted By: >>11031192 >>11031304

>>11031079
Oh you mean without the bias the green lobby has like siding with left leaning politics?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 13:59:57 No.11031192 Report

Quoted By:

>>11031190
This is not about green or left. It's about energy balance and science. It's about radiative heat transport, IR spectra and other things. If you want to talk about leftist politics, please go to the politics board. If you want to talk about science, stay here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 14:11:43 No.11031212 Report

Quoted By: >>11031308 >>11031375

>>11030645
Its not necessarily solar cycles. Its most probably low-level clouds
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 15:10:21 No.11031304 Report

Quoted By:

>>11031190
This is more a result of the right being unashamed fossil fuel shills. The science only says we need to vastly reduce GHG emissions and the only political party to accept reality is the left. So the only solutions come from the left. There's nothing preventing solutions from the right except blatant corruption.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 15:12:10 No.11031308 Report

Quoted By:

>>11031212
> works cited: myself 6 times
God I love this "paper"

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 15:15:35 No.11031319 Report

Quoted By: >>11031365

>worst
What about the Maunder minimum? I'm pretty sure the Mayans get colonized too hard or made too many human sacrifices.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 15:37:18 No.11031365 Report

Quoted By:

>>11031319
>human sacrifices
IIRC, that's a myth by the Spaniards that aimed at demonising the Mayans.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 15:48:06 No.11031375 Report

Quoted By:

>>11031212
Pseudoscience.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 16:16:48 No.11031432 Report

Quoted By:

>>11031093
>>11031102

Have you ever considered you may be getting trolled?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 16:19:17 No.11031440 Report

Quoted By: >>11031522 >>11031524

>>11031170

Curveball, the little ice age was actually the start of a big freeze and industry is the only thing that stopped and is stopping it. Switching to green will be the end of us all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 16:25:23 No.11031460 Report

Quoted By: >>11031480 >>11031526

>>11030645

Fuck this thread. Can people who actually have a clue tell me if the micronova stuff in relation to the sun is utter pseudoscience?

From what I can tell its a legit phenomena that has very little chance of applying to our sun but cannot be ruled out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 16:34:09 No.11031480 Report

Quoted By:

>>11031460
>Can people who actually have a clue tell me if the micronova stuff in relation to the sun is utter pseudoscience?
Yes anon. Its bullshit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 16:39:44 No.11031498 Report

Quoted By: >>11031513

>>11030645
If you believe in climate change you're supporting white genocide.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 16:44:33 No.11031513 Report

Quoted By: >>11031519 >>11031533

>>11031498
What do I support if I believe in a round earth or that the earth orbits the sun?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 16:48:08 No.11031519 Report

Quoted By:

>>11031513
Both Jewish conspiracies!

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 16:49:06 No.11031522 Report

Quoted By: >>11031723

>>11031440
The little ice age was barely noticeable globally compared to current warming. This is like saying eating 6000 calories a day is necessary to prevent starvation. We will not see a glacial period for many thousands of years and if anything this would imply that we should be saving our fossil fuels until then.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 16:50:23 No.11031524 Report

Quoted By:

>>11031440
> https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015RG000482 Based on model experiments, the glaciation threshold depends not only on insolation but also on the atmospheric CO2 content [Archer and Ganopolski, 2005]. Models of different complexity and time series analyses of proxy data have been used to investigate the response to orbital forcing in the future for a range of atmospheric CO2 levels. These results show consistently, that a glacial inception is unlikely to happen within the next approximate 50ka (when the next strong drop in Northern Hemisphere summer insolation occurs) if either atmospheric CO2 concentration remains above 300ppm or cumulative carbon emissions exceed 1000PgC [Loutre and Berger, 2000; Archer and Ganopolski, 2005; Cochelin et al., 2006]. Only for an atmospheric CO2 content below the preindustrial level may a glaciation occur within the next 10ka [Loutre and Berger, 2000; Cochelin et al., 2006; Kutzbach et al., 2011; Vettoretti and Peltier, 2011; Tzedakis et al., 2012a].

>IF I DON'T EAT 10,000 CALORIES A DAY I'LL STARVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO dxl2ui5v2r611.jpg, 83KiB, 900x900

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 16:50:32 No.11031526 Report

Quoted By:

>>11031460
>google micronova
>only relevant result is from schizo conspiracy YouTube channel
Gee, what a hard decision.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 16:50:37 No.11031527 Report

Quoted By: >>11031539 >>11031551

>>11030738
>>11030653
during solar minimum it reduces earths magnetosphere as it supports it and so greater levels of solar and other energies get in that way
>>11030656
the nondual answer is both

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 16:52:21 No.11031533 Report

Quoted By:

>>11031513
Outlawing heterosexual marriage and mandating forced abortions for all, respectively.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 16:55:50 No.11031539 Report

Quoted By:

>>11031527
>Solar
So we should be able to observe an increase in UV and other short wavelength radiation in the troposphere and below, where's the fucking data?
Additionally doesn't this model predict warming in the stratosphere? why is it cooling, which is consistent with increases insulation caused by GHGs ?

>other
what other

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 17:01:57 No.11031551 Report

Quoted By:

>>11031527
>during solar minimum it reduces earths magnetosphere as it supports it and so greater levels of solar and other energies get in that way
We can measure that directly and there's no significant long term trend. Remember that you don't have to just explain what is happening now but also the warming over the last 100 years.

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 17:55:52 No.11031723 Report

Quoted By:

>>11031522

it was satire

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 22:53:07 No.11032550 Report

Quoted By:

>lower solar irradiance
>higher temperature on Earth

Seems legit. Especially in an age when the most powerful man on Earth unironically considers nuking hurricanes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Oct 2019 23:01:55 No.11032574 Report

Quoted By:

>>11030645
>Loser solar radiation is causing the earth to get hotter

???

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 05 Oct 2019 08:49:02 No.11033547 Report

Quoted By:

>>11030645
>Mayans died off because of a solar minimum
L0Lno fgt pls

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches