Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Because you still refuse to answer one very simple question

Did you or did you not read the Nature article you posted a link to a while back?

And do you admit that you twisted its title for a purpose completely irrelevant to its actual content? (And that you did that purely because you were copying and pasting your information from an anti-AGW website?)

 

I think the way it`s worked in the past is, man creates CO2 by burning fossil fuels, CO2 rises Earth warms up. Man no longer needs fire to keep warm so stops burning fossil fuels, CO2 level drops, Earth cools down. Repeat as before

 

please log in to view this image

Guess what occurred during the last maunder minimun, that's the red bit.
Chronologially it could not be a better fit. start AND end
This is not to prove that man doesn't have an influence of some kind, I never said that, this is to point out something that is pretty apparent in the fluctuations of the Jet Stream that is causing the polar vortex events the US and over 1000 cold records broken last winter 1000+

Ways that the sun's magnetic state can possibly effect earth and our climate.
http://www.space.com/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate.html

have you figured out what happened at the last solar maunder yet? Little Ice age. The temperature seemed to go up nicely without the help of CO2, cos the darn ice needs to melt first that's why it follows temp up and down, temp controls exactly how much CO2 there is and that brings me to where I believe we(as I always have said,) have SOME impact.

We could have just broke the correlation or, as within the long term ice core data, the CO2 levels will start to come down once the Maunder minimum sets in, temp goes up, CO2 goes up, temp goes down, CO2 follows, that's exactly what the historical data shows. We are offsetting the amount of CO2 but not by much at all. As temp has almsot stopped rising, CO2 will too in hte near future and temp will go down, CO2 will latently follow

From the look of it we'll either be in an ice age (110.000 years ago) was the last or a little ice age like from a disputed start date of 1350 or 1550 to 1750 or 1850

Now look how that climate changed for approx 300 years and jumps back up That's some freaking climate change in the little iceage without a CO2 AGW driver yet perfect correlation to the solar maunder minimum. I mean what a fluke right? Nope.

We look to have a freeze coming in the next 100m years and it will start with climate fluctuations like really hot really cold events but like I said, recent ice gains since 2012 all of a sudden, those massive US vortex events, UK breaking winter records in 2010

There are the same things happening in summers too.

I'd imagne if we were going into a cold spell, that the climate system would alter significantly and during a transition there will be what we would call freak weather. The jet stream would alter a lot and it's already started to wobble causing hot and cold events.

Co2 is just ****ing plant food, it does not drive temp, temp drives it

 

Did you or did you not read the Nature article you posted a link to a while back?

 

That's actually more believable than Astro's angle on it

**** it, I say burn fuels till helsinki is like barbados. **** this cold ****

 

I know I posted a link, I know it wasn't anti global warming and I know that is where I found the vid I posted with it that detailed out the fact they don't know how much ice there was, from the horses mouth like. I can't remember the contents of the article, I read many.

First of all, anti AGW website, you try make it seem like it's some crazy anarchists or some ****, isn't every half baked argument (all two of them) from the Anti anti AGW site? see how that works, you mean the actual scientists who said their work was misinterpreted some saying categorically so, you try turn that important information into (Anti AGW site)

I mean like The scientists themselves are on twitter, there is tweets from him calling them liars ffs, Another who did 117 papers, they ignored all his 116 and said he agreed cos the others 116 of them didn't agree.
They never asked scientists ****, they just read papers and labelend them pro AGW. The IPCC like, oh how convenient is that, and you try turn all that into (anti AGW site)

Given me a break. From the outset you've barelty debated a point and most of your dhit is one liners has tags and bolocks about myself

 

@Diego
Have a read of this link below, I thought I knew a bit, but this rips the whole joke apart. A littany of failure. Miserable failure time and time again, apparently these eejits can't even model the year before so knowing the weather\climate, they couldn't model that And they're trying to model 100 years? This is just getting ridiculous. for the 7 years in the start of this hoax, the sats showed a global trend of 1.22 degrees hotter by 2100, IPCC had been telling us we'd be set to broil by now. Is their **** any less bullshit than the Nostradamusat at this ****ing point, **** ALL they've said has panned out, failure prediction after prediction, utter ****ing tragedy costing 27 billion every year most of which goes on media and porpaganda websites like Skeptical Science,, one of the people of which is also teaching at "combant denier climate school"

not for you astro, you already think its lies
http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-models/

 

Have had a quick skim and have read most of it in other articles, bookmarked for a proper read tomorrow.
My memory is shocking these days when it comes to holding facts/figures so when i reply on subjects like this it is usually from knowledge/bits stored but i am unable to quote without much delving, that is why many of my answers may seem short and obtuse, maybe even sarcastic.

 

Think there is some "Dark Matter" on the end of Allen's nose ,thats why he keeps getting picked.

 

Honestly, this argument is such a load of ****ing bollocks (sorry to be so forthright, but I'm getting tired of the bullshit now).
For every article you can quote by some gobby know-all funded by the fossil fuel lobby presenting a load of "facts", you could quote a dozen pointing out where they are wrong- should you actually want to have a reasoned debate, rather than simply rant against yet another "global conspiracy".
No-one can know for certain what will happen in the future, but if there is genuine concern over it we have to take it seriously and act accordingly rather than listen to the selfish, irresponsible ones who want you to believe that doubt equates to disproof.

Just as a matter of interest, I plucked this one out of the ether, there are a lot of links in it, and there are hundreds more where that came from- should anybody actually care.
http://davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/climate-change-deniers/

 

Is it just his nose that gets picked?

 

Who the **** are you?

 

Nemesis.
( I've had a sex-change)

 

That and his being short and having nice hair

 

What have you been up to anyway?

 

Just ordinary stuff that's kept me off here.
Nothing special most of the time- though I did get royally ****ered over the weekend and had an encounter with a woman considerably younger than me which was rather interesting.
Don't ask for details.

 

**** off... give us all the details

 

PM? Do you not have a 'live-in lady'?

 

Related to climate as well as solar earth interaction.

Coronal holes are where magnetic lines do not curve back in, they extend outward and when facing the eatth they create a mangetic connection, NASA have confirmed Alfven waves in this process and have said themslves that this is the most efficient method of transferring energy from the sun to earth.
What Alfven waves are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfvén_wave

This obviously relates to my match up of the maunder minimum (drastically low sun spot activity) and the little ice age.

If the theory was say correct, that means earth facing sun spots deliver quite a bit of extra energy to earth compared to the rest of the sun. Really interesting theory indeed, and something definitely a consideration for Climate models. Energy transfer by magnetism, lots of energy.
The theory

Quote from NASA

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/news/alfven-waves.html#.VUjjnJMg_cs

 

No ****ing chance, I'm not RHC.
Get yer jollies elsewhere.