Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

No, and "no".

 

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

 

The greatest threat to this planet are twats who think they know a lot about everything when in fact they don't know the half of it.

 

Sounds very logical.

 

Yet it actually is saying nothing.

Maybe I can post some spok quotes cos they sound logical Lots of "evidence" has been posted in this thread, not proof, well other than proof the IPCC is lying, which has been posted.

The "evidence" for effects on our climate other than CO2 has been posted in abundance. Yet "evidence" is dismissed without contradicting evidence time and time again, it's literally the theme of this thread.

 

My first post on this thread is in reference to the OP

 

Get the other one rodded, then

 

There's also irrefutable proof of you lying because your pursuit of your agenda is more important than an honest assessment of scientific sources

 

Touch paper lit, stand well back.

 

please log in to view this image

The little ice age lining up perfectly with the solar maunder minimum is evidence that the sun has an important bearing on our climate.
This is evidence IPCC modelling doesn't work for a good reason because they are utter ****e. Proof that they are utter ****e is the fact they cannot model in any accurate way last year's weather, even when knowing the conditions to input into their models, they still failed miserably.


More evidence from NASA themselves

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

Energy is transferred along magentic connections, the earth and sun have a magnetic connecton, and new researh is correlating earth facing coronal holes with events on earth, with alarming accuracy. Case in point, there was a raised earthquake alert the morning of the Nepal earth quake by solar observers, because a large coronal hole was going to be earth facing. Talk about tragic confirmation! All of the major earthquakes of 8 and above all coincide with coronal holes on the sun being earth facing and the theory goes that it's like pointing an immense magnet at earth when a solar coronal hole is earth facing.

So if this can effect geology it can effect climate.


Evidence to support an argument not proof the argument is 100% correct.

It backs my main arugment, that IPCC models are a joke, but also that is backed by them being so wrong it's not even funny any more.

 

"proof" to you is something you believe to be true, proof to me is evidence that proves a theory to be correct
You use words like "agenda" without even knowing what it means. My "agenda" is discussing other possibilities, not attacking anyone who disagrees with mainstream ideas.

You are a proven liar Astro, you constantly lie in your posts about what I say, and give your own twisted narrative of what I am saying in order to try make youself look good.
You are so hung up on what others think of you it's hilarious, why else do you get into these things with not just me, with anyone that disagrees with you, cos you constantly have this sad need to prove something

You cant discuss a subject like this cos you reapatedly attack the other person in a debate when your own knowledge falls way short.
Differing opinions drive you nuts, how sad is that

 

So, my recent lies about how solar activity has potentially a huge bearing on earth's climate.. can you show how that is "lies" or part of "my agenda" Astro, I am sure you have an excellent counter argument with data (Skeptical Science) web links are about as useful as InfoWars web links btw

Funny and ironic, it's you who is talking like a #consoiracytheory nutcase with "agenda" |What is this agenda of mine? Funny little man with your labels in lieu of a proper counter argument

 

The little ice age lining up perfectly with the solar maunder minimum is evidence that the sun has an important bearing on our climate.

What! The sun has an influence on our climate?

Why don't more people know about this....why is the Government and such keeping this game changing news from us?

 

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

 

You are using wiki as a source

 

As strange as it may sound there have been lots of studies to determine whether the sun has any influence on the climate!

 

Self awareness rating - zero.

Hypocrisy rating - off the scale.

 

There has indeed but they have been primarily focused on solar irradiance. Which doesn't fluctuate more than a tiny amount over time.
This has been used by the IPCC to dismiss it from modelling altogether.

But the thing is, the case I bring forward is nothing to do with irradiace and NASA have themselves confiirmed that more energy can come from the sun along electromagnetic paths via Alfven waves meaning the sun can actually deliver more energy than the average irradiance it outputs as a whole, so if there is a magnetic connection between the sun and earth(and there is, it's scientific fact), more energy than the irriadiance average can be transferred from the sun to earth, over long time scales this can amount fo a lot more energy than thought previously.

Coronal holes are black because they are highly conductive, the solar model says the heat comes from the core to the outside, which means coronal holes should not be back in the centre cos they are a "hole" that goes deeper into the hotter and hotter sun as we go deepersun but.. if the heat comes from the centre, then how are the holes dark, because they are magnetic, the thermonucelar model of the sun is deemed totally faulty by some, conductivity conducts so dark holes, emissivity emits which is why there is no fusion taking place below the surfacr cos the holes would not be black in the centre or "dark", because they are magentic they are conductive, they are dark because nothing is being emittted,, this line of thought fits in with the new theory that these coronal holes in fact are magentic forces that can connect to earth and bring more energry with it as a result, meaning possibly, that without sun spots, the earth could be a perpetual ice ball regardless of irradiance.

Apart from Nasa's work and the correlative analysis of coronal holes and events on earth, plus the perfect match up of the little ice age with the low point of coronal hole activity, are points of evidence that the sun has a bearing on our cimate. One not considered by the IPCC at all, because as I said they dismiss it based on another factor entirely, irradiance/

 

Most of this is over my head tbh I was responding to the flippant comment that - shock, horror - the sun has an impact on climate ....... when in actual fact there's a serious scientific discussion to be had about whether it has an influence or not on climate and if it does, how much?

''Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global climate change may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The effects of global climate change are apparent (see section below) despite the fact that the Sun is once again less bright during the present solar minimum. Since the last solar minimum of 1996, the Sun's brightness has decreased by 0.02% at visible wavelengths, and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths, representing a 12-year low in solar irradiance, according to this NASA news article (April 1, 2009). Also, be sure to read this more recent article: 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade.''

 

As you can see from that, the focus is on irradiance which fluctuates around 0.1% difference I think.. This is far removed from the magnetic argument though.

Coronal hole by NASA

please log in to view this image

The point I made above was that, if the sun is thermonuclear and a "hole" forms, what we should see is no dark spot becase the heat and energy is coming from the core. We should not see this dark "cool area" because how can it be cool if Fushion is creating the energy at the core and pushing it outwards, any hole that goes further into the sun should be brighter not dark.

The reason that hole is dark is because that is a highly conductive area, when something is conductive it is not emitting which is why it is dark, it does not emit energy, it is mangentics, magnetics that are not looping back as per the usual arcs of plasma we see. These magnetics are what have an effect on earth far more than the variance in irradiation which is as I said 0.1% variance.

When these holes face earth, the mangetic force is pointed right at earth. Recent research has correlated all major earth quakes with large coronal holes facing earth, not some or nearly all but every single 8 pointer and above correlates to these large holes. That is at least worth considering.

The energy transfer theory, although new, is also worth considering as it is based on NASA's findings and it correlates with the geological events versus Coronal holes too, but the magnetics and the evernts that occur are scientific, most of this data comes from NASA btw, all of the correlative research is from using NASA's data, which is the only available resource.