The Sun is Undergoing a State Change --- And That May be Very Bad News

Originally posted by Tsuki-no-Hikari

Originally posted by Equinox99We could have been hit with the worst solar storms, comets, and super volcanoes and still survive. If we did it in the past with less knowledge and technology, we could endure the future.

Yes, but in the past humans didn't rely on technology as much. Do you know how to purify water? How about where to find food in the wild wants grocery stores become empty? If you got hurt, would you know how to treat it without the ability to ask a doctor or look it up? Can you build a fire without matches?
As much as technology has improved the quality of hours lives, it has made us stupid in regard to survival. While I don't doubt humans would survive and adapt, I think it would be worse for us now than it has been in the past.

I hope you don't mind if I add onto your post? Another thing to take into account, back then there wasn't nearly as many people around. There isn't enough forest land now to supply a modern city for heat an cooking, ect. Your also right, how do you feed the thousands to millions in the small to large cities? If something like this happens, it's gonna get ugly.

Here is a good place to start to understand the solar science:

solarcycle24com.proboards.com...

This thread centers around Dr. Leif Svalgaard who is regarded by many as one of the foremost scientist as he fields questions from a bunch of HAM radio operators who have particular interest in sun spots.

You may want to do further reading on Livingston and Penn's paper about disappearing sunspots.

DYODR

The sun is changing....and it may start to get cool IF it behaves as it has in the past several million years. We can know the solar output from the past by measuring oxygen isotope rations from ice cores.

Originally posted by Da Man6
Scientists now speculate that the sun is causing the polar ice caps on Mars to melt. kinda interesting. maybe Mars is being prepared for our next home?

Short answer : yes

Long answer : they will split humanity and ship all men on mars and all women on venus, after intense terraforming!

Now for some seriousness : it is another blow to the "human made co2 is the culprit of all evils!!!". Bot onl;yu is sun a much bigger factor in the equation, but manmade CO2 is like ½% of all new co2 emisisons, the rest coming from mother nature...

Originally posted by Tsuki-no-Hikari

Originally posted by Equinox99We could have been hit with the worst solar storms, comets, and super volcanoes and still survive. If we did it in the past with less knowledge and technology, we could endure the future.

Yes, but in the past humans didn't rely on technology as much. Do you know how to purify water? How about where to find food in the wild wants grocery stores become empty? If you got hurt, would you know how to treat it without the ability to ask a doctor or look it up? Can you build a fire without matches?

As much as technology has improved the quality of hours lives, it has made us stupid in regard to survival. While I don't doubt humans would survive and adapt, I think it would be worse for us now than it has been in the past.

I fully agree.

It's funny how we look at those in survival situations, or living more "primitive" lifestyles as backwards and stupid. However... the vast majority of us living within advanced civilization have NO CLUE how to survive in the wilderness, LET ALONE rebuild our current technology. We are truly the stupid ones in that regard; it'd be wise to regain that knowledge.

Originally posted by gagol

Originally posted by Da Man6
Scientists now speculate that the sun is causing the polar ice caps on Mars to melt. kinda interesting. maybe Mars is being prepared for our next home?

Short answer : yes

Long answer : they will split humanity and ship all men on mars and all women on venus, after intense terraforming!

Now for some seriousness : it is another blow to the "human made co2 is the culprit of all evils!!!". Bot onl;yu is sun a much bigger factor in the equation, but manmade CO2 is like ½% of all new co2 emisisons, the rest coming from mother nature...

Please see my reply to Da Man6 on page 1.

There is NO evidence that Mars is warming due to the sun, instead it is the result of seasonal melting (Springtime) of one polar cap while the other remains, and also otherwise the result of dust storms causing higher albedo in the 70's and lower albedo in the decades since as reflective dust was removed by various wind systems.

AT MOST the sun MIGHT be to blame for UP TO one-fourth of Earth's global warming, however, most evidence (especially as data comes in) points to anthropogenic/GHG causes of global warming.

By claiming global warming is a hoax, you are only helping the elites to remain wealthy and powerful.

reply to post by jtma508


Interesting indeed, especially if the correlation is true. However as the article plainly states:

It is still a little early to predict which way it will swing.

I will wait and see what happens, thanks for bringing this to my attention.

I am surprised Phage hasn't posted yet to say how the article is a sham or invalid yet. Sunspots and a effect on the earth? nahhh.

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
I am surprised Phage hasn't posted yet to say how the article is a sham or invalid yet. Sunspots and a effect on the earth? nahhh.

Yup.

Solar Cycle 24 began almost two years ago... It's an 11 year cycle, not dictated by how many sunspots there are or aren't, but based off of the pole reversal of Sol.

EDIT to fix a typo.

[edit on 8/10/2010 by cmdrkeenkid]

Originally posted by jtma508
Exactly. My point in bringing it up. There's been increasing discussion about global warming being mostly caused by solar activity and that bears out in the data provides. Going back centuries. This could be very bad news if the scenarios presented play-out.

No It does not - how many times do we have to repeat this - solar cycles have almost NO BEARING on the long term hating and cooling of this planet - NONE.

This article claims that measurements first started in 1775 - then miraculously claims that there is data going back 10,000 years - there is no data. Zero - think about it, cavemen taking solar cycle measurements. LMAO.

The article is presented by global warming denialists - pure and simple conspiracy of the worst kind.

Lets be very, very clear - there has been a MASSIVE amount of research done into the potential for sun cycles to be responsible for global warming, it makes sense and was an obvious first place to look - it has been studied extensively and exhaustively - it is not the cause so please, PLEASE get over it - it is just absolutely ridiculous to continue to claim something which has been PROVEN wrong over, and over, and over again.

This article even quotes the most discredited petition as corroborating evidence (30,000 signiatures)- as soon as you read that you should realise you are again being duped byb powerful corporate interests into thinking that fossil fuels are not responsible for global warming so that they can keep profiting at your expense. Thats all there is too it - profits are behind global warming denial - NOT SCIENCE.

A further note - it is important to note that the Author of this article is a serial denialist - he refuses to deal with science and instead will attempt to latch onto anything which will support his preconceived position - he jumps from theory to theory - refusing to ever consider the counter arguments and frequently drags up old and truly discredited theories - as this one has been discredited many times - and it only takes one. In other words this guy does not consider the facts and form a balanced opinion - he is a serial propagandist of the very worst kind.

It is incredibly important to try and stop accepting at face value counter arguments to global warming and look at the science which has dealt with theses arguments- there is no doubt what so ever regarding global warming - and articles like this simply serve as a blatant corporate agenda to confuse the public about an issue which is simply not in doubt.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


The ridiculous stance is to claim that CO2 has a mayor impact on climate... After all, even the cream of the crop couldn't provide evidence that supports your religion and they had to rig the data, write false information and passing it as the truth, they were caught talking baout using any legal, and illegal way to keep people in the dark even through the FOIA, etc...

Habibullo Abdussamatov is right... CO2 has LITTLE influence on the climate... But of course and like always when you, and the rest of the AGW believers can't discuss facts you have to make claims "such a person is an "oil kook"...

Tell you what, you are a leftwinger so we shouldn't believe you because of your political leaning...

We will adapt. No matter what happens, though there will be hardships, the strong and steadfast will adapt.

Ever hear Killing Joke's "Inside The Termite Mound"?

Interesting theory. It would be interesting to see if it could survive peer review. If it does, then we could all get behind it when its sufficiently supported by peer-reviewed science. Right now its one of a large number of non-reviewed theories, and support would be akin to zealotry. You should encourage the author to submit it for publication, but as pointed out earlier in the thread, he doesn't appear to want to submit any of his works for review. He must have his reasons. That said, its not science until it stands up to review.

Originally posted by Equinox99
reply to post by Tsuki-no-Hikari

 

We learn to adapt far quicker than other species. Purify water? It is a simple technique that doesn't need much teaching. Hunting for food would be the only hard part, but I could survive of plants for sometime.

2/3 may die because of a huge catastrophe but the survivors will endure. Not everyone is relying on technology to live their lives. We still have hunters, fishermen, builders, and etc.

I am not saying it wouldn't be terrible, just no need to live in fear.

Depending on scale of such thing there would be no animals or fishes to hunt. At least not enough to sustain not even that 2/3 you've mentioned.

If this gets really hardcore society would collapse entirely and very, very few people would survive on the worst conditions possible.

But I'm with you, there is no much point to worry about something that we have no control over. If it happens it happens, until then enjoy what you can as you can.

Originally posted by Tsuki-no-Hikari

Originally posted by Equinox99We could have been hit with the worst solar storms, comets, and super volcanoes and still survive. If we did it in the past with less knowledge and technology, we could endure the future.

Yes, but in the past humans didn't rely on technology as much. Do you know how to purify water? How about where to find food in the wild wants grocery stores become empty? If you got hurt, would you know how to treat it without the ability to ask a doctor or look it up? Can you build a fire without matches?

As much as technology has improved the quality of hours lives, it has made us stupid in regard to survival. While I don't doubt humans would survive and adapt, I think it would be worse for us now than it has been in the past.

95% (just a guess) of the world population would be rendered useless in front of what the conditions demanded.

One thing is certain, such disaster would either bring people together or collapse every single social fabrics for good.

reply to post by Gorman91


humans have only been around 200,000 years according to the mitochondria dna.

Originally posted by EnkiCarbone
We will adapt. No matter what happens, though there will be hardships, the strong and steadfast will adapt.

Ever hear Killing Joke's "Inside The Termite Mound"?

No we will not - the consensus at the moment from the scientific community - as opposed to unsubstantiated propaganda and conspiracy - is that the chance for prevention of full total civilisation collapse has well and truly past (although some here can't get past the first post as they are so completely hooked on Corporate Advertising).

The consensus is absolute - to prevent civilisation collapse we would have needed to already enact massive changes - the carbon in the atmosphere already is enough to send us to 3 degrees - at 3 degrees the positive feedbacks become too strong to overwhelm.

There has been some scepticism on this - notably James Lovelock who feels there is an isolated chance of survival for 500,000 or less in areas like western Antarctic - he is a minority though.

Most scientists will not say that total human annihilation is a certainty - it is too depressing - they will say that the chances of fixing things are almost zero - which amounts to the same.

Anyway - back over to our friends here who would much rather deny the entire scientific consensus in preference to out of context emails and corporate propaganda delivered purely for profiteering.......over to you.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Aristophrenia]

reply to post by Aristophrenia


You're right. It's ridiculous of me to not see the seriousness and gravity of this Blogspot Article.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by EnkiCarbone]

Originally posted by EnkiCarbone
reply to post by Aristophrenia

 

You're right. It's ridiculous of me to not see the seriousness and gravity of this Blogspot Article.

Um......not as ridiculous as not reading the posts you are responding too.

Backfire.