December 18, 2019 at 4:03 pm #24955
I don’t think so. 105.6 F average across Australia. 112.8 in South Australia, and it isn’t even summer yet.
December 19, 2019 at 6:10 am #24959
the solar minimum isn’t just about heat.
Its about solar activity and it’s total effects.
December 19, 2019 at 9:48 am #24967
But it’s supposed to usher in an ice age. Where’s the ice?
December 19, 2019 at 1:39 pm #24973
The Solar Minimum is well verified as interfering with Ham Radio Activity.
December 19, 2019 at 1:59 pm #24974
Mouse you are trying to go same route as climate alarmist. Grand solar minimum is like whilibird said a reduction in sun activity. This causes cooling due to less plasma hitting planet. The added danger is migrating pole which in right sequence will drop or severely reduce our natural emf shielding by changing strength and location of non coverage
The ice age and cooling happens over time each year it’s not a instant freeze like the woolly mammoth in Russia … that is attributed to polar shift. As the PLASMA streams slow from sun al less cme and filaments happen as sun surface is cooling it cools our solar system think turning down furnace. You ask why Australia is hot one place being hot for a short period is proof of non grand solar minium? When you cool down anything it’s not all equal and at same time look at a 5 year world tempreture…. the use of antarctic ice sheet is false info… look at the volcanic action under the sheet it’s available and then tell me it’s from co2 loosing g the ice sheet.
Is grand solar minimum 100 proven no but we are seeing slow down of the sun surface activity.
December 20, 2019 at 1:03 pm #24998
Temp is going up. Everywhere. Volcanos aren’t everywhere.
Throwing in magnetic pole movement is like saying “Look! Over there! Something to distract you from the conversation!”
Solar activity isn’t the cause. Otherwise we’d see a different pattern of atmospheric heating. Instead, we see a pattern associated with atmospheric composition.
Ya guys gotta stop depending on the propaganda bubble.
December 20, 2019 at 2:07 pm #25001
Who is to say the link you just posted is not propaganda?
Aside from you.
December 20, 2019 at 4:21 pm #25003
A good question. Always question everything.
Propaganda pieces typically are short, have a strident tone, and have zero to two references. If you follow the links, they usually point to another opinion article. I once saw a set of three articles that each had one reference. Article one referred article 2, article 3 referred article 3, and article 3 referred article 1. A closed loop of opinions. Not an empirical fact in the lot, and an obvious attempt to try to generate some real validity. Lotsa laughs all around for that one.
Non-propaganda pieces are full of references, typically several for each major point made in the article. Following those links leads to structured articles that discuss verifiable results, and those articles have references, and so on down to studies and textbooks going back decades. This is how PhD’s are trained and graded. High quality stuff gets referred to by others coming later. The number of articles referencing your article defines the influence your article — and thus you — have on the field under discussion. Einstein’s writings: gazillions of referrals to them. Pons and Fleischmann? Not so many.
The difference is in the anticipated audience. Most propaganda outlets know that their readers don’t follow links or attempt to verify any of the points made in the article. Scientific outlets know that their audience will follow the links in detail, and complain vociferously if they’re not up to snuff. It turns out to be an Achilles’s heel, because propaganda outlets will take a critical comment out of context and use it to refute a science-based article to their audience, who again, won’t be reading the article the comment is about. Often they don’t even provide the article reference. I’ve seen it happen time and again.
So.. strident, opinion-focused, light on references: most likely propaganda. Formal, multiple points, measured pace and moderate language with multiple references per major point: science is happening.
Science-based reading is harder, because you often have to follow the references to get the background so you can understand the main point being made in the original article. It’s harder, so very few people actually do it. Propaganda outlets count on this.
December 20, 2019 at 5:27 pm #25006
December 20, 2019 at 5:39 pm #25008
Half of Michael Crichton’s book State of Fear was citations. He made a case against anthropogenic global warming. Don’t think it was propaganda….
December 20, 2019 at 6:03 pm #25009
Looks like it was just a means to make a buck. From Wikipedia:
Sixteen of 18 US climate scientists interviewed by Knight Ridder said the author was bending scientific data and distorting research.
Several scientists whose research had been referenced in the novel stated that Crichton had distorted it in the novel. Peter Doran, leading author of the Nature paper, wrote in the New York Times: “our results have been misused as ‘evidence’ against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel ‘State of Fear'”.
And anyone who bothered to actually read those references could have figured it out themselves. Very few actually did.
- This reply was modified 9 months, 1 week ago by Mouse Wizard. Reason: Added last two sentences
December 20, 2019 at 6:43 pm #25011
You’re quoting Wikipedia as your source?
December 21, 2019 at 8:39 am #25020
While I do believe in CC, I think to dismiss other factors such as the Grand Solar Minimum or the movement of the magnetic poles is not taking a holistic approach.
If we went with the “it is settle science!” mantra, then we would still believe the sun and planets revolved around the earth/earth the center of the universe, the earth is flat, and the flu is caused by evil spirits.
December 21, 2019 at 3:43 pm #25026
We have had solar minimums on a regular basis, about every 11 years. Thats proven science, just part of the suns cycles.
Grand minimums and maximums happen over decades to centuries. You don’t know until you are in one whether its “grand” or not.
The Dalton minimum was from 1790-1820 and the Maunder minimum 1645-1715. Compare those times historically and you can see that human influence was zero, it just happens.
One thing we can do is compare some of the pseudo science with history and see that our “efforts” have done essentially zero to change things.
Look at the articles from the ’60’s and ’70’s predicting a coming ice age, followed by more articles about global warming in the ’80’s.
Now step back from the emotional response that Greta and her ilk want you to get on board with.
Realistically, if we are entering the standard minimum, things will suck for a couple of years. Then back to crops growing decent, etc., until the next cycle.
But if this is shaping up to be a “Grand Minimum”, if could be years, decades, a lifetime until things shape up.
What are you going to do?
December 23, 2019 at 2:15 am #25040
we are prepping for the solar minimum with new greenhouse tech built like ones in artic with back up heating. Using south facing geo thermal mass. Getting seeds and plants or One 1 and 2.
Outdoor using hoop row covers to extend shoulder season. Stocking up extra things that last long and those that are near forever. Have indoor micro greens on tray and led supplimental lighting.
Pray that if pole shift happens with solar minimum we don’t get a cme or high solar activity during a shift that will make it extra bad.
If it’s does not happen still ok not like we can’t use extra to feed animals. If it does happen to be grand minimum I don’t think anything will truely be enough.
- This reply was modified 9 months, 1 week ago by namelus.
December 23, 2019 at 12:08 pm #25050
We bought row covers and ag grade plastic to extend the growing seasons. Going to use 1/2x10ft PVC pipe to make the frames for the covers.
Going to plant runner beans along the fences to make use of that unused space.
Still getting 2 hogs this spring.
The sun will do what the sun will do.
December 23, 2019 at 11:47 am #25049
So, if “standard” minimums have an effect (debatable), and things are still heating up, something else is going on. I wonder what that is?
Social disintegration and climate chaos. What a wonderful combination.
December 23, 2019 at 2:29 pm #25052
Where is the ice? In the bottom of my glass.
One can only look at scientific and historic data for so long without accrpting it unless be is ignoring the data.
What you see if you dig deep enough is that what “we” can do is nothing compared to natural occurrences. Volcanoes put forth more change than you can imagine.
All these countries have dropped their carbon emissions, yet “climate change”.
For some data, and a little scaremongering, try the Ice Age Farmer channel on YouTube
December 23, 2019 at 3:06 pm #25053
Climate change caused by human =bullshit
Pollution and garbage caused by humans = real
One you can use to steal and control plant with nebulous schemes one is simple to fix with a few laws and some elbow grease.
December 23, 2019 at 4:01 pm #25054
I stick with my number of humans in a pool analogy.
But I also think the earth goes through various stages and the sun and pole shifts cannot be ruled out.
And, as WB points out, volcanic activity can not be ruled out either.
Relying on only one data set is ignoring all the others is ignorant.
I dont think there is a computer model or the processing power to make a real analysis when all the variables are taken into account.
Butterfly wings in China in May, produces the tornado in Kansas in August.
Regardless, prep accordingly as you think or what your local observations are.
Today it hit 48 degrees. Last week it was -15.
A few years ago, it was so warm there was a guy who was riding his motorcycle in shorts and a T-shirt. I know this as he gunned his motorcycle, went around a car and T-boned a pickup truck outside of the store I was working at. I told the manager to call 911. But the guy died right there.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.