• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A new Solar cycle 25 forecast

S

Sunsettommy

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Messages
1,709
Reaction score
877
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
From NASA is a forecast that suggest an even LOWER solar output than cycle 24 that was already lower than usual.

Solar Activity Forecast for Next Decade Favorable for Exploration

Last Updated: June 12, 2019
Editor: Abigail Tabor

Excerpt:

The last astronauts of the Apollo program were lucky. Not just because they were chosen to fly to the Moon, but because they missed some really bad weather en route. This wasn’t a hurricane or heat wave, but space weather – the term for radiation in the solar system, much of which is released by the Sun. In August 1972, right in between the Apollo 16 and Apollo 17 missions, a solar storm occurred sending out dangerous bursts of radiation. On Earth, we're protected by our magnetic field, but out in space, this would have been hazardous for the astronauts.

The ability to forecast these kinds of events is increasingly important as NASA prepares to send the first woman and the next man to the Moon under the Artemis program. Research now underway may have found a reliable new method to predict this solar activity. The Sun's activity rises and falls in an 11-year cycle. The forecast for the next solar cycle says it will be the weakest of the last 200 years. The maximum of this next cycle – measured in terms of sunspot number, a standard measure of solar activity level – could be 30 to 50% lower than the most recent one. The results show that the next cycle will start in 2020 and reach its maximum in 2025.

The rest HERE

==============================================================================

If this comes to pass, it WILL promote significant cooling in the future.
 
Sunsettommy said:
If this comes to pass, it WILL promote significant cooling in the future.

A NATURAL trend...………..
Click to expand...

OK, we'll be looking for that cooling. Will it get back to the 1980 levels? Let us know when it does. Somebody on this forum recently reported that 2019 looks like it's going to be the 2nd warmest year ever, behind the sweltering 2016. But maybe your cooling will start in 2020 :roll:
 
Media_Truth said:
OK, we'll be looking for that cooling. Will it get back to the 1980 levels? Let us know when it does. Somebody on this forum recently reported that 2019 looks like it's going to be the 2nd warmest year ever, behind the sweltering 2016. But maybe your cooling will start in 2020 :roll:
Click to expand...

All past large solar drops have been followed by a cooling wave, even the significant drop of cycle 20 was enough to intensify an existing cooling trend, that we then experienced in the 1970's.
 
Sunsettommy said:
All past large solar drops have been followed by a cooling wave, even the significant drop of cycle 20 was enough to intensify an existing cooling trend, that we then experienced in the 1970's.
Click to expand...

Well , if it wasn't for the input of the effects of greenhouse gasses , it would have been cooling since the 1970's.. but the local effect of greenhouse gasses overcomes that effect.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well , if it wasn't for the input of the effects of greenhouse gasses , it would have been cooling since the 1970's.. but the local effect of greenhouse gasses overcomes that effect.
Click to expand...

No doubt about that, temperatures even rose after the Mount Pinataubo eruption of 1991, which introduced a lot of sun blocking particulate matter that lingered for years. They rose less quickly, but still rose.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well , if it wasn't for the input of the effects of greenhouse gasses , it would have been cooling since the 1970's.. but the local effect of greenhouse gasses overcomes that effect.
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha, yet that short drop in Solar Cycle 20 easily over came the awesome powers of CO2.... for a decade.

:2wave:
 
Sunsettommy said:
If this comes to pass, it WILL promote significant cooling in the future.

A NATURAL trend...………..
Click to expand...

And also illustrates that the sun is probably the singlemost driver of Earth climate, and will determine whether we enjoy these warm periods and when we will endure the inevitable ice age to come.
 
The effect is already being felt, as cooling has begun.

2016>2017>2018> . . . .

I know the AGW advocates have high hopes for high temperatures in 2019, but that is far from certain. So far declining solar output has inhibited too much effect from the current El Nino, but we'll have to see how that plays out.

Regardless, even if the El Nino pauses cooling in 2019, cooling will resume in 2020.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Ha ha ha, yet that short drop in Solar Cycle 20 easily over came the awesome powers of CO2.... for a decade.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

That's right, it did. It just didn't increase as rapidly. On the other hand, Global warming "skeptics" misrepresent the data.
 
[h=2]Current Solar Cycle Will Be First To Finish Below Normal In 80 Years, Weakest In Close To 200 Years[/h]By P Gosselin on 22. June 2019
[h=3]Solar Activity in May 2019[/h]By Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated/edited by P Gosselin)
In May 2019 our sun was below-normal active again. The solar sunspot number (SSN) was 10.1, which is only 52% of the mean value in the evaluated cycle month no. 126 since the start of Cycle No. 24 began in December 2008.
It should be noted that the number of cycles that lasted this long is decreasing. In the previous month we reported on cycles 21, 18, 16, 15, 8 dropping out because they were shorter in total, and now SC 17 is getting added. Next month month SC 7 is will fall as well. The mean value thus becomes less meaningful as the end of the cycle approaches. But out of habit, we want to keep it nevertheless as comparison.
The activity in the past month was shifted very asymmetrically to the solar northern hemisphere, the southern hemisphere was spotless throughout the whole month. The solar north saw spots only on 15 days. The total activity graphically
fuhl1.jpg

Fig. 1: SC24 is depicted in red and compared to the mean of the previous 23 cycles (blue curve) and the very similar ähnliche SC5 (in black).​
So we have been bobbing along with very little activity in the solar minimum for 20 months, and this will probably continue for about 1 year as we already explained 2 months ago. . . .
 
Jack Hays said:
:bs:liar
Click to expand...

Let's look at your source that you heavily rely on. Ten, Independence thinkers can evaluate for themselvees.

. Anthony Watts - SourceWatch

Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.[1]
Click to expand...

It then goes on to examine his qualifications, and how he misrepresents them.

Then from Watts Up with That - Media Bias/Fact Check

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE

Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

Factual Reporting: LOW
Click to expand...


And Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science | Environment | The Guardian

works to undermine climate science
This article is more than 7 years old
Libertarian thinktank keeps prominent sceptics on its payroll and relies on millions in funding from carbon industry, papers suggest

Tue 14 Feb 2012 22.30 EST
First published on Tue 14 Feb 2012 22.30 EST

Shares
451
The billionaire Charles Koch, a key financier of the Heartland Institute
The billionaire Charles Koch, a key financier of the Heartland Institute, which works to undermine the established science on climate change. Photograph: Koch Industries

The inner workings of a libertarian thinktank working to discredit the established science on climate change have been exposed by a leak of confidential documents detailing its strategy and fundraising networks.

DeSmogBlog, which broke the story, said it had received the confidential documents from an "insider" at the Heartland Institute, which is based in Chicago. The blog monitors industry efforts to discredit climate science.

The scheme includes spending $100,000 for spreading the message in K-12 schools that "the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain - two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science", the documents said.

It was not possible to immediately verify the authenticity of the documents, although Heartland issued a statement on Wednesday claiming at least one document was fake, and that it was the victim of theft and forgery. However, Anthony Watts, a weathercaster who runs one of the most prominent anti-science blogs, Watts Up With That?, acknowledged Heartland was helping him with $90,000 for a new project. He added: "They do not regularly fund me nor (sic) my WUWT website, I take no salary from them of any kind."
Sign up to the Green Light email to get the planet's most important stories
Read more

Watts, in an email, did not mention the entire cost of his temperature station initiative but said: "Heartland simply helped me find a donor for funding a special project."

"There is nothing I can tell you," Jim Lakely, Heartland's communications director, said in a telephone interview. "We are investigating what we have seen on the internet and we will have more to say in the morning." Lakely made no attempt to deny the veracity of information contained in the documents.

The Heartland Institute, founded in 1984, has built a reputation over the years for providing a forum for climate change sceptics. But it is especially known for hosting a series of lavish conferences of climate science doubters at expensive hotels in New York's Times Square as well as in Washington DC.

If authentic the documents provide an intriguing glimpse at the fundraising and political priorities of one of the most powerful and vocal groups working to discredit the established science on climate change and so block any chance of policies to reduce global warming pollution.

"It's a rare glimpse behind the wall of a key climate denial organisation," Kert Davies, director of research for Greenpeace, said in a telephone interview. "It's more than just a gotcha to have these documents. It shows there is a co-ordinated effort to have an alternative reality on the climate science in order to have an impact on the policy."
Click to expand...

So.. as long as you use anthony watts as a source, I can safely say that there is objective and credible evidence my statement is true.
 
RAMOSS said:
Let's look at your source that you heavily rely on. Ten, Independence thinkers can evaluate for themselvees.

. Anthony Watts - SourceWatch



It then goes on to examine his qualifications, and how he misrepresents them.

Then from Watts Up with That - Media Bias/Fact Check




And Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science | Environment | The Guardian



So.. as long as you use anthony watts as a source, I can safely say that there is objective and credible evidence my statement is true.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you're quite gullible.

1. Your first link claims Anthony Watts is a "paid AGW denier." That is false. He is paid by no one.
2. Your second link is just biased bloviation.
3. Your third link focuses on a "leak" that was in fact a forgery.

Get back to me when you're ready for an adult discussion.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Obviously, you're quite gullible.

1. Your first link claims Anthony Watts is a "paid AGW denier." That is false. He is paid by no one.
2. Your second link is just biased bloviation.
3. Your third link focuses on a "leak" that was in fact a forgery.

Get back to me when you're ready for an adult discussion.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. He accepts money from the heartland institute.

Who We Are - Anthony Watts | Heartland Institute

So, you claim I lied. I showed he is being paid by the heartland institute.

LEt's see you show my second link or third link was 'bias bloviation', and a 'forgery'.

ANd, then of course, there is

https://theintercept.com/2019/05/16/coal-industry-climate-change-denial-cloud-peak-energy/

A now bankrupt coal company was funding climate denial ism, despite the fact they claimed they didn't. (before they got bankrupted of course.


So far, your attempts to 'refute' my points are failing spectacularly.
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
That is incorrect. He accepts money from the heartland institute.
Click to expand...

Nothing to see here. From the FAQ's at WUWT:

[FONT=&quot]Q. What about that $44,000 that supposedly came from the Heartland Institute that was written about by document thief Dr. Peter Gleick?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A. First, that didn’t come from Heartland, it came from an independent donor that Heartland helped me find through their networking.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Second, that was specifically for a special project my company is doing to make data from the Climate Reference Network more widely available and easier to view for the layman. Currently NOAA does not include the state of the art Climate Reference Network data in their monthly State of the Climate Reports, even though it is a superior system. More about this here.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The project was to be funded to completion in 2012, but due to interference by Gleick, that second phase funding seems unlikely to materialize. That said, an effort is being made to complete the project sans that second half funding. Preliminary output maps were highlighted on WUWT here. Year end data for 2012 was announced here. The second phase was to be completed in 2013, and it is hoped that can be done and the finished fully automated website made fully operational and public then.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Q. Aren’t you paid to go to Heartland conferences?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A. Yes, and that’s nothing any different from what any other organization does. Like any other invited speaker at a conference, trade show, or conclave, Heartland pays a small honorarium and travel expenses for people they invite to speak at their conferences. For example, Dr. Scott Denning, a scientist who is on the opposite side of the climate debate from me who has spoken at Heartland conferences, got the same honorarium and travel reimbursements that I did. (Update: as of 4/4/2019 I am now listed as a “senior fellow” of Heartland, which means I will be writing and contributing op-ed pieces they will distribute)[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
The effect is already being felt, as cooling has begun.

2016>2017>2018> . . . .

I know the AGW advocates have high hopes for high temperatures in 2019, but that is far from certain. So far declining solar output has inhibited too much effect from the current El Nino, but we'll have to see how that plays out.

Regardless, even if the El Nino pauses cooling in 2019, cooling will resume in 2020.
Click to expand...

2016>2017>2018<2019 :roll:

So far, 2019 is a denier's nightmare, with all the heatwaves around the globe.
 
RAMOSS said:
That is incorrect. He accepts money from the heartland institute.

Who We Are - Anthony Watts | Heartland Institute

So, you claim I lied. I showed he is being paid by the heartland institute.

LEt's see you show my second link or third link was 'bias bloviation', and a 'forgery'.

ANd, then of course, there is

https://theintercept.com/2019/05/16/coal-industry-climate-change-denial-cloud-peak-energy/

A now bankrupt coal company was funding climate denial ism, despite the fact they claimed they didn't. (before they got bankrupted of course.


So far, your attempts to 'refute' my points are failing spectacularly.
Click to expand...

Actually, your "points" are at this stage a smoking ruin.

Peter Gleick Confesses to Obtaining Heartland Documents Under ...


Page Not Found (404) - The Atlantic



Feb 21, 2012 - If you want to look for the author of the fake memo, then look for somebody ... I emailed @PeterGleick to ask if he faked the Heartland document, ...

Forensic analysis of the fake Heartland 'Climate Strategy Memo ...


https://wattsupwiththat.com/.../professional-forensic-stylometric-analysis-of-the-fake-h...



Mar 14, 2012 - ... proximity, motive, and opportunity, that Dr. Peter Gleick forged the document known as ”Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy.

[h=3]Peter Gleick Admits to Stealing Heartland Documents - Forbes[/h]
[url]https://www.forbes.com/sites/.../peter-gleick-admits-to-stealing-heartland-documents/
[/URL]



Feb 21, 2012 - In a written statement, Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute, and vocal ... extremely strong evidence to consider this document to be a forgery (see ...
 
Jack Hays said:
Nothing to see here. From the FAQ's at WUWT:

[FONT="][B]Q. What about that $44,000 that supposedly came from the Heartland Institute that was written about by document thief Dr. Peter Gleick?[/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]A. First, that didn’t come from Heartland, it came from an independent donor that Heartland helped me find through their networking.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Second, that was specifically for a special project my company is doing to make data from the Climate Reference Network more widely available and easier to view for the layman. Currently NOAA [URL="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/14/the-monthly-report-noaa-never-produces-from-the-climate-reference-network/"]does not include the state of the art Climate Reference Network data in their monthly State of the Climate Reports[/URL], even though it is a superior system. More about this here.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The project was to be funded to completion in 2012, but due to interference by Gleick, that second phase funding seems unlikely to materialize. That said, an effort is being made to complete the project sans that second half funding. Preliminary output maps were highlighted on WUWT [URL="http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/crnmap-monthly-avg-temp-f_stations_national_1920x1080_201209.jpg"]here[/URL]. Year end data for 2012 was announced here. The second phase was to be completed in 2013, and it is hoped that can be done and the finished fully automated website made fully operational and public then.[/FONT]
[FONT="][B]Q. Aren’t you paid to go to Heartland conferences?[/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]A. Yes, and that’s nothing any different from what any other organization does. Like any other invited speaker at a conference, trade show, or conclave, Heartland pays a small honorarium and travel expenses for people they invite to speak at their conferences. For example, Dr. Scott Denning, a scientist who is on the opposite side of the climate debate from me who has spoken at Heartland conferences, got the same honorarium and travel reimbursements that I did. (Update: as of 4/4/2019 I am now listed as a “senior fellow” of Heartland, which means I will be writing and contributing op-ed pieces they will distribute)[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Oh wow, you immediately attempted to support the reliablility of the website that is being shown to be bad, by using that very website. Have you heard about 'circular reasoning'? That is the tactic and trademark of conspiracy theory web sites too ,
 
RAMOSS said:
That is incorrect. He accepts money from the heartland institute.

Who We Are - Anthony Watts | Heartland Institute

So, you claim I lied. I showed he is being paid by the heartland institute.

LEt's see you show my second link or third link was 'bias bloviation', and a 'forgery'.

ANd, then of course, there is

https://theintercept.com/2019/05/16/coal-industry-climate-change-denial-cloud-peak-energy/

A now bankrupt coal company was funding climate denial ism, despite the fact they claimed they didn't. (before they got bankrupted of course.


So far, your attempts to 'refute' my points are failing spectacularly.
Click to expand...

Dare you challenge the credentials of the High Schooler, Watts.:naughty I recall reading about Watts chartering a helicopter (probably using Oil-Money) to discredit some of the Climate Scientists. The intent was to fly over their properties and take photos, proving that the Scientists didn't have renewables. They did this, and started their publicity smear campaign, but the Climate Scientists had purchased from their respective Utilities, the wind energy option, by paying a little more per Kilowatt-Hour used. OOPS!!!
 
RAMOSS said:
Oh wow, you immediately attempted to support the reliablility of the website that is being shown to be bad, by using that very website. Have you heard about 'circular reasoning'? That is the tactic and trademark of conspiracy theory web sites too ,
Click to expand...

You have provided no evidence. I have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom