The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by niky

Dark Matter is just a placeholder. A scientific way of saying: "Here there be something but we don't know what the hell it is, and we're not going to say 'Dragons' because that could be wrong. So we're going to call it Dark Matter because we know some kind of Matter is there, but we can't see it."Dark Matter is just a placeholder. A scientific way of saying: "Here there be something but we don't know what the hell it is, and we're not going to say 'Dragons' because that could be wrong. So we're going to call it Dark Matter because we know some kind of Matter is there, but we can't see it."

My main source is Suspicious 0bservers, and he refers to Covert Matter. It's interstellar dust. Apparently silicate dust is harder to identify than carbon dust.

[oil pan 4]

In the 1990s and early 2000s it was global warming was going to kill us all with in the next 20 years if we didn't do exactly what they said starting right away, lots of near future dooms day predictions, for example "the polar ice caps will be melted by 2010", "events like katrina will become a regular occurrence" and my personal favorite the one that made me love global warming "snowy winters will soon be a thing of the past".
I wanted to believe.

After all their predictions failed it was called "climate change" and instead of killing us immediately the language changed to more of "what kind of world will we leave our grand childern" and "global warming can cause it to snow more and be colder". This made a lot of people suspect that the believers didn't know what they we talking about. For the narrative to be correct it's still relying on a fairly rapid overall warming trend.

My near future prediction for remaining 20-teens and 2020 and beyond they are going to be actively suppressing any evidence and suggestions of global cooling, even as global wide crop failures due to unseasonably cold cause food shortages over seas and the wide variety of relatively cheap year round fresh produce we enjoy here in the US starts to decline.

[NeilBlanchard]

There is no debate that humans are causing the climate to change, by burning fossil fuel.

All the evidence indicate this.

Check the title of this thread. And the article linked in the first post: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.../9/094025/meta

[oil pan 4]

As the sun goes into a grand solar minimum and the climate cools off, they will still insist man is the driving force behind all climate change.

To clarify we are in solar cycle 24, cycle 24 has a few years left before 25 starts, solar cycle 25 is expected to have a very weak solar maximum. 26 is expected to barely happen.

[freebeard]

There is no debate that humans caused the climate to change, by herding cattle.

[All Darc]

What is Sun's lifespan?
It already have some billion years old. It dies when runs off when fuel (hydrogen is finished).
I presume it today have less hydrogen than 160 million years ago.

Would be right to presume that with less hydrogen it activity it's not the same ?

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

As the sun goes into a grand solar minimum and the climate cools off, they will still insist man is the driving force behind all climate change.

To clarify we are in solar cycle 24, cycle 24 has a few years left before 25 starts, solar cycle 25 is expected to have a very weak solar maximum. 26 is expected to barely happen.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

What is Sun's lifespan?
It already have some billion years old. It dies when runs off when fuel (hydrogen is finished).
I presume it today have less hydrogen than 160 million years ago.

Would be right to presume that with less hydrogen it activity it's not the same ?

The sun consumes 5 billion Kg of hydrogen per second, and the rate changes over time. Long before the sun runs out of fuel, it will expand in size and consume the nearby planets including Earth.

The important question isn't how long will the sun last, but rather how long will it radiate energy hospitable to human life.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by CR

Would be right to presume that with less hydrogen it activity it's not the same ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layers...rgy_production

Core
The core is the only region in the Sun that produces an appreciable amount of thermal energy through fusion; 99% of the power is generated within 24% of the Sun's radius, and by 30% of the radius, fusion has stopped nearly entirely. The remainder of the Sun is heated by this energy as it is transferred outwards through many successive layers, finally to the solar photosphere where it escapes into space as sunlight or the kinetic energy of particles.
...[snip the science]...
Theoretical models of the Sun's interior indicate a power density of approximately 276.5 W/m3,[86] a value that more nearly approximates that of reptile metabolism or a compost pile[87] than of a thermonuclear bomb.
______

Atmosphere
During a total solar eclipse, the solar corona can be seen with the naked eye, during the brief period of totality.

During a total solar eclipse, when the disk of the Sun is covered by that of the Moon, parts of the Sun's surrounding atmosphere can be seen. It is composed of four distinct parts: the chromosphere, the transition region, the corona and the heliosphere.

The coolest layer of the Sun is a temperature minimum region extending to about 500 km above the photosphere, and has a temperature of about 4,100 K....

The chromosphere, transition region, and corona are much hotter than the surface of the Sun.[93] The reason is not well understood, but evidence suggests that Alfvén waves may have enough energy to heat the corona.[99]

TLDR; Space Weather.

Coincidently, the other day in the grocery store parking lot I saw a Toyota Corona. It had Celica mags and sticker-bombed rear windows.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by All Darc

What is Sun's lifespan?

Earth will be in the habitable zone for at least another 200 million years. Possibly as much as 500 million years.

[All Darc]

How it was 2 billion years ago, is the question.
And perhaps how it was 120 million years ago.

5 billion kg of fusion hydrogen per second... Holly s... it would be more than the estimated solar power the sun produced. Such energy in nuclear fusion, in 1 second, it's the humanity take in 1000 years.

I think the nuclear fusion energy in a second it's way more high than the ligh solar energy sun produces in 1 second. Maybe a lot of zeros in right side of the number.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The sun consumes 5 billion Kg of hydrogen per second, and the rate changes over time. Long before the sun runs out of fuel, it will expand in size and consume the nearby planets including Earth.

The important question isn't how long will the sun last, but rather how long will it radiate energy hospitable to human life.