The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[All Darc]

Tell me if your wife's cousin found any intelligent life form on universe.
If he get it, maybe we could call them to colonize Earth.

And so Earth would be save.

Originally Posted by RedDevil

My wife's cousin is a professor in astrophysics who's primary research field is the detection of exoplanets. He and his team of students have discovered thousands of exoplanets (and confirmed the existence of many more that were detected by others) by studying minute variations in the intensity and spectrum of millions of stars.

If mininovas were a thing he should have encountered them.
It is unthinkable that those are a regular phenomenon to our star, but absent in the millions of stars that surround us. He should know, and if there are mininovas he'll tell me so the next time I see him and ask. He's in Ireland now, so it will take some time.
I'm not expecting anything like that exists though. But I'll ask, we'll see.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

My wife's cousin is a professor in astrophysics who's primary research field is the detection of exoplanets. He and his team of students have discovered thousands of exoplanets (and confirmed the existence of many more that were detected by others) by studying minute variations in the intensity and spectrum of millions of stars.

If mininovas were a thing he should have encountered them.
It is unthinkable that those are a regular phenomenon to our star, but absent in the millions of stars that surround us. He should know, and if there are mininovas he'll tell me so the next time I see him and ask. He's in Ireland now, so it will take some time.
I'm not expecting anything like that exists though. But I'll ask, we'll see.

Yeah,the fella who did the Great Courses,Astronomy series is the chief Ph.D.astronomer at the Green Bank National Radio Astronomy Observatory.He's a career astronomer,who described research down to the molecular/ion /cosmic particle level.
If nano novae existed,I suspect he would not have neglected to share that.
SCIENCE and NATURE routinely feature astronomy,cosmology,astrophysics,and astrochemical articles,and I've yet to see anything about 'nano-novae'.
Nova require the collapse of a super-massive star and it's a one-way trip.You either get a neutron star or a black hole.Conservation of energy forbids a reverse-reaction to a precursor rest state.2nd-law of thermodynamics.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

If mininovas were a thing he should have encountered them.
It is unthinkable that those are a regular phenomenon to our star, but absent in the millions of stars that surround us. He should know, and if there are mininovas he'll tell me so the next time I see him and ask.

Today's Space Weather report from S0 has another candidate for a recurrent nova at 1:20, linking to this report from the European Southern Observatory. Note that this is a regular nova (resulting in a white dwarf) not a micro-nova, which is apparently just a Coronal Mass Ejection on bath salts.

https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1902/

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I don't think a sample size of 40 years is going to show anything useful on a system as large and as complicated as the earth.
Especially since the definition of climate change is change over at least a century time scale.

I can't believe that you believe that makes sense at all.
Do we have to wait for 60 years before we can finally say we killed the climate, as maybe the ice could still magically grow back on?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Today's Space Weather report from S0 has another candidate for a recurrent nova at 1:20, linking to this report from the European Southern Observatory. Note that this is a regular nova (resulting in a white dwarf) not a micro-nova, which is apparently just a Coronal Mass Ejection on bath salts.

https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1902/

This is where I stumble.This 'recurrent' adjective.
Coronal Mass Ejections could occur on a virtually unlimited basis,so there's no problem there,but messengers might not want to relabel them as a new phenomena.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

I can't believe that you believe that makes sense at all.
Do we have to wait for 60 years before we can finally say we killed the climate, as maybe the ice could still magically grow back on?

Last night on PBS' FRONTLINE's COAL's DEADLY DUST, David G. Zatezalo,head of the Mine Safety Health Administration said in effect,that all current coal miners suffering from black lung disease will have to die from exposure to silica fine particulates before silica/cancer 'causation' is proved.
Exactly as Purdue Pharma does with Oxycontin.
Exactly as climate deniers do.
Exactly as Tobacco did.
Exactly as Dalkon Shield did.
Exactly as Thalidomide did
You wouldn't want science to get in the way of making money.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Tell me if your wife's cousin found any intelligent life form on universe.

He must have, as we had many pleasant conversations already

Outside of this planet, no. Some of the spectral bands show a change in markers for certain organic molecules when a planet passes ahead of a star, indicating the atmosphere of the planet must contain a large amount of that. But it goes too far to link urea to intelligent life forms. I see proof of the opposite...

[freebeard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwRTpPRR2Jw

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

We didn't even have instrumented surface buoys with telemetry until fairly recently.
Salinity,density,temperature,surface currents,intermediate currents,deep water currents,seafloor topography,winds,freshwater sources,heat transport,nutrient transport,convection gyres,overturning currents,polynas,upwellings,downwellings,ice cover dynamics,radiative forcings,astronomical forcings,anthrpogenic forcings,ice rubble,icebergs,ice-rafted detritus,etc.,all would have to be captured in realtime and fed into high-resolution models which continue to evolve.
It is complicated.They do the best they can.There are people struggling to hamstring their progress due to the economic implications of what they're learning.
If you want the conspiracy,follow the money.

None of that makes up for having an insignificant sample size.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

I can't believe that you believe that makes sense at all.
Do we have to wait for 60 years before we can finally say we killed the climate, as maybe the ice could still magically grow back on?

If you want real science then yes.
Actually it would need to be more like 100 to 150 years more.
The only climate data that even approachs that sample size is either manipulated to show the desired outcome or thrown out because it doesn't fit the narrative or can't be manipulated.
You have to admit that looks pretty suspicious.