Comments on: Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:14:06 +0000

The tiny ‘pore’ that was briefly observed the 22nd August, was measured by Bill Livingston to have a magnetic field of only 1931 Gauss, thus being right on the continued downward trend line [towards oblivion in 2015 :-) ].

By: Boats Fishing Boats Boat Seats

Boats Fishing Boats Boat Seats — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:57:02 +0000

Boats Fishing Boats Boat Seats…

I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me…

By: Livingston and Penn paper: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″. « Watts Up With That?

Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:50:41 +0000

[...] previously highlighted a news story on this paper on May 21st, but didn’t have the actual paper until now. If anyone has an update to this paper, which [...]

By: Pamela Gray

Pamela Gray — Mon, 26 May 2008 15:16:45 +0000

Solar flux is now at 68. It can go as low as 50 but I don’t believe it has yet during cycle 23. During activity peak, flux can rise to 300 or more, which it hasn’t for quite some time, and I don’t think it ever did during cycle 23. As quiet as it is now, the sun is not yet in rem sleep. When it does laps into its deep sleep it may be groggy from such a deep slumber for many cycles. This winter will be extraordinarily cold and you can kiss your ham radio buddies goodby for a while.

By: Bruce Cobb

Bruce Cobb — Mon, 26 May 2008 13:41:42 +0000

AGW isn’t even a theory, but a quasi-religious belief system based on a long-discredited hypothesis. The belief in AGW is fundamentally anti-science, very much like creationism.

By: Pamela Gray

Pamela Gray — Mon, 26 May 2008 12:56:16 +0000

I could use a bit of 2XCO2 right now ‘cuz I am flat out of cut wood for my stove.

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Sat, 24 May 2008 05:30:24 +0000

Bob B said: “But he is human and has displayed a small amount of preference in my opinion to the AGW theory”.
I don’t think this statement makes much sense. One cannot have a ‘small’ preference. If AWG says that 2XCO2 gives 4 degrees of warming and I say it gives 0.04 degrees, then that is a small amount, but most AGW’ers would not accept that as being AGW. It is like being a little bit pregnant. You either are or you aren’t.

By: Paulidan

Paulidan — Fri, 23 May 2008 22:12:12 +0000

They publish by the internet, repository of all suppressed knowledge.

By: Still Waiting For Sunspots | And Still I Persist

Still Waiting For Sunspots | And Still I Persist — Fri, 23 May 2008 17:56:56 +0000

[...] write up for an actual scientist (instead of an eccentric crackpot like me) go read “Sunspot cycle more dud than radiation flood” at the excellent Watts Up With That? Share this site with your favorite social bookmark [...]

By: Jim Arndt

Jim Arndt — Fri, 23 May 2008 16:44:36 +0000

Pamela,

I like Basil’s quote. ” if you torture the data long enough it will tell you what you want.”

By: Wondering Aloud

Wondering Aloud — Fri, 23 May 2008 16:32:11 +0000

Sorry Leif, I must not have read everything closely enough, I saw his comment as just being about the tendancy to hold AGW by CO2 to a much lower standard than any other idea.

I was not addressing that thought at you or anyone in particular it is just a general observation. I have no reason to think you do it more than any of us and I missed whatever was said that made you come to that conclusion. I was apparently typing my comment at the same time you were typing yours right above it and mine was not a comment on it but only on the fact that I think there is a double standard that is messing up the entire discussion.

I don’t know what causes climate to vary the way it does, but it is pretty clear that Carbon Dioxide is not the driver in the paleo record. This makes me mighty skeptical of all the hype.

By: Bob B

Bob B — Fri, 23 May 2008 13:34:16 +0000

I have been following Leif’s posts on CA and he has answered a number of my questions. I have found he has been a very good teacher to those interested in Solar Science. In my opinion he has demonstrated extreme patience and has tried to be dispassionate about AGW. But he is human and has displayed a small amount of preference in my opinion to the AGW theory. But I believe he is open and about as objective as a human could be.

REPLY: I agree and Leif is welcome to post here any time – Anthony

By: Pamela Gray

Pamela Gray — Fri, 23 May 2008 13:18:32 +0000

Who was it that said, “When some people think they are thinking, they are really just rearranging their prejudices.”

Love that saying.

By: Leif Svalgaard

Leif Svalgaard — Thu, 22 May 2008 19:13:21 +0000

Response to Wondering Aloud: That may be true, but that is not Mark’s point. His point is to accuse me of that. If A has a scientific point, then B can dispute the science or can try to cast doubt of A’s point by attacking A’s character. This is what is wrong with that ‘double standard’ remark.

By: Wondering Aloud

Wondering Aloud — Thu, 22 May 2008 18:50:40 +0000

Mark W above makes a point I think should be taken to heart. The double standard applied betwen the hypothesis you want to be true and a competing explanation is very notable in this CO2 vs CR issue. especially regarding the supposed feedback effects.

I don’t think there is any way a strong positive feedback for CO2 increase can be honestly reconciled with the paleo record.