Reply by Anthony William Sloman June 22, 20222022-06-22
On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 1:20:42 PM UTC+2, a a wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 12:54:53 UTC+2, a a wrote: > > On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 11:51:32 UTC+2, whit3rd wrote: > > > On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:31:02 AM UTC-7, a a wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 03:58:30 UTC+2, whit3rd wrote: > > > > > ...where's > > > > > the citation we'd expect of a result from the NASA Solar Physics laboratory, and (for that matter) > > > > > are you really convinced sunspot activity is relevant? > > > > > > > read first > > > > > > > https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/main/index.html > > > > > > No, not going to read an index... you didn't cite a single work, or result, and that makes this an evasion rather than an answer. > > > > > > Solar dynamics isn't significant heat modulation related to global warming. > > > Here's a picture from NASA > > > <https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/> > > > > excellent, excellent > > look again at your chart > > Total Solar Irradiance values are fixed at 1361+/- W/m2 level > > > > What matters is "Total" > > > > Temperature increase by 1 degree C over the span of 100 years, as declared by Prof. Mann
Michael Mann's "hockeystick" covered the past 1000 years, not just the past century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph It's probably one of the best replicated sets of results ever, and has been extended back over the past 20 million years by exploiting other climate proxies.
> > is exactly within calculation/ data collected error.
Rubbish.
> > What matters is Plasma Leaving the Sun and flares, clocking the Climate Changes on the Earth > > > > http://sdoisgo.blogspot.com/2022/03/an-x13-flare-and-cool-view-of-plasma.html > > > > https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/ > > > > There is an only one scientist at NASA, Solar Dynamics, who can tell you the truth behind the coronal loops and plasma leaving the Sun cycles.
So the climate change denial propaganda machine has managed to bribe one of the staff. If you named him, he'd probably get fired.
> > BTW > > Ask your friends from NASA Climate > > to ink image and comments with full name next time.
You need to ask them how they explain the ice-age inter-glacial alternation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles It's all about subtle changes in the earth's orientation, and has nothing to do with sun-spot cycles and solar flares.
> > https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/ > > in reply to low-science Sydney: > > SDO is designed to help us understand the Sun's influence on Earth and Near-Earth space by studying the solar atmosphere on small scales of space and time and in many wavelengths simultaneously. > > https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/ > > https://www.blogger.com/profile/16479620366654056823 > > http://sdoisgo.blogspot.com/ > > http://sdoisgo.blogspot.com/2022/03/an-x13-flare-and-cool-view-of-plasma.html > > Blog Description > This is the Solar Dynamics Observatory Mission blog. It will consist of mission status, news, and event updates.
That's not any kind of reply. Nothing in there that I can see suggests that changes in solar dynamics could explain current global warming or the last couple of million years of ice-age inter-glacial alternation. It's just an ill-informed smoke screen. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by Anthony William Sloman June 22, 20222022-06-22
On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 1:05:18 PM UTC+2, a a wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 12:25:11 UTC+2, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 10:39:46 PM UTC+2, a a wrote: > > > On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 19:48:01 UTC+2, whit3rd wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 5:47:09 AM UTC-7, a a wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > you are completely wrong > > > > a a does like posting claims like that. Since he is an obvious idiot, it is a waste of bandwidth. > > > We all Love Carbon > > > We all Love CO2 > > Only those who are as brain-dead as a a. > > > > <snipped a large chunk of uncomprehended cut and paste which did say anything relevant> > > > > I am really sorry, you represent low science - no science but > > Your sorrow should be directed at you own abysmal ignorance. > > > > <snipped more fatuous nonsense > > > > Water H2O in its gaseous state, or water vapor, is the only greenhouse gas because of its high heat of vaporization > > Water vapour - like gaseous CO2 - is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs and re-radiates specific near-infrared frequencies. Other molecules - like methane - that are active in the infra-red are also green-house gases. > > > > https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C7732185&Mask=800#Electronic-Spec > > > > You've actually got to take the rotational modes into account to work out what the infra-red spectrum actually looks like, and get reliable greenhouse numbers. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius > > > > had the right idea in 1896, but Knut &Aring;ngstr&ouml;m in 1900 published low resolution infrared absorbtion spectra which appeared to show he'd got it wrong. When we finally got spectrometers that could resolve the rotational fine structure, Arrhenius was vindicated, but he was dead by then. > > > > The heat of vapourisation doesn't come into it > > > > <snipped more incoherent raving> > > as you can see, Sydney is low science, making irrelevant claims
The science I've got came from Melbourne, where I got a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry. If you'd got the talent - you clearly don't - you could learn just as much in Sydney.
> --> Water H2O in its gaseous state, or water vapor, is the only greenhouse gas because of its high heat of vaporization. > > <<Water vapour - like gaseous CO2 - is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs and re-radiates specific near-infrared frequencies. Other molecules - like methane - that are active in the infra-red are also green-house gases. > > it doesn't matter! What matters is !!!!
According to a a who clearly doesn't know what he is talking about.
> Water&rsquo;s heat of vaporization is around 540 cal/g at 100 &deg;C, water's boiling point. > > Why does water have a high heat of vaporization? > That is, water has a high heat of vaporization, the amount of energy needed to change one gram of a liquid substance to a gas at constant temperature. Water&rsquo;s heat of vaporization is around 540 cal/g at 100 &deg;C, water's boiling point.
It's all about hydrogen bonding. In liquid water the individual hydrogen atoms are strongly bonded to their particular oxygen atom, but they also bond to adjacent oxygen atoms in adjacent water molecules. This happens to a lesser extent in hydrogen sulphide, but the sulphur atom is bigger and the hydrogen bonding to it corresponding weaker. This has absolutely nothing to do with water's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas. I can't imagine what lunatic delusion has caused you to imagine that it has. In fact the fact that water vapour condenses out of the atmosphere at high altitudes where the air is cold means that the effective radiating altitude for the water infra-red bands is lower than it is for the CO2 bands because there's more CO2 vapour in the upper atmosphere than there is water vapour. The effective radiating altitude for any given infra-red wavelength is the one where a photon of that wavelength has an even chance of getting away into outer space rather than being captured and re-radiated by some molecule or other. Fourier worked out - back in 1824 - that the average temperature of the re-radiating surface of the Earth had to be about -18C. What took a while to become clear was that for a lot of frequencies that re-radiating surface is quite a long way above the surface we stand on, where it's quite a lot colder. Look up "lapse rate" sometime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by a a June 22, 20222022-06-22
On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 12:54:53 UTC+2, a a wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 11:51:32 UTC+2, whit3rd wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:31:02 AM UTC-7, a a wrote: > > > On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 03:58:30 UTC+2, whit3rd wrote: > > > > ...where's > > > > the citation we'd expect of a result from the NASA Solar Physics laboratory, and (for that matter) > > > > are you really convinced sunspot activity is relevant? > > > > > read first > > > > > https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/main/index.html > > No, not going to read an index... you didn't cite a single work, or result, > > and that makes this an evasion rather than an answer. > > > > Solar dynamics isn't significant heat modulation related to global warming. > > Here's a picture from NASA > > <https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/> > excellent, excellent > look again at your chart > Total Solar Irradiance values are fixed at 1361+/- W/m2 level > > What matters is "Total" > > Temperature increase by 1 degree C over the span of 100 years, as declared by Prof. Mann > is exactly within calculation/ data collected error. > > > What matters is Plasma Leaving the Sun and flares, clocking the Climate Changes on the Earth > > http://sdoisgo.blogspot.com/2022/03/an-x13-flare-and-cool-view-of-plasma.html > > https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/ > > > There is an only one scientist at NASA, Solar Dynamics, who can tell you the thruth behind the coronal loops and plasma leaving the Sun cycles > > BTW > Ask your friends from NASA Climate > to ink image and comments with full name next time > > https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/
in reply to low-science Sydney: SDO is designed to help us understand the Sun's influence on Earth and Near-Earth space by studying the solar atmosphere on small scales of space and time and in many wavelengths simultaneously. https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/ https://www.blogger.com/profile/16479620366654056823 http://sdoisgo.blogspot.com/ http://sdoisgo.blogspot.com/2022/03/an-x13-flare-and-cool-view-of-plasma.html Blog Description This is the Solar Dynamics Observatory Mission blog. It will consist of mission status, news, and event updates.
Reply by a a June 22, 20222022-06-22
On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 12:25:11 UTC+2, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 10:39:46 PM UTC+2, a a wrote: > > On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 19:48:01 UTC+2, whit3rd wrote: > > > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 5:47:09 AM UTC-7, a a wrote: > <snip> > > > you are completely wrong > > a a does like posting claims like that. Since he is an obvious idiot, it is a waste of bandwidth. > > We all Love Carbon > > We all Love CO2 > Only those who are as brain-dead as a a. > > <snipped a large chunk of uncomprehended cut and paste which did say anything relevant> > > I am really sorry, you represent low science - no science but > Your sorrow should be directed at you own abysmal ignorance. > > <snipped more fatuous nonsense > > > Water H2O in its gaseous state, or water vapor, is the only greenhouse gas because of its high heat of vaporization > Water vapour - like gaseous CO2 - is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs and re-radiates specific near-infrared frequencies. Other molecules - like methane - that are active in the infra-red are also green-house gases. > > https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C7732185&Mask=800#Electronic-Spec > > You've actually got to take the rotational modes into account to work out what the infra-red spectrum actually looks like, and get reliable greenhouse numbers. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius > > had the right idea in 1896, but Knut &Aring;ngstr&ouml;m in 1900 published low resolution infrared absorbtion spectra which appeared to show he'd got it wrong. When we finally got spectrometers that could resolve the rotational fine structure, Arrhenius was vindicated, but he was dead by then. > > The heat of vapourisation doesn't come into it > > <snipped more incoherent raving> > > -- > Bill Sloman, Sydney
as you can see, Sydney is low science, making irrelevant claims --> Water H2O in its gaseous state, or water vapor, is the only greenhouse gas because of its high heat of vaporization <<Water vapour - like gaseous CO2 - is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs and re-radiates specific near-infrared <<frequencies. Other molecules - like methane - that are active in the infra-red are also green-house gases. it doesn't matter what matters is !!!! Water&rsquo;s heat of vaporization is around 540 cal/g at 100 &deg;C, water's boiling point. Why does water have a high heat of vaporization? That is, water has a high heat of vaporization, the amount of energy needed to change one gram of a liquid substance to a gas at constant temperature. Water&rsquo;s heat of vaporization is around 540 cal/g at 100 &deg;C, water's boiling point.
Reply by a a June 22, 20222022-06-22
On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 11:51:32 UTC+2, whit3rd wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:31:02 AM UTC-7, a a wrote: > > On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 03:58:30 UTC+2, whit3rd wrote: > > > ...where's > > > the citation we'd expect of a result from the NASA Solar Physics laboratory, and (for that matter) > > > are you really convinced sunspot activity is relevant? > > > read first > > > https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/main/index.html > No, not going to read an index... you didn't cite a single work, or result, > and that makes this an evasion rather than an answer. > > Solar dynamics isn't significant heat modulation related to global warming. > Here's a picture from NASA > <https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/>
excellent, excellent look again at your chart Total Solar Irradiance values are fixed at 1361+/- W/m2 level What matters is "Total" Temperature increase by 1 degree C over the span of 100 years, as declared by Prof. Mann is exactly within calculation/ data collected error. What matters is Plasma Leaving the Sun and flares, clocking the Climate Changes on the Earth http://sdoisgo.blogspot.com/2022/03/an-x13-flare-and-cool-view-of-plasma.html https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/ There is an only one scientist at NASA, Solar Dynamics, who can tell you the thruth behind the coronal loops and plasma leaving the Sun cycles BTW Ask your friends from NASA Climate to ink image and comments with full name next time https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/
Reply by Anthony William Sloman June 22, 20222022-06-22
On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 10:39:46 PM UTC+2, a a wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 19:48:01 UTC+2, whit3rd wrote: > > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 5:47:09 AM UTC-7, a a wrote:
<snip>
> you are completely wrong
a a does like posting claims like that. Since he is an obvious idiot, it is a waste of bandwidth.
> We all Love Carbon > We all Love CO2
Only those who are as brain-dead as a a. <snipped a large chunk of uncomprehended cut and paste which did say anything relevant>
> I am really sorry, you represent low science - no science but
Your sorrow should be directed at you own abysmal ignorance. <snipped more fatuous nonsense >
> Water H2O in its gaseous state, or water vapor, is the only greenhouse gas because of its high heat of vaporization
Water vapour - like gaseous CO2 - is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs and re-radiates specific near-infrared frequencies. Other molecules - like methane - that are active in the infra-red are also green-house gases. https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C7732185&Mask=800#Electronic-Spec You've actually got to take the rotational modes into account to work out what the infra-red spectrum actually looks like, and get reliable greenhouse numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius had the right idea in 1896, but Knut &Aring;ngstr&ouml;m in 1900 published low resolution infrared absorbtion spectra which appeared to show he'd got it wrong. When we finally got spectrometers that could resolve the rotational fine structure, Arrhenius was vindicated, but he was dead by then. The heat of vapourisation doesn't come into it <snipped more incoherent raving> -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by whit3rd June 22, 20222022-06-22
On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 2:31:02 AM UTC-7, a a wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 03:58:30 UTC+2, whit3rd wrote:
> > ...where's > > the citation we'd expect of a result from the NASA Solar Physics laboratory, and (for that matter) > > are you really convinced sunspot activity is relevant?
> read first
> https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/main/index.html
No, not going to read an index... you didn't cite a single work, or result, and that makes this an evasion rather than an answer. Solar dynamics isn't significant heat modulation related to global warming. Here's a picture from NASA <https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/>
Reply by a a June 22, 20222022-06-22
On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 03:58:30 UTC+2, whit3rd wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 1:39:46 PM UTC-7, a a wrote: > > On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 19:48:01 UTC+2, whit3rd wrote: > > > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 5:47:09 AM UTC-7, a a wrote: > > > > > > > Climate Change is an old fake by Al Gore, Prof. Mann and their team to make money fast. > > > False, of course. Al Gore had some election-year lies aimed that way, and as for 'make money', > > > all Mann got was some frivolous lawsuits. The court had his legal team's fees reimbursed > > > by the jackals that brought the suit against him. The court did that because the suits > > > were found to be 'barratry', rather than being serious complaints. > > > > > > > Freon is another fake. > > > > > > Not so; that's a DuPont tradename for fluorocarbon products, under worldwide ban > > > due to ozone depletion. > > > > > Climate is clocked by solar activity and by fluctuations in solar activity. > > > > 'clocked by'??? Climate is affected by solar heat (influx of heat dominates during the day) and > > > radiative cooling (heat dissipates into space, dominates the heatflow at night). The steady-state > > > average temperature isn't proportional to anything the Sun does, but is set by the difference of > > > those two heat flows (the difference is zero when steady-state temperature is achieved). > > > So, your identification of 'solar activity' is only a half-truth at best, and in most literature, > > > 'solar activity' only means sunspot fluctuations, not solar heat output. Indeed, the solar > > > heat output is set by fusion rates in the sun's center, many thousands of miles away from > > > the photosphere where we see sunspots. > > > > > So it's a waste of time and money to study Climate Change, living on the Earth, if you can easily study fluctuations in solar activity to get science on what really controls the Climate. > > > > Utterance of nonsense is detected. Agriculture, forestry, water resources, sea life are all being hurt > > > by climate change, and gazing at Mr.Sun isn't a rational plan to deal with it. > > > you are completely wrong > Okay, where? Zero details? It sounds like a lame excuse for a lack of criticism. > > > > We all Love Carbon > > That's an odd perversion; diamonds are pretty, though. > > > We all Love CO2 > > Live with it, yes; also a few other gasses. > > > > The balance of soil carbon is held in peat and wetlands (150 GtC), and ... > > and temporary surface repositories are not part of the carbon cycle in the atmosphere versus Earth's > crust, because they can go either up or down (they're inbetween, available to burn or get buried). > > GHG - greenhouse gas emissions is an old fake and political agenda developed by US politicians to kill China economy > There's an agenda around it, nowadays, and politicians. The US can (and has) developed bits, > as have other nations; 192 of 'em if I remember the Paris Accords count. > > but China mirorred the attack and turned himself into reduced emissions Global Factory > > in green technologies like solar panels, wind turbines > It wasn't an attack. China is one of the 192 that joined the Paris Accord, and as you > say they're developing bits of their own agenda, as well as exporting bits. > > Climate Change is clocked by fluctuations in solar activity Agenda > > is backed today by NASA (Solar Lab) and others with public money, not coming from Russia. > Not true. Studied by solar scientists, yes; but what does 'clocked' mean? And, where's > the citation we'd expect of a result from the NASA Solar Physics laboratory, and (for that matter) > are you really convinced sunspot activity is relevant?
visit NASA&rsquo;s Solar Dynamics Observatory one day https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/main/index.html https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Reply by a a June 22, 20222022-06-22
On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 03:58:30 UTC+2, whit3rd wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 1:39:46 PM UTC-7, a a wrote: > > On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 19:48:01 UTC+2, whit3rd wrote: > > > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 5:47:09 AM UTC-7, a a wrote: > > > > > > > Climate Change is an old fake by Al Gore, Prof. Mann and their team to make money fast. > > > False, of course. Al Gore had some election-year lies aimed that way, and as for 'make money', > > > all Mann got was some frivolous lawsuits. The court had his legal team's fees reimbursed > > > by the jackals that brought the suit against him. The court did that because the suits > > > were found to be 'barratry', rather than being serious complaints. > > > > > > > Freon is another fake. > > > > > > Not so; that's a DuPont tradename for fluorocarbon products, under worldwide ban > > > due to ozone depletion. > > > > > Climate is clocked by solar activity and by fluctuations in solar activity. > > > > 'clocked by'??? Climate is affected by solar heat (influx of heat dominates during the day) and > > > radiative cooling (heat dissipates into space, dominates the heatflow at night). The steady-state > > > average temperature isn't proportional to anything the Sun does, but is set by the difference of > > > those two heat flows (the difference is zero when steady-state temperature is achieved). > > > So, your identification of 'solar activity' is only a half-truth at best, and in most literature, > > > 'solar activity' only means sunspot fluctuations, not solar heat output. Indeed, the solar > > > heat output is set by fusion rates in the sun's center, many thousands of miles away from > > > the photosphere where we see sunspots. > > > > > So it's a waste of time and money to study Climate Change, living on the Earth, if you can easily study fluctuations in solar activity to get science on what really controls the Climate. > > > > Utterance of nonsense is detected. Agriculture, forestry, water resources, sea life are all being hurt > > > by climate change, and gazing at Mr.Sun isn't a rational plan to deal with it. > > > you are completely wrong > Okay, where? Zero details? It sounds like a lame excuse for a lack of criticism. > > > > We all Love Carbon > > That's an odd perversion; diamonds are pretty, though. > > > We all Love CO2 > > Live with it, yes; also a few other gasses. > > > > The balance of soil carbon is held in peat and wetlands (150 GtC), and ... > > and temporary surface repositories are not part of the carbon cycle in the atmosphere versus Earth's > crust, because they can go either up or down (they're inbetween, available to burn or get buried). > > GHG - greenhouse gas emissions is an old fake and political agenda developed by US politicians to kill China economy > There's an agenda around it, nowadays, and politicians. The US can (and has) developed bits, > as have other nations; 192 of 'em if I remember the Paris Accords count. > > but China mirorred the attack and turned himself into reduced emissions Global Factory > > in green technologies like solar panels, wind turbines > It wasn't an attack. China is one of the 192 that joined the Paris Accord, and as you > say they're developing bits of their own agenda, as well as exporting bits. > > Climate Change is clocked by fluctuations in solar activity Agenda > > is backed today by NASA (Solar Lab) and others with public money, not coming from Russia. > Not true. Studied by solar scientists, yes; but what does 'clocked' mean? And, where's > the citation we'd expect of a result from the NASA Solar Physics laboratory, and (for that matter) > are you really convinced sunspot activity is relevant?
read first https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/main/index.html We All love Carbon We All Love CO2 CO2 is Plant Food Plants are Animal Food Animals are Human Food
Reply by a a June 22, 20222022-06-22
On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 03:58:30 UTC+2, whit3rd wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 1:39:46 PM UTC-7, a a wrote: > > On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 at 19:48:01 UTC+2, whit3rd wrote: > > > On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 5:47:09 AM UTC-7, a a wrote: > > > > > > > Climate Change is an old fake by Al Gore, Prof. Mann and their team to make money fast. > > > False, of course. Al Gore had some election-year lies aimed that way, and as for 'make money', > > > all Mann got was some frivolous lawsuits. The court had his legal team's fees reimbursed > > > by the jackals that brought the suit against him. The court did that because the suits > > > were found to be 'barratry', rather than being serious complaints. > > > > > > > Freon is another fake. > > > > > > Not so; that's a DuPont tradename for fluorocarbon products, under worldwide ban > > > due to ozone depletion. > > > > > Climate is clocked by solar activity and by fluctuations in solar activity. > > > > 'clocked by'??? Climate is affected by solar heat (influx of heat dominates during the day) and > > > radiative cooling (heat dissipates into space, dominates the heatflow at night). The steady-state > > > average temperature isn't proportional to anything the Sun does, but is set by the difference of > > > those two heat flows (the difference is zero when steady-state temperature is achieved). > > > So, your identification of 'solar activity' is only a half-truth at best, and in most literature, > > > 'solar activity' only means sunspot fluctuations, not solar heat output. Indeed, the solar > > > heat output is set by fusion rates in the sun's center, many thousands of miles away from > > > the photosphere where we see sunspots. > > > > > So it's a waste of time and money to study Climate Change, living on the Earth, if you can easily study fluctuations in solar activity to get science on what really controls the Climate. > > > > Utterance of nonsense is detected. Agriculture, forestry, water resources, sea life are all being hurt > > > by climate change, and gazing at Mr.Sun isn't a rational plan to deal with it. > > > you are completely wrong > Okay, where? Zero details? It sounds like a lame excuse for a lack of criticism. > > > > We all Love Carbon > > That's an odd perversion; diamonds are pretty, though. > > > We all Love CO2 > > Live with it, yes; also a few other gasses. > > > > The balance of soil carbon is held in peat and wetlands (150 GtC), and ... > > and temporary surface repositories are not part of the carbon cycle in the atmosphere versus Earth's > crust, because they can go either up or down (they're inbetween, available to burn or get buried). > > GHG - greenhouse gas emissions is an old fake and political agenda developed by US politicians to kill China economy > There's an agenda around it, nowadays, and politicians. The US can (and has) developed bits, > as have other nations; 192 of 'em if I remember the Paris Accords count. > > but China mirorred the attack and turned himself into reduced emissions Global Factory > > in green technologies like solar panels, wind turbines > It wasn't an attack. China is one of the 192 that joined the Paris Accord, and as you > say they're developing bits of their own agenda, as well as exporting bits. > > Climate Change is clocked by fluctuations in solar activity Agenda > > is backed today by NASA (Solar Lab) and others with public money, not coming from Russia. > Not true. Studied by solar scientists, yes; but what does 'clocked' mean? And, where's > the citation we'd expect of a result from the NASA Solar Physics laboratory, and (for that matter) > are you really convinced sunspot activity is relevant?
every troll is free to contact NASA Solar Lab directly to get data on - solar storn - solar flares - solar radiation - sunspots What is NASA's Parker Solar Probe? NASA&rsquo;s Parker Solar Probe will be the first-ever mission to "touch" the Sun. The spacecraft, about the size of a small car, will travel directly into the Sun's atmosphere about 4 million miles from the surface. Parker Solar Probe launched aboard a Delta IV-Heavy rocket from Cape Canaveral, Aug. 12, 2018 at 3:31 a.m. Eastern time. ==we'd expect of a result from the NASA Solar Physics laboratory, and (for that matter) ---are you really convinced sunspot activity is relevant? https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/ https://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/heliophysics/solar/ Overview The Solar Physics Laboratory works to understand the Sun as a star and as the primary driver of activity throughout the solar system. Our research expands knowledge of the Earth-Sun system and helps to enable robotic and human exploration. We develop innovative instruments and mission concepts, theoretical models, and techniques to access and analyze data. The Laboratory provides project scientists for NASA missions, assists with strategic planning and mission definition, and communicates research results to the international scientific community and the public. Contact Us General inquiries about the scientific programs at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center may be directed to the Office of Communications at 1.301.286.8955.