Scientists: 'Huge Space Storm' Will Cause Devastation

[TexUs]

Because it's monumental waste of time? Because the same people keep asking for the same information over and over again? Nah, global conspiracy is funner. Yes, funner.

Or how about because NASA's own data discredits it?

LOL, this is the stuff you won't hear from the news. If you actually take the time to research it (I did), it's amazing how baseless their claims are. I was particularly surprised when I ran across nasa.gov websites which discredit the entire theory with historical satellite data. Your global warming "scientists" like to use ground-based (IE: fluctuating) temperature methods versus using satellites that take temperatures based on the atmosphere as a whole. NASA's data shows we've been in a long cooling trend. But again, you actually have to research it for yourself instead of blindly taking what they tell you.
Did you know increases in carbon always equate to cooling trends? Again- not something the news will tell you. It's pseudo-science.

It's a run for money, nothing more. Global cooling just stopped being popular back in the 90s, after everyone called their BS "science". A decade later, the same scare tactic run for money exists today in global warming.

Part of me wonders, as well, when these "scientists" will discover the obvious: the earth has warming and cooling cycles.




Something like this falls into the same category. It's a run for money. NASA wants to become relevant, and relevant entities receive money.
This stuff isn't unusual, it happens. It's normal. Those cycles of 11 years you heard about? Do you happen to remember in 2002 all the electronics dying off from the last one? No? Didn't think so. What about in 1991??? No? Didn't think so.

 

[Matrices]

Yes, TexUs, I am sure that you in your infinite wisdom have greater knowledge about climate change than the entire international scientific community, which has reached a broad, overwhelming consensus that global warming - man-accelerated and exacerbated - is a real phenomenon. I don't know why you keep going on about NASA, as if it alone has spoken on the issue. There is, in the most literal sense of the word, almost no scientist or scientific institution that denies global warming as a serious problem.

You throw out hilariously flimsy and vague ideas that NASA or other scientists have concocted global warming as some kind of money-making scheme. This idea is just beyond fatuous. Scientists don't make millions of dollars, and why would they want to waste millions of dollars on researching things they know are fake? As if the entire field of scientific inquiry would die out and they'd lose their jobs if global warming was not an issue?

Get real. If you're looking for monetary incentives to believe in lies, you should be looking at global warming deniers. The people who have the greatest incentive to pretend global warming is fake are conservatives and the corporations they support; they make hundreds of billions of dollars doing business "as is" and don't want to deal with environmental regulation and changes that would cost them money and business. Any honest person has to realize that there is a huge monetary incentive for big business to fund anti-global warming forces, because the entire business models of most corporations relies on the conventional, cheap, and energy-inefficient way of doing things.

 

[TexUs]

Three words:
CAP AND TRADE.

You don't think anyone will profit (And already has)? I feel sad for you.



I won't argue with someone that takes the approach "those in high places have decided for me... Surely if THEY believe it it must be true!"... Again, stop being a sheep, go and research it yourself.

 

[HOCP4ME]

Something like this falls into the same category. It's a run for money. NASA wants to become relevant, and relevant entities receive money.
This stuff isn't unusual, it happens. It's normal. Those cycles of 11 years you heard about? Do you happen to remember in 2002 all the electronics dying off from the last one? No? Didn't think so. What about in 1991??? No? Didn't think so.

I'd have to say this is probably more of a case of the media exaggerating scientific facts in an attempt to make a big story.

My guess is that the media has turned, "next sunspot cycle may be slightly more intense than the previous one; might affect some satellites," into, "entire electrical grid at risk of destruction in 2013 due to unprecendented solar activity; it happened in 1859, it can happen again!"

Same thing with global warming, really. Someone noticed that if you put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, it traps more heat; who knew? Whether that has any significance in the grand scheme of things has been lost in media and politics.

 

[Matrices]

Three words:
CAP AND TRADE.

You don't think anyone will profit (And already has)? I feel sad for you.



I won't argue with someone that takes the approach "those in high places have decided for me... Surely if THEY believe it it must be true!"... Again, stop being a sheep, go and research it yourself.

Okay, sure, so get back to me once you have an advanced degree in science and standing at a reputable institution. There is a difference between being sheep and being arrogant; someone who spends five minutes looking some shit up on a website and decides they know better than all the scholars in a given field is not some kind of brave rebel bucking the establishment, they're just foolish.

 

[srangara]

Or how about because NASA's own data discredits it?

LOL, this is the stuff you won't hear from the news. If you actually take the time to research it (I did), it's amazing how baseless their claims are. I was particularly surprised when I ran across nasa.gov websites which discredit the entire theory with historical satellite data. Your global warming "scientists" like to use ground-based (IE: fluctuating) temperature methods versus using satellites that take temperatures based on the atmosphere as a whole. NASA's data shows we've been in a long cooling trend. But again, you actually have to research it for yourself instead of blindly taking what they tell you.
Did you know increases in carbon always equate to cooling trends? Again- not something the news will tell you. It's pseudo-science.

It's a run for money, nothing more. Global cooling just stopped being popular back in the 90s, after everyone called their BS "science". A decade later, the same scare tactic run for money exists today in global warming.

Part of me wonders, as well, when these "scientists" will discover the obvious: the earth has warming and cooling cycles.

Something like this falls into the same category. It's a run for money. NASA wants to become relevant, and relevant entities receive money.
This stuff isn't unusual, it happens. It's normal. Those cycles of 11 years you heard about? Do you happen to remember in 2002 all the electronics dying off from the last one? No? Didn't think so. What about in 1991??? No? Didn't think so.

NASA's own data: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

Feel free to state that NASA has buckled to pressure from the Great Global Warming Conspirators. All seriousness aside, it's just easier that way.

It also appears you missed the point of the article that solar flare incidence peaks about every 11 years while magnetic activity peaks every 22. The solar flare index was thus relatively low in 2002. As for 1991, yes, I did notice that MUDding on dial-up sucked but I had assumed I didn't have a cell phone because they weren't available in my area. I will now blame sunspots for both problems.

 

[TexUs]

Okay, sure, so get back to me once you have an advanced degree in science and standing at a reputable institution. There is a difference between being sheep and being arrogant; someone who spends five minutes looking some shit up on a website and decides they know better than all the scholars in a given field is not some kind of brave rebel bucking the establishment, they're just foolish.

Considering this was my thesis perhaps you'd re-evaluate your claim

NASA's own data: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

Feel free to state that NASA has buckled to pressure from the Great Global Warming Conspirators. All seriousness aside, it's just easier that way.

I'll have to lookup the link sometime (on a PC I don't have access to ATM), but what I was referencing was the satellite's temperature readings over the past many decades.

 

[srangara]

I'll have to lookup the link sometime (on a PC I don't have access to ATM), but what I was referencing was the satellite's temperature readings over the past many decades.

It looks like NASA's GISS climate model takes the solar cycle into account when incorporating those temps, so what you end up with is the net forcing. Here are a couple of the graphs:

This is just the summary, you understand. The raw data is available elsewhere on the site, including the recent decreases in solar activity to go along with your reduced temps.

 

[Rembrandt]

It is true a big CME is coming our way but no one knows exactly what year it will happen. The big one will be a lot stronger than the one NASA is predicting. We have 2 previous know major CME strikes. The one mentioned in 1859 that literally set on fire Moris code wires and destroyed at least one receiving station. The other lesser known major CME storm was approximately 150 years before that. It is estimated it destroyed about half the compasses in the world. The only way they found out about it was looking in shipping company books from England, France and Spain that have still survived. They all say the same thing with the same dating. If you go back another 150 years, there would not have been anything that a big CME could have hurt so there is no record.

If a CME with the magnitude of the one in 1859 hit us, humanity would be decimated almost overnight. Imagine no running water, no electricity, no heat and no transportation. Every utility plant and factory would come to a screeching halt because there is a silicon wafer in everything that makes them work. Every car and truck would be useless and no way to transport water and food. No tractors to harvest the food.

 

[tygrus]

"auroras should be nice" bet the digital camera would not be working and I'd have to find an old mechanical SLR with no electronic focus, exposure etc.

There will be hot and cold spots in terms of areas affected. Some areas will have no damage, others with a lot. Does being on the opposite side not facing the sun at the time protect you ?

There are ways to hot wire, isolate or manually operate motors/pumps/fans used to keep our power,gas,water flowing.

Can the farms keep their equipment in the large sheds or thrown a bit of chicken wire mesh over their tractors to protect from EMP etc.

Are CD/DVD/BD affected ? Will digital magnetic drives or analog/digital tape be affected ? Will FLASH or EEPROM's be affected ?

Can we store the critical data (\Governement/DOD/DOJ files?) etched into gold disks like having higher density stone tablets that last thousands of years?

 

[Monkey34]

Glad I don't have any kids yet.

Go ahead and spawn 10 or 20..........it won't matter anyway right?