Study suggests our sun could unleash a long-overdue catastrophic superflare this century

[Darth Shiv]

And the coastlines will be underwater by the year 2010.

As usual you clowns not only misread but misquote. Firstly he said IF CO2 LEVELS DOUBLED. He did NOT say they were going to. He was stating the consequences of CO2 doubling. So this is YOUR illiteracy causing you to say his claim was wrong. He did NOT say what you are claiming.

Secondly, his own actual modeling in that very paper showed that event was unlikely. So it's hilarious complete clowns like you run with stuff when the real issue is your inability to read scientific publications properly.

 

[toooooot]

There is an old book by François Bordes about sun dying and humanity trying to survive this catastrophe. I enjoyed it a lot.

 

[JamesBlond]

And the coastlines will be underwater by the year 2010.

I get you man, these *****s predicting everything...
although interesting enought the guys in charge of Weather Modification have predicted the 41 out of 41 of the biggest storms in History acurately.... Imagine they didnt exist... 41 mega storms would not exist if you get my drift

 

[JamesBlond]

There is an old book by François Bordes about sun dying and humanity trying to survive this catastrophe. I enjoyed it a lot.

There are better books... much better

 

[bviktor]

I have seen proposal to give Mars an artificial magnetic field, by way of a large electromagnet stationed at its L1 point. Perhaps such a thing should be considered for Earth as well, to provide an extra layer of protection against such solar flares.

We can "consider" it, but we can't build it.

 

[Endymio]

As usual you clowns not only misread but misquote. Firstly he said IF CO2 LEVELS DOUBLED. He did NOT say they were going to. He was stating the consequences of CO2 doubling. So this is YOUR illiteracy causing you to say his claim was wrong. He did NOT say what you are claiming.

Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. In 1988, Dr. James Hansen -- the "father of global warming" -- gave an interview to the Washington Post in which he was asked what the view outside his NYC office window would be like in 30-40 years. He replied:

"...West Side Highway will be under water ... and there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change...."

30 years later, Hansen now claims he was talking about a "hypothetical" doubling of CO2. That is of course absurd. There is no possible way CO2 levels could double in that time period, or even double that. Even our worst-case assumptions for CO2 emissions since 1988 were exceeded by several hundred percent, and yet levels have only increased 18%.

 

[michalcz]

So basically Skynet will first wipe humanity and then the sun will wipe Skynet.

 

[kaosken]

Thank you for the fear porn!

 

[Crabjuice]

LOL, what? The link below is just a tiny sliver of the dire predictions made in the last 50 years, from sources ranging from NASA to "world-famous scientific experts" quoted in the NY Times. There's a few in there from the '80s about "entire nations" being underwater from sea level rise, and the 'father of global warming' himself -- Dr. James Hansen -- predicting NYC would be submerged in 30 years.

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute

Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and...

cei.org

Lol indeed.

1. Hansen was misquoted in that article. (Salon) The book the quote was taken from has him talking about the effects of doubled CO2 levels over 40 years. That's a CO2 level which we won’t reach for many years. So yeah, no one was predicting the coast lines would be underwater by 2010.

 

[Crabjuice]

The positive effects of warming will almost certainly outweigh the negatives.

How are you so sure about that?

 

[Crabjuice]

(and no, DDT doesnt' kill birds).

Incorrect.

Ban of DDT and subsequent recovery of Reproduction in bald eagles - PubMed

Reproduction of bald eagles in northwestern Ontario declined from 1.26 young per breeding area in 1966 to a low of 0.46 in 1974 and then increased to 1.12 in 1981. Residues of DDE in addled eggs showed a significant inverse relation, confirming the effects of this toxicant on bald eagle...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

DDT Still Killing Birds in Michigan

A chemical plant-turned-Superfund site may be to blame

www.scientificamerican.com

Even this article, https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-truth-about-ddt-and-silent-spring" which is critical of Rachel Carson states:

"it can cause many bird species to produce eggshells that are thinner and therefore more fragile. This effect has been linked to reduced populations of certain bird species, especially “raptors, waterfowl, passerines, and nonpasserine ground birds.”"

 

[scavengerspc]

@Crabjuice
To be honest, take everything he says with a huge grain of salt.
Even when posting "proof" if you read what he puts up, there is often little to no connection to the claim it was supposed to prove. Just check my posts above.

 

[Endymio]

Incorrect.

Incorrect. All experimental studies that subjected birds to DDT -- including ones where they were force-fed DDT doses 50X larger than any bird in the wild had ever received -- showed no increased mortality and no eggshell thinning. None.

Even worse, during the period of heaviest DDT use in the US (1941-1971), the population of many bird species in the US actually increased sharply. The robin population increased 12%, East coast gulls 29%, the blackbird population 800%, and grackles and astonishing 120X as many.

The birds which saw decreased populations during the period of DDT use were raptors...

As for *****ic observational studies, like the one you quoted, The bald eagle was placed on the Endangered Species list in 1967, with felony penalties for killing one or disturbing its habitat, and hundreds of millions of dollars devoted to its preservation. THAT is what caused its population numbers to rebound. Not the DDT ban.

Also note that, while many nations followed the US lead, some nations, like India, never banned DDT. Their birds haven't all died off.

 

[Endymio]

Lol indeed.

1. Hansen was misquoted in that article. (Salon) The book the quote was taken from has him talking about the effects of doubled CO2 levels over 40 years. That's a CO2 level which we won’t reach for many years.

Oops! The Salon article -- read by millions of people -- claimed 20 years, while the book -- read by a few thousand -- claimed 40 years. The Salon article made no mention of a doubling of CO2, and while the book did, it's disingenuous to claim this changes anything, as it's utterly impossible for CO2 levels to double in even 150 years, much less a mere 40 -- nor did the book point that out to readers. Failing to point that out is a lie by omission. If you read the Salon article, you were led to believe disaster was 20 years away. If you read the (supposedly correct book) you were led to believe disaster was 40 years away ... with no idea such a disaster was scientifically impossible.

Even worse: despite the outright lies in both sources, neither the journalist nor Hansen himself attempted to correct the record. They sat quiet while hysteria churned ... it wasn't until the prediction was shown false that the excuses came tumbling out.

 

[Endymio]

1. Hansen was misquoted in that article.

That's just the point. Most researchers and papers are intentionally misquoted by the media to further global warming hysteria. Take for instance the official American Meteorological Society position statement on climate change:

Climate Change

(Adopted by the AMS Council on 15 April 2019)

www.ametsoc.org

Very little in that is incorrect -- nor does it say anything about an "existential threat" to mankind, or catastrophes leading to death and starvation of millions, killer storms wiping out cities, or entire nations migrating to avoid environmental disaster. Take that position statement, remove the one sentence claim of H20-based amplification feedback, expand the sentence on how "amelioration" can mitigate much of the negative aspects of climate change, and include all the positive effects a warming climate exerts -- and you have the real state of affairs. The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little.

 

[Endymio]

Even when posting "proof" if you read what he puts up, there is often little to no connection to the claim it was supposed to prove. Just check my posts above.

You mean like when you claimed the 25-year old prediction of the world's coral reefs all dying had been "proven true", and I gave you several links proving their "miraculous" rebound since then?

 

[scavengerspc]

You mean like when you claimed the 25-year old prediction of the world's coral reefs all dying had been "proven true", and I gave you several links proving their "miraculous" rebound since then?

No, I mean if you weren't so lazy you could find numerous studies, reports and papers stating factually that it is true. Many are even on Youtube and I strongly suggest you take advantage.

And before you respond with an off-topic rant with links to billybubba.com, or self-serving contrarians, READ this.

Vanishing Corals, Part Two: Climate Change is Stressing Corals, But There's Hope – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

And if it hurts your feelings, take it up with NASA, not me, or anyone else here.