SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1110475)1/14/2019 5:04:50 PM
From: maceng2  Respond to of 1570363
 
Interesting paper. I would probably agree with your conclusions on it, and I will read it later.

Just an aside, here is the link to the two musical tones analysis again.
youtube.com

Taken from this post.
siliconinvestor.com

No, I was interested in this Guardian newspaper article...

It's just standard Climate Science fare these days, nothing to see here. the deniers are flicked off from the discussion on the real science.

theguardian.com

This is the bit that raised an eyebrow for me... I like it when a real scientist talks to me like I'm an idiot. Maybe it was the reporter (journalist) though, quoting Ilya Usoskin incorrectly, or missing a "beat" in his analysis as it were. -g-

Quoting from the article..

Ilya Usoskin, head of the Oulu Cosmic Ray Station and Vice-Director of the ReSoLVE Center of Excellence in Research, published a critique of Zharkova’s solar model making those points. Most importantly, the model fails in reproducing past known solar activity because Zharkova’s team treats the sun as a simple, predictable system like a pendulum. In reality, the sun has more random and unpredictable (in scientific terms, “stochastic”) behavior:

For example, a perfect pendulum – if you saw a few cycles of the pendulum, you can predict its behavior. However, solar activity is known to be non-stationary process, which principally cannot be predicted (the prediction horizon for solar activity is known to be 10-15 years). Deterministic prediction cannot be made because of the essential stochastic component.

Just imagine a very turbulent flow of water in a river rapid, and you throw a small wooden stick into water and trace it. Then you do it second time and third time ... each time the stick will end up in very different positions after the same time period. Its movement is unpredictable because of the turbulent stochastic component. This is exactly the situation with solar activity.



To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1110475)1/15/2019 7:09:06 AM
From: maceng2  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1570363
 
The research into the very real phenomenon of Climate Change I wish to draw your attention to has already been posted. This is the link.
theguardian.com

I just thought I would post the link to the newspaper article first.... Just to show you how shallow it is.

In a previous post I showed you I was intrigued by an almost offhand comment from an approved scientist who should know better or who was perhaps misquoted.

Anyone who is connected to the world of human health will tell you the human heart is a fairly important organ. Likewise the Sun is a fairly important component of the solar System.

If the Sun ain't there the world sinks to a few degrees Kelvin rather fast.

The human heart has a "beat" it's not a simple sinusoidal wave but is is a beat and probably has several components to it. I have never studied it incidentally.

However if it's rhythm is disturbed, and it's output is "stochastic" then we are talking about a serious heart condition and the end of the life of the patient.

Same with the Sun. The good news is the Suns heartbeat is as solid as ever and the "patient" is in good health. You will hear Professor Valentina Zharkova say exactly that.

Here is a presentation by her in full. I only found this utube video a few days ago, but to me the science is first rate. The "attitude" is first rate as is the Audience. Some of the audience look to be known reprobates within the "Climate Change" debate, and I have only just discovered who "Tallbloke" is.

Yeah ... like him too.

youtube.com

Now OK her voice is high and heavily accented but I can listen to it. Sure there are a few fopas, we all do those.

Yes, sure, you will see (and have seen) I pinch some of her ideas and statements ... the reason is they are good. Call me an acolyte for scientific purposes -g-

Watching this stuff makes my heart sing. It really does.

youtube.com

Notice it is all unfunded. It is done just out of curiosity. If it was up to me Professor Valentina Zharkova would get at least half the IPCC "Climate change" budget. In fact I would make it 80%+ and give half to "Tallbloke" and Zarkova each. They would need to outsource most of the work as time is short and the work needs to be done in parallel, not in series.

I am pleased to hear from anyone who doesn't seem to think this lecture is not relevant to the "Climate Change" debate.

Get this message though. Just because the IPCC etc etc say something, forgive me if I just do not believe what they say in a religious sense. Far as I can tell they are way off, way further off then any of Einsteins detractors ever were. Nobody listened to him either, not for a while anyway.