At the current rate of deterioration in the global weather systems patterns!

Loum I have no idea, you want to help with me investigate our solar system and beyond?

OK junkyard good points you are also the winner!

Can we get back to researching now?

Are all of these from the same website? and are we currently experiencing a period of reduced or nominal sunspot activity?

You know, there’s a pattern here.

kaesae: wild unsubstantiated theory.

STW collective: actually, here’s a load of well researched proof as to why that’s implausible.

kaesae: *ignores that completely*, here’s another wholly unrelated wild unsubstantiated theory.

STW collective: here’s yet more proof, we took a while looking this up so we’re sure it’s right.

kaesae: Yes, but what about (something else entirely)

Repeat ad nauseum.

I put it to you, sir, that you are either a troll or a loon. And my money’s on the former. You have no interest in learning anything, you just like wasting people’s time. And for that reason, I’m oot.

Do you want to know about sunspot activity or the suns output as they are not the same thing

Yes same website
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

This can be viewed as ether impartial science or pro global warming if you wish.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

for sun spots but they have minimal affect on TSI Total Solar Irradiance

Please just use google

At the left side of the sunspot page on wikipedia there is a reconstruction of sunspot activity

“Analysis of tree rings has revealed a detailed picture of past solar cycles: Dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations have allowed for a reconstruction of sunspot activity dating back 11,400 years, far beyond the four centuries of available, reliable records from direct solar observation”

at about 9,000 to 10,000 bc there is an exceptionally high amount of sunspot activity, is that what the graph means?

Its solar activity and not sun spot activity they have measured and they are not the same thing.
We nned to look at the sun for the later but we can use proxy measures [ ie dendrochronology] for the former

EDIT:Whilst there is a relationship between sunspots it is not the case that they affect output in the sense I think you mean and they are interrelated but separate things
Say floods and rain we could have no floods and yet have more rain than last year when we had three floods- same with sun spots – sun spots does not necessarily by itself indicate solar output any more than flood measures tell us how much rain we have had this year.

Junkyard, what if we say that the effects that we are seeing on earth in our atmosphere could be caused by stellar forces.

If this is or is not the case, should be able to be answered by evaluation and then inclusion for further analysis or exclusion due to elimination.

To me the characteristic of sun spots are similar to that of a tornado, hurricane, or any other wind based vortex. However they are magnetic in structure.

Firstly I would like to better understand sun spots, is a sun spot or is it not a vortex of magnetic energy that passes through the sun? or does it only exist within the sun?

It’s laughable.

Really, are you actually serious.?

I have no idea what you mean by stellar forces but the second graph above is about comic* radiation and how it is declining but temperature increasing,

EDIT: *I mean cosmic but it seemed like a good typo to leave in for this thread 😀

Cosmic forces, energy fields, magnetic or electromagnetic waves or fileds, stellar forces, any force that is out there in the universe,

stellar stel·lar
? ?[stel-er] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of or pertaining to the stars; consisting of stars.

Forces
Is this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

*checks in*

Where did we get to on the “several world floods”…

Oh.

Never mind.

*checks out and goes to bed*

Sides with Cougar – you must be a troll 🙄
Yes i know what Stellar means and I know what force means my only confusion is WTF you mean when you use them together.
See above graph …leaves thread

Grahams we are waiting for a response from Edukator , since edukator has knowledge of geology his input would be very valuable and make any research much more easy, however if we don’t hear from him because he is too busy or doesn’t want to be involved, then we can continue without him, all be it at a slower pace.

I don’t see how seismic activity can be reducing? we are seeing major earth quakes in very close proximity in terms of time scale to each other.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/10_largest_world.php

Largest earth quakes in the world since 1900, 6 out of 17 earth quakes have happened since 2000, what percentage is that? 2004, 2005, 2007, then 2010, 2011, 2012, so for 3 years in a row we have had major seismic activity in the form of the most powerful earth quakes since 1900. I just don’t see how seismic activity can be decreasing?

I just don’t see how seismic activity can be decreasing?

Perhaps it’s becuase you’re ignorant of what a logical fallacy is and can’t see just how many you are making? And no, I’m not about to tell you about them, other people have defined them better than I could and put them on the web all you have to do is look.

6 out of 17 earth quakes have happened since 2000, what percentage is that?

6/17 X 100 🙄
I think you may have some distance to go to understand science [ and maths]
From your link you also have from 1952-65 6 out of 17 including the 2 largest – that s only one year more than 2000 to 2012
so obviously it is decreasing [ for clarity that is sarcasm its not changing is it?]

Grahams we are waiting for a response from Edukator , since edukator has knowledge of geology his input would be very valuable and make any research much more easy

Okay. Though perhaps if you suggested why you believe there have been “several world floods”, (e.g. a source, or evidence or logical reasoning) or clarified what you mean (how many is “several”? when did they occur?) then Edukator would be better able to answer you.

I just don’t see how seismic activity can be decreasing?

It’s not decreasing. It’s just not increasing.

since 1900, 6 out of 17 earth quakes have happened since 2000, what percentage is that?

About 35% – but the percentage of big earthquakes falling in an arbitrary time period means very little.

From the same figures you could likewise say:
40% of the top 5 occurred in the early 1960s
or 50% of the top 8 earthquakes occurred between 1952-65

If you have read the USGS/BGS links I posted you’ll know there are a number of external factors that must be considered when looking at the straight numbers for earthquakes:

– the number of seismographs and monitoring stations has increased exponentially since 1900, and the technology is more refined and sensitive, so more and more quakes of smaller and smaller scales are now recorded (the USGS mention they can even tell when explosives are used in mines!)

– earthquakes in populated areas are more likely to be recorded, so as population grows and spreads we get more reports

– global communications means we are much more likely to hear about earthquakes these days

– the numbers of recorded quakes and tremors takes a steep drop during the periods of the first and seconds world war, because people had other things to attend to.

All that applies to volcanoes too by the way.

But analysis of the data means BGS can happily state:

“Recent devastating earthquakes in Haiti, Chile and China, as well as magnitude 7+ earthquakes in Indonesia and California, might give the impression that earthquake activity is increasing.

In fact, a quick look at earthquake statistics over the last 20 years shows that this is not the case.

On average there are about 15 earthquakes every year with a magnitude of 7 or greater.

As with any almost random phenomena, the number of earthquakes each year varies slightly from this average, but in general, there are no dramatic variations. “

— http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/earthquakes/earthquakeActivity.html

Great! Can you tell me who funds the BGS? and are there other sources that can be used preferably ones that have independent funding to varify what is being said?

All of your arguments are aimed at being right

What exactly is the aim of your “research” kaesae, if you’re not aiming to be right?

If you want wrong answers I can give you lots of those too.

I wouldn’t bother, he’s already got plenty.

If you want wrong answers I can give you lots of those too.

Don’t worry about that, he’s got it covered already I think.

Right wrong answers you say graham.
So I have two children and one is a boy born on tuesday ….what are the odds that the other child is a boy 😉
Now that would confuse 😛

The aim of my research is to learn and understand, who gives a shit about being right or wrong?

If we go into a situation and learn all that we can, is that not the best way to ensure we get the most out of each situation?

Right and wrong is simply the way fools perceive the world, when you go down the right and wrong, winner or loser road, all you get is egotism fueled idiocy and games of the mind that have no real world benefits!

Junkyard, he’s trying to work stuff out, don’t take the pee.

Kaesae – what is it exactly that you wish to know about?

Right and wrong is simply the way retards see the world

you are correct only the bright dont care if they are right 😕
As for real world benefits …you may struggle to meet this standard with your own “research “

Molgrips I am not sure he is we keep giving him information and his argument jumps around all over the place

He has no interest in truth therefore he has no interest in learning…why dont you try then?

Can you tell me who funds the BGS?

We do mainly, according to wiki:
“The BGS has an annual budget of £57M, about half of which comes from the government’s Science Budget, with the remainder coming from commissioned research from the public and private sectors.”
— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Geological_Survey

are there other sources that can be used preferably ones that have independent funding to varify what is being said?

“Independent funding”? Independent of what exactly?

The aim of my research is to learn and understand, who gives a shit about being right or wrong?

Well personally I prefer to learn and understand things that are actually correct or at least our best theory. YMMV.

Right and wrong is simply the way fools perceive the world, when you go down the right and wrong, winner or loser road, all you get is egotism fueled idiocy and games of the mind that have no real world benefits!

Hmmm.. I find you get informed, factual and reasoned debate that educates and challenges.

Again YMMV – particularly if you are not fond of facts or evidence and have none of your own to offer.

Kaesae,

I’ve been reseraching stellar forces and I’ve managed to find the following information

When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

Could you incorporate this into some sort of theory

I detect a tone of nasty piss-taking on this thread that I do not think is called for.

Yep, play nice richmtb. Harmony and understanding please.
No more falsehoods or derisions.

He called us retards[since changed to fools] and if you search the thread the insults are largely from the person you are defending Molly with the odd piss take when folk are sick of it.

Perhaps you reap what you sow?

Your right Graham

its time to let some sunshine in

I detect a tone of nasty piss-taking on this thread that I do not think is called for.

Whereas, I detect a tone of jocular piss-taking on this thread that I do think is absolutely called for. (-:

With molgrips on this one tbh. A bit of mob mentallity and bullying seems to be developing.

Given the nonsence that Kaesae has been coming out with I think people have been remarkably restrained and that far more derision should be used.

I detect a tone of nasty piss-taking on this thread that I do not think is called for.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Personally speaking though, when someone spouts a load of bollx, and then ignores all form of factual correction he is offered, and just spouts more bollx, then calls everyone retards (then loses his bottle and changes it to fools) I think they deserve a healthy dose of piss taking.

(they don’t listen to facts, or answer questions, so what’s left ?)

Bullying have you read the thread

Considering the paucity of his argument and his reaction to facts we have been pretty gentle; there is lots of ammunition there

Have you seen how rude he is to those who he disagrees with?

See the last page where attempts were made to explain stuff to him and his reaction.
His debating style is somewhat luid, his ideas ill conceived and poorly explained [ in fact not at all]
He has been treated with kid gloves tbh given what he is spouting

It doens’t look like Kaesae is trying to tell you stuff, he’s outlining how he sees it and is inviting you to discuss it further. Taking the pee isn’t helping. It only seems to serve to amuse you at someone else’s expense. This I do not like.

I don’t really understand how you can square this:

If we go into a situation and learn all that we can, is that not the best way to ensure we get the most out of each situation?

with this:

Right and wrong is simply the way fools perceive the world

If you’re not concerned with what’s right and what’s not, then what have you got?

he’s outlining how he sees it and is inviting you to discuss it further

And when we discuss it he ignores our answers and calls us egoists, fools and retards. 😕

Anyway, if this thread is moving from (partially) informed debate into pointless arguing then I’m out. *flounce*

To be fair ‘grips, I seem to remember a similar thread a couple of years ago where someone who had an idea about the way light travels through glass got a roasting from you and a couple of others. It is nice to see you have a different attitude these days.

I think some of you are being a little hard on the old K’man. You criticise him for not offering an argument when all you offer is contradiction. People shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss someone’s idea because they think its bunkum. A very quick (literally 5 mins) search starts to show professional researches looking at effects similar to what Kaesae is talking about. For example:

Title: Does the Sun work as a nuclear fusion amplifier of planetary tidal forcing? A proposal for a physical mechanism based on the mass-luminosity relation
Author(s): Scafetta, Nicola
Source: JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND SOLAR-TERRESTRIAL PHYSICS Volume: 81-82 Pages: 27-40 DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2012.04.002 Published: JUN 2012

Title: Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle
Author(s): Scafetta, Nicola
Source: JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND SOLAR-TERRESTRIAL PHYSICS Volume: 80 Pages: 296-311 DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2012.02.016 Published: MAY 2012

Title: Phase lags of solar hemispheric cycles
Author(s): Murakoezy, J.; Ludmany, A.
Source: MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY Volume: 419 Issue: 4 Pages: 3624-3630 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20011.x Published: FEB 2012

All of these are articles that cite a paper which was found through this site:

http://www.nasca.org.uk/index.html

A website which is very questionable.

Kaesae, while I don’t agree with many (most) of your ideas or the way you communicate them, I like that you are thinking about things.