May 5th... the next super-moon, could bring in a super quake...

Steffenson says in the video
"I agree we have had an increase in the the 20th century.But an increase from what?
Probably an increase from the lowest point weve had in the last 10,000 years.
And this means that it would be very hard indeed,to prove whether that the increase in the temperature in the 20th century was manmade or is a natural variation.
It would be very hard because we made ourselves a very poor experiment.
We started to observe meteorology ,at the coldest spot in the last 10,000 years."

 

Another Vostok graph .This one from NOAA.
I believe you are wrong Tohochitu

 

@80 I put in two red arrow, to aid you in finding the temperature proxy among the 'spaghetti'.

Neither of them points to the present. Ice cores do not record the present.

Y'know I think we went around on this before and I pointed you to to a NASA (or NOAA) website with the orginial ice core data. According to them, it ends something like 150 years ago. Do you remember that? Maybe a year ago?

I still say that if you want to pin everything on Steffenson's interpretation of the data you should email him. It is a cautionary tale that climate scientists have at times felt themselves ill used after interviews for affinity videos.

Have you forgotten about 'the great global warming swindle'? It had many lessons to teach us, this among them.

 

The first graph I presented had the hockey stick added as a representation of the present.So what?
It doesnt make a whole lot of difference if the last 150 years are measured or not.In perspective to the past 10,000 years ,the past 150 years is not significant.But its interesting to display that insignificance graphically.
Sorry to be blunt but the weight of your argument is insignificant as well.

 

I understand that you value Petit's and Steffenson's work and analysis. Further, you present a video indicating that the latter has concluded that (at least some) times in the last 10k years were warmer than current, based on ice-core isotopes.

But then the wheels come off. I mention some some characteristics (limitations?) of the ice-core records. It is not an argument. it is a statment of how things are.

I have not seen scientific publications indicating the italicized phrase above. As you have not cited them, I propose that they do not exist. Now, that is an argument. It is open to test, support or refutation.

Finding not those publications, we coud inquire directly the perspectives of the investigators involved. I already suggested you do so. To help end the foot dragging, you email Stef and I'll email Petit. We can post their responses here.

All of the above presumes that this is a topic you are genuinely curious about. Were that the case, affinity websites' revisions of published science would not make a meal. Not by a long shot.

 

Result: Incorrect Prediction.
Latest Earthquakes in the World - Past 7 days

Updated Probabilities:

Corwyn from 0.0001 to 0.000085
Mojo from 0.85 to 0.72

That was fun, got another prediction?

 

Based on this publication

ftp://171.64.168.31/pub/dunbar/IODP%20Adelie%20Drift%20and%20Holocene%20Relevant%20Papers/Masson-Delmotte%20The%20Holocene%202004.pdf

I sent the following email:

"Greetings Dr. Masson-Delmotte,

In reference to your "Common millennial-scale varability of Antarctic..."

in The Holocene (14:145)

I am interested in the possibilities and limitations of comparing these paleotemperature proxies to current instrument values. In paticular, do the proxies indicate that the Holocene was warmer than now? Either regionally or globally?

I will appreciate your consideration of these questions, and directions to related literature I should be reading.

Thank you very much."

It might serve as a format to follow as we try to educate ourselves on this matter. It does seem interesting, and I hope that I have framed the question in an appropriate matter.

Please keep us posted on your parallel efforts, Mojo.

 

Next!

 

Back on topic .Agreed.
But the dog ate my homework.
And the Sun is going through a major transition where its magnetic field has developed 4 poles.
The Suns magnetic field is about to change polarity.
Last weeks solar flares appeared on the Suns surface but the Suns magnetic field did not permit electromagnetic energy to escape.
The energy was contained rather than bombard Earth .
Thus no effect on the Earths magnetic field.
So the dog ate my homework.
Im not joking, this is fact.Ill gather some links as Im sure you dont believe everything your told.

 

So far I have received reply with two refs from Masson-Delmotte, and a suggestion that Jeremy Shakun at Boston Univ. has some work done on this. So I am in the hunt to find out how paleo temperature proxies can be hooked up to (recent) instrumental records.

We would not want to proceed blindly there, or we could be assailed as Mann was for linking paleo tree ring proxies to instrumental T records. Wasn't that the problem?

Anyway I will post more as things arise. How you doin' on with yours, Mojo? Don't make me carry all the load. It *was* your hypothesis.

 

No, I don't believe it has developed 4 poles.
The north pole of the sun seems to be nearing the neutrality, which it normally does at the peak of its 11 year cycle. I have seen no indication there any new poles appearing.

The interesting thing is, the north pole appears to be getting read to change polarity, however, the south doesn't show signs of changing polarity nearly as soon.

The odd thing is, from what I have read, the magnetic field has not strengthened. As a matter of fact, over the north pole it has actually weakened.

Very interesting event, this is the first solar maximum we have actually been able to observe this closely.

NASA - Hinode and SOHO Paint An Asymmetrical Picture Of the Sun

 

Oh, I forgot to mention. There is speculation that the sun will end its polarity swap with 4 poles. Positive poles at the 'top' and 'bottom' and negative poles at the equator. But that has not happened yet.

**********Edit**********

Oh boy am I embarrassed. The speculation of the four pole result was from a questionable source. I am not sure if it is possible or not. Still looking for another source.
The source I found was a survivalist site...
Anyone find any others sources for such a speculation?

 

BTW, how did that super-quake turn out?

 

Excuses are irrelevant. Surely a prediction should take into account all possibilities, yes? Even with a 72% confidence level, you should be confident enough to make another prediction. I await it. Can you try to find one that is a little less likely, predicting things with an 82% chance, and claiming a 80-85% correct rate just doesn't impress as much as predictions with lower chances.

 

Your correct ,Im mistaken.
I thought there already was 4 poles.I gather there are 2 positive poles but not clear if 2 negatives exist.Anyway its in transition of flipping polarity.

Sun may soon have four poles, say researchers - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun
Sun may soon have four poles, say researchers - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun

Spaceweather.com Time Machine
"Yesterday, May 10th, amateur astronomer David Maidment of Sohar, Oman caught the active region in mid-flare during a strong M5-class eruption:
The blast, which almost crossed the threshold into X-territory, did not produce a significant coronal mass ejection (CME). "There seemed to be no CME due to the fact that the plasma was captured and dragged back down to the sun," notes Maidment"

 

Corbyn doesnt control the sun.I agreed he was wrong last week.This week was my guess after noticing that a solar flare was erupting 2 days later than Corbyn predicted.But that flare didnt reach the Earth.
There has been no large earthquakes for almost 2 weeks.Thats an interesting correlation in and of itself.
Considering,according to this board, every 3 days is normal.

 

So, not confident enough to make another prediction?

 

What does that even mean? How can you have 2 positive poles and no (or only one) negatives poles? Magnetic mono-pole? Can you draw a picture of the field lines? I am totally confused here.

 

Sun may soon have four poles, say researchers - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun

Look at the link.
North started turning +.While South is still +.
2 positive poles with speculation there could also be 2 neg poles .
Eventually the South will turn negative.