David Dubyne (Adapt 2030) puts some things in perspective in a May 2019 presentation in the UK.
I decided to check out the values today and do an update. The values are for 2004-2020 as 2002 and 2003 didn't have any values for this day.Many of the proponents of global warming/change/meltdown have talked about the arctic sea ice and how the lower and lower seaice would lead to a death spiral marking the end of sea ice on the arctic. This has not happened and even if the sea ice did go low this year, the rebound is quite impressive. To give a comparison, below are the sea ice (15%) figures from Nansen since 2002, day 352:
Should read : and
theit made the test inaccurate.
By the way I was thinking: if sunspots influence a fertility indicator of women, can it have an influence directly on the fertility?
Yes! I couldn't figure out why the YouTube thing didn't post properly. Is it only available in some countries? And could this be because what he is saying is very much the opposite of the current 'narrative' being promoted at the moment about global warming?Did you notice one of his slides?
View attachment 33433
Available online 25 January 2020
The associations of geomagnetic storms, fast solar wind, and stream interaction regions with cardiovascular characteristic in patients with acute coronary syndromeIt is shown the statistical associations between space weather pattern and humans’ cardiovascular system. We investigated the association between spac…www.sciencedirect.com
In Press, Journal Pre-proof
What are Journal Pre-proof articles?
The associations of geomagnetic storms, fast solar wind, and stream interaction regions with cardiovascular characteristic in patients with acute coronary syndrome
Author links open overlay panelDeivydasKiznysa
RedirectingGet rights and content
It is shown the statistical associations between space weather pattern and humans’ cardiovascular system. We investigated the association between space weather events and cardiovascular characteristics of 4076 randomly selected patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who were admitted for inpatient treatment in Kaunas city, Lithuania during 2000–2005. We hypothesized that days of the space weather events, 1–3 days after, and the period between two events, named as intersection days (1–3 days after the event, which coincided with 1–3 days before the event), might be associated with patients’ cardiovascular characteristics. The multivariate logistic regression was applied, and the patients’ risk was evaluated by odds ratio (OR), adjusting for age, sex, smoking status, the day of the week, and seasonality.
During the intersection days of geomagnetic storms (GS), the risk of ACS increases in obese patients (OR=1.72, p=0.008). The risk of ventricular fibrillation during admission was associated with stream interaction region (SIR) with a lag of 0–3 days (OR=1.44, p=0.049) The risk of ACS in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation was associated with fast solar wind (FSW) (≥600 km/s) (lag 0–3 days, OR=1.39, p=0.030) and with days of solar proton event (lag 0–3) going in conjunction with SIR (lag 0–3) (OR=2.06, p=0.021). During days which were not assigned as GS with a lag of (-3–3) days, FSW (lag 0–3) was associated with the risk of ACS in patients with renal disease (OR=1.71, p=0.008) and days of SIR – with the risk in patients with pulmonary disease (OR=1.53, p=0.021).
A SIR event, days between two space weather events, and FSW without GS may be associated with a risk to human health.
View full text
© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Committee on Space Research (COSPAR).
Overall it seems to be claiming that by studying patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome who were admitted to a hospital in Estonia during the years of 2000 - 2005 they found a correlation between geomagnetic storms, fast solar wind, and the worsening of symptoms (please correct me if i've misunderstood).
- Interestingly, aurora are used to predict when extra ambulances are needed (in Russia) possible because of the fluctuating magnetic field lines and heightened cardiac issues?
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ai...:345362/mmsi:273148110/vessel:ADMIRAL MAKAROV but at the time of posting it was still near Murmansk, if the data was correct. The journey for Kapitan Dranitsyn was planned to be two to three weeks, but it took longer.The Russian icebreaker Kapitan Dranitsyn was slowed for days by sea ice as she made her way to the North Pole to support the MOSAiC expedition icebreaker Polarstern, and she now requires assistance before returning. The icebreaker Admiral Makarov departed from Murmansk on March 3 with fuel for the vessel.
There is quite a lot of life in the north:Experts from 20 nations are studying the Arctic for a year on the German icebreaker Polarstern as she drifts across the Arctic Ocean, trapped in the sea ice. Kapitan Dranitsyn set sail to exchange crew and researchers on the Polarstern on February 3, reaching the vessel on February 28.
Kapitan Dranitsyn sailed from the Norwegian seaport of Tromso. The route ran through the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean in the most difficult weather conditions. The air temperature dropped to minus 33 degrees Celcius. Perennial ice, ice, snow and strong compression made it difficult for the ship to move. From time to time, she had to wait for improvements in wind and ice conditions, rebuild the optimal safe route and bypass heavy ice sections. On such days, Captain Dranitsyn traveled less than 20 miles.
In addition, with the aid of helicopter laser-scanner readings, Polarstern’s radar system and buoys, the researchers have been able to observe how the ice deformed and channels opened and closed again. Thanks to the warming of the Arctic Ocean, smaller and thinner ice floes are becoming more common. Driven by the wind, they can collide and overlap, producing pack ice hummocks up to four meters tall. Since a great deal of their mass lies underwater, some hummocks are 20 to 30 meters thick – a phenomenon that now represents a challenge for the resupply icebreakers.
In contrast, readings taken on the ice, on board ship, and with weather balloons revealed that the air temperature just above the ice was far lower than at a height of 20 meters. In the lowermost 10 meters there can be temperature differences of more than four degrees Celsius, which has a major influence on the increase in ice thickness.
ROV dives showed marine life under the ice. “We’ve never had the opportunity to study the zooplankton and polar cod up here so extensively at this time of year. In February we even repeatedly saw a seal under the ice, which is apparently finding sufficient food, despite being practically at the North Pole. And on the surface, we sighted a polar bear and several Arctic foxes,” says Christian Haas, Professor Christian Haas from the Alfred Wegener Institute, Chief Scientist for the second leg of the Polarstern journey.
Over the next few weeks the sea ice is expected to become even denser, and the next crew exchange, in April, will most likely be done by plane.
[...]By ROBERT BRYC [...]March 4, 2020 3:31 PM
Freeman Dyson, RIP | National ReviewHe opposed “the holy brotherhood of climate model experts” and endorsed the “humanist ethic.”www.nationalreview.com
Freeman Dyson in 2007 (Monroem/via Wikimedia/CC BY-SA 3.0)He endorsed the ‘humanist ethic.’
The death of physicist Freeman Dyson on February 28 has been noted by many publications, all of which highlighted his many contributions to science. Dyson, 96, was, without doubt, a genius. He was a polymath whose interests included mathematics, number theory, biology, physics, nuclear energy, space travel, weaponry, and arms control.
While all of those accomplishments are important, Dyson’s view of climate change — or rather, his view on carbon dioxide, economic development, and what he called “the humanist ethic” — also helped spark a new type of environmentalism, one that rejects the idea that carbon dioxide is the supreme villain.
Dyson was a skeptic on the issue of catastrophic climate change, a fact that was prominently noted in the obituaries published in the Washington Post and the New York Times. The Post called it his “apostasy on global warming.” It went on, saying that while Dyson did not “deny the Earth was warming,” he broke ranks because he didn’t believe “global warming is particularly dangerous.” That view, the Post said, “is not shared by the overwhelming majority of scientists.” The Times said Dyson “confounded the scientific establishment by dismissing the consensus about the perils of man-made climate change.”
Dyson could afford to be a skeptic. Few academics dare to break from the orthodoxy on climate change because the pressure to hew to the majority view is so intense. For proof of that, look no further than the experiences of Judith Curry at Georgia Tech or of Roger Pielke Jr. at the University of Colorado, both of whom were effectively blacklisted for questioning that orthodoxy. Dyson had no such qualms. His position at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, where he spent more than 60 years, was secure. That job security, and his own long history in science and physics, allowed him to carve his own path on climate issues. In 2007, he published an essay at Edge.org that is perhaps even more relevant today than when it was published.
In the very first line, Dyson made his skepticism clear: “My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models.” He went on, saying that the climate models “do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.”