1) I know I'm not doing ground breaking work with that 11 year cycle and the solar variations, it was a reference to go by to come up with a theory about the upcoming winters with the solar min and max.
2) During 1650 and 1715, that was the last mini ice age and there was a solar minimum. There were many more ice ages and not just mini ice ages, there were significant ice ages over the thousands of years and millions of years. So, that tells me that there had to be solar minimums during those ice ages. There is very little data to go by since these age ages took place years and years ago, that's why I came up with a prediction.
3) No, I'm not trying to impress nobody, as you're trying to make it sound like I'm trying to impress people by taking notes in a notepad. You asked me if I had a journal, my notepad is my journal.
4) Why are you making a big deal about my "misspelled" word, it was a typo actually. What is this, a typo correcting forum? Also, if you don't understand what I'm talking about with the currents, I'd say you need to do more research. Just remember what Einstein as said, "if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it enough". I don't mind if I get laughed at in the scientific community cause I like to come up with possible theories based upon observations and past events that have occurred, that is one way to predict things. How is that a laughing manner? because some theories are things that possibly can occur.
5) I did research from web pages, not just one web page, several web pages to fact check. I don't remember all the exact web pages. I was during a study alone, I was not doing a study for a class.
Stop assuming things to come up with conclusions about someone doing something without you knowing what they actually did. It's so annoying when someone does that, especially over text chat. Webber if you reply back with another smart thing, I'm not going to reply back cause you can't take someone's thoughts and without being smart.
"2) During 1650 and 1715, that was the last mini ice age and there was a solar minimum. There were many more ice ages and not just mini ice ages, there were significant ice ages over the thousands of years and millions of years. So, that tells me that there had to be solar minimums during those ice ages."
Ugh... For crying out loud Don, you're basing all of this off one one or two events. The likelihood that this cooling period occurred due to random chance is relatively high unless you increase the sample size which failed to do... A large proportion of the cooling during the Maunder and Dalton Minimums was induced in large part by a series of large volcanic eruptions (Tambora being the most famous), what if there aren't any major volcano eruptions this time around superimposed onto the low solar activity? Actually go and look at the Be or O isotope reconstructed solar data instead of making this up off the top of your head. The climate forcings and their relative magnitudes are considerably different now than they were in the 17th and 18th century, the response will be much different with the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing...
"3) No, I'm not trying to impress nobody, as you're trying to make it sound like I'm trying to impress people by taking notes in a notepad.
You need to learn how to code in computer programs such as Java, Matlab, NCL, etc (or even excel) to actually perform the kind of rigorous analysis that you're trying to get at... We're not in the early-mid 20th century anymore, there's absolutely no need to put all your data into a journal, that wastes too much time.
"You asked me if I had a journal, my notepad is my journal."
*Facepalm* Don, that's not a
scientific journal...
This is what I'm talking about, these are actual scientific journals where legitimate scientists publish and interact, critique, and build upon their work. It's one of the primary modes of academic communication.
AMS is a fantastic example.
http://www.ams.org/journals/
So is Elsevier
https://www.elsevier.com
As well as Nature
http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html
"
4) Why are you making a big deal about my "misspelled" word, it was a typo actually. What is this, a typo correcting forum? Also, if you don't understand what I'm talking about with the currents, I'd say you need to do more research. Just remember what Einstein as said, "if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it enough". I don't mind if I get laughed at in the scientific community cause I like to come up with possible theories based upon observations and past events that have occurred, that is one way to predict things. How is that a laughing manner? because some theories are things that possibly can occur."
Btw, you actually misspelled several words but whatever... I hate repeating myself but to make myself very clear on what an actual scientific theory is... it's based on a broad set of observations, principles, has been meticulously reviewed, repeated, and confirmed by a multitude of studies, scientists, etc. and is well accepted in the scientific community. Yours fits none of these of characteristics...
"5) I did research from web pages, not just one web page, several web pages to fact check. I don't remember all the exact web pages. I was during a study alone, I was not doing a study for a class."
I specifically mentioned/hinted at published scientific journal articles, papers, and dissertations for a reason, there's a lot of unpublished (& for good reasons), back-of-the-hand, amateur climate science misinformation out there that isn't very credible esp wrt solar activity.
"
Stop assuming things to come up with conclusions about someone doing something without you knowing what they actually did."
The problem is no one actually knows what you did. You essentially said you just stared at some sunspot graphs over the last 30 years and looked at sunspot activity graphs from the 1700s and came up with this "theory". That's not research, literally anybody can do that...