And a year later they're still struggling to get their models straight.
Link?
I'm sure you remember the semi-recent news about using modifiers to explain away the hiatus. And I'm sure you're aware that there are still countless variations on climate models.
Mathematical models and graphs aren't exactly out of the realm of a statistician. Regardless, critiquing them and dismissing them entirely are two different things.
So what happens in 15 years or so when solar activity decreases by 60% bringing in a mini ice age?
60% reduction is WHAT solar activity? Less flares? Less sunspots? Less CMEs? Because there is no way in hell anyone with any understanding of physics would say 60% reduction in energy or radiation, it won't even be a 60% reduction for the first 100 million years after it stops burning. Jupiter gives off almost 30% as much radiation as the Sun.
And a year later they're still struggling to get their models straight.
Link?
I'm sure you remember the semi-recent news about using modifiers to explain away the hiatus. And I'm sure you're aware that there are still countless variations on climate models.
And this is evidence of...? Because models are constantly refined and having multiple models is good for replication. And the news you're referring to wasn't pertaining to a predictive climate model. It was a reanalysis of historical records.
Scientists have made a discovery about the sun's "heartbeat" that they say indicates that Earth's Northern Hemisphere could experience a deep freeze in 15 years.
The sun has a "solar heartbeat," or cycle of activity, that produces energy that causes sunspots and solar flares. Scientists at Northumbria University in northeast England developed a model that illustrates the history of these heartbeats and that predicts there will be irregularities in them. The model suggests that solar activity will fall by 60% during the 2030s.
According to the Royal Astronomical Society, the researchers studied the sun's magnetic field activity between 1976 and 2008. They compared their predictions with average sunspot numbers, another strong marker of solar activity, the society reported.
The researchers' model showed a 97% level of accuracy, said Valentina Zharkova, a Northumbria University mathematics professor.
So how cold could it get?
The scientists say their findings could mean a deep freeze like the one Great Britain experienced around 1900, when the Thames River froze over.
CNN meteorologist Brandon Miller says the study looks intriguing, but it has not been peer reviewed, or subjected to the scrutiny of the larger scientific community.
"This isn't published research yet," he said. "Our ability to forecast the specifics of a solar cycle is incredibly poor. It's worse than forecasting in a hurricane season."
Doug Biesecker, who works at the Space Weather Prediction Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colorado, agrees with Miller.
He said the research shouldn't give anyone the idea that because the weather may cool, climate change is not something to be worried about.
"It's a very complicated issue," Biesecker, an expert in solar physics, told CNN. "Does the sun have a role in our variable climate? Yes. Is the dominant role? No. Even the concept of the sun being responsible for Europe's mini ice age -- it's not hard-and-fast true."
I'd be surprised if anyone here could actually understand how a climate model works.
Details aside, most if not all alarmist modeling has a critical flaw in its design. That flaw is the overstatement of co2 efficacy. If co2 is modeled on the fact that it is 10 times more potent a modifier on the climate than it actually is, then naturally as co2 rises, temperatures will also rise in any modeling that is done.
The problem is as has been noted several times before, atmospheric temps have been flat for ~18 years. This is critical because in the last 18 years the co2 in the air has been at ever increasing record levels and has been demonstrably proven, atmospheric temps have been flat.
Clearly either there is some other modifier at work mitigating the potency of co2, or the co2 simply isn't as potent as the alarmists think it is. Since the alarmist have yet to accurately predict future warming for 40 years, my bet isn't on their accuracy.
Scientists have made a discovery about the sun's "heartbeat" that they say indicates that Earth's Northern Hemisphere could experience a deep freeze in 15 years.
The sun has a "solar heartbeat," or cycle of activity, that produces energy that causes sunspots and solar flares. Scientists at Northumbria University in northeast England developed a model that illustrates the history of these heartbeats and that predicts there will be irregularities in them. The model suggests that solar activity will fall by 60% during the 2030s.
According to the Royal Astronomical Society, the researchers studied the sun's magnetic field activity between 1976 and 2008. They compared their predictions with average sunspot numbers, another strong marker of solar activity, the society reported.
The researchers' model showed a 97% level of accuracy, said Valentina Zharkova, a Northumbria University mathematics professor.
So how cold could it get?
The scientists say their findings could mean a deep freeze like the one Great Britain experienced around 1900, when the Thames River froze over.
CNN meteorologist Brandon Miller says the study looks intriguing, but it has not been peer reviewed, or subjected to the scrutiny of the larger scientific community.
"This isn't published research yet," he said. "Our ability to forecast the specifics of a solar cycle is incredibly poor. It's worse than forecasting in a hurricane season."
Doug Biesecker, who works at the Space Weather Prediction Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colorado, agrees with Miller.
He said the research shouldn't give anyone the idea that because the weather may cool, climate change is not something to be worried about.
"It's a very complicated issue," Biesecker, an expert in solar physics, told CNN. "Does the sun have a role in our variable climate? Yes. Is the dominant role? No. Even the concept of the sun being responsible for Europe's mini ice age -- it's not hard-and-fast true."
60% reduction in sun spots, and the "deep freeze" like the LIA, was about .8 degrees C below average for Northern Europe. In more direct terms, a mini-ice age, would lower temperatures less than they've risen since the 50's for a very small portion of the far North. Sounds catastrophic...
Where do you get this stuff? The forcing contribution of co2 has been known for decades. And the last 18 years aren't out of the error range of current models. Just stop. It's almost as bad as anti-vax and anti-gmo rhetoric.
Where do you get this stuff? The forcing contribution of co2 has been known for decades. And the last 18 years aren't out of the error range of current models. Just stop. It's almost as bad as anti-vax and anti-gmo rhetoric.
Where's all that warming we were promised 20 years ago pleebo? Cause it never got here.
I'd be surprised if anyone here could actually understand how a climate model works.
Details aside, most if not all alarmist modeling has a critical flaw in its design. That flaw is the overstatement of co2 efficacy. If co2 is modeled on the fact that it is 10 times more potent a modifier on the climate than it actually is, then naturally as co2 rises, temperatures will also rise in any modeling that is done.
The problem is as has been noted several times before, atmospheric temps have been flat for ~18 years. This is critical because in the last 18 years the co2 in the air has been at ever increasing record levels and has been demonstrably proven, atmospheric temps have been flat.
Clearly either there is some other modifier at work mitigating the potency of co2, or the co2 simply isn't as potent as the alarmists think it is. Since the alarmist have yet to accurately predict future warming for 40 years, my bet isn't on their accuracy.
A simple "no" would have been easier to type and just as easily come across the same. You don't know what you're talking about, sorry.
I would like to see a study of climate scientists.
I can guarantee with certainty that almost every young adult choosing to pursue that field already has their mind made up on the subject of climate change before they've ever cracked a book or done an experiment. I am sure they are liberal. I am sure in America they already vote Democrat. Certain fields attract people of a certain mindset.
In 10 years if we're in the middle of another little ice age, the same people will be telling us it's still the hottest year on record, and when the sun finally comes out of its forecasted minimum, the same people will point to rising temps as proof their co2 models were right.
A very extensive report, known as the National Climate Assessment, was released earlier this week. Nothing in the report is particularly surprising, but its presentation for the general public, here, is incredibly impressive. (Not all government website releases are a disaster!)
If hardcore technical reports aren't your thing, the highlights portion of the site breaks each section down as plainly as possible, is extensively cited, and makes no secret the level of uncertainty inherent in current findings. The site is really quite fantastic, and I would encourage anyone with genuine interest, skepticism, and/or curiosity in U.S. climate change to fuck around in it for a while. (Of course, if well-substantiated, easily digestible scientific communications aren't your thing, there's always this.)
Perhaps, the most poignant message arising from the report is summarized in this quote from the article:
Quote:
The report pointed out that while the country as a whole still had no comprehensive climate legislation, many states and cities had begun to take steps to limit emissions and to adapt to climatic changes that can no longer be avoided. But the report found that these efforts were inadequate.
I don't really consider myself a policy person so... what do?
Edit: Also of note is the high diversity of those involved. Largely scientists, of course, but representative of a wide swath of interests, including some oil companies.
