Reply With Quote
@ debunked
Again, thing is, falling solar activity and MMGW are not mutually exclusive. As usual, both sides of the partisan spectrum seem to be missing the point.
In 2030 people will just be predicting climate apocalypse in 2045.
The Guardian, a liberal paper, has also been accused of being overly concerned with putting climate change articles in for $. NPR did a little expose on it. It does not necessarily mean they are wrong or correct.conservative LIE of mini ice age totally debunked.
In a July 9 press release, the British Royal Astronomical Society stated that professor Valentina Zharkova and her colleagues had created a model that suggests "solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645." That line was quickly distorted by conservative media outlets on both sides of the Atlantic, such as the UK's Telegraph and The Washington Times,which claimed the scientists had found that the earth is likely heading for a "mini ice age."
Zharkova herself did not help matters when she hesitantly answered, "Yes, indeed" when asked during a July 13 interview with Radio New Zealand whether she was "saying we've got 15 years before there's an ice age?" Zharkova, who is a professor of mathematics at Northumbria University in England, clarified later in the interview that she doesn't "do atmospheric research" and "can't say for sure" what impact the phenomenon she has predicted, known as a grand solar minimum, will have on the earth's climate relative to global warming.
However, studies that specifically researched the potential climate impact of a grand solar minimum have found that it would be very small compared to the continued warming that will occur as a result of man-made climate change, a fact that appeared in several publications before CNN.com posted its article.
In 2013, The Guardian's Dana Nuccitelli cited several studies on the impact a grand solar minimum would have on global temperatures, concluding, "A new grand solar minimum would not trigger another [Little Ice Age]; in fact, the maximum 0.3°C cooling would barely make a dent in the human-caused global warming over the next century." More recently, The Washington Post reported on July 14 that "several other recent studies of a possible solar minimum have concluded that whatever climate effects the phenomenon may have will be dwarfed by the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions."
Similarly, blog posts by Slate's Phil Plait and the website ...and Then There's Physics each cited one of those studies, which was published in Nature Communications and found that "[a]ny reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07...-in-sun/204412
LIES! you hear them FIRST from right-wing hate media!
There re are some guys here in town who work for SW research making detection devices to gather various data about the sun. They write grants to get them put up in satellites. They think this mini ice age is bunk.
Well, we've got 15 years to gather wood.
Isn't there a difference between the hottest year on record and the hottest year ever? The hottest year on record is the hottest year that had temperatures recorded and written down. The hottest year ever is the hottest year ever. Since brilliant scientists don't have records of temperature readings from millions of years then how can we truly trust them? I laugh when people say "it's the hottest year ever" because it's incorrect. Have you been around since the beginning of existence?
That's not debunking the idea. Just saying the sources didn't start any of it.conservative LIE of mini ice age totally debunked.
In a July 9 press release, the British Royal Astronomical Society stated that professor Valentina Zharkova and her colleagues had created a model that suggests "solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645." That line was quickly distorted by conservative media outlets on both sides of the Atlantic, such as the UK's Telegraph and The Washington Times,which claimed the scientists had found that the earth is likely heading for a "mini ice age."
Zharkova herself did not help matters when she hesitantly answered, "Yes, indeed" when asked during a July 13 interview with Radio New Zealand whether she was "saying we've got 15 years before there's an ice age?" Zharkova, who is a professor of mathematics at Northumbria University in England, clarified later in the interview that she doesn't "do atmospheric research" and "can't say for sure" what impact the phenomenon she has predicted, known as a grand solar minimum, will have on the earth's climate relative to global warming.
However, studies that specifically researched the potential climate impact of a grand solar minimum have found that it would be very small compared to the continued warming that will occur as a result of man-made climate change, a fact that appeared in several publications before CNN.com posted its article.
In 2013, The Guardian's Dana Nuccitelli cited several studies on the impact a grand solar minimum would have on global temperatures, concluding, "A new grand solar minimum would not trigger another [Little Ice Age]; in fact, the maximum 0.3°C cooling would barely make a dent in the human-caused global warming over the next century." More recently, The Washington Post reported on July 14 that "several other recent studies of a possible solar minimum have concluded that whatever climate effects the phenomenon may have will be dwarfed by the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions."
Similarly, blog posts by Slate's Phil Plait and the website ...and Then There's Physics each cited one of those studies, which was published in Nature Communications and found that "[a]ny reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07...-in-sun/204412
LIES! you hear them FIRST from right-wing hate media!
For some reason I am not buying that solar thermodynamics can be predicted by combining two wave forms with any degree of precision or accuracy.
Darrin's take in all of this is particularly amusing in light of his takes on how they try to model climate. I no longer care if his hypocrisy is from feigned stupidity or the real thing any more.
Zharkova made statement she wasn't qualified to make, and your right-wing hate media blew up into a anti-AGW mini-age starting in 15 years. total rightwing media bull
I see snakeboys link was studiously ignored.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...o-science.aspx
Really? What's my take on this?
"Despite avalanches of money being spent on research to find evidence of rapid man-made warming, despite even more spent on propaganda and marketing and subsidising renewable energy, the public remains unconvinced."
so ing what? 40%+ of Americans don't accept Darwinian evolution, believe the Bible is unquestionable God's Word, is 100% accurate science AND history.
"The big difference is that these scientists who insist that we take their word for it, and who get cross if we don’t, are also asking us to make huge, expensive and risky changes to the world economy and to people’s livelihoods."
bull . the AGW/GHG scientists aren't ask people to "believe" their "word for it". They aren't Bible humping pastors duping suckers into believing End Times, creationism, etc.
"Yet they are not prepared to debate the science behind their concern."
bull . 1000s of scientists have Ms of datapoints, current and going back 1000s of years. Let the "other side" (mostly paid s for BigCarbon (Exxon has known for at least 35 years that CO2 is a AGW GHG) present its data.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-15-2015 at 08:55 AM.
I read up through the guilt by association, the unsubstantiated claim that 'mountains of evidence are being ignored,' the cherry picked stupid thing said by scientist, and the HANSEN/GORE! part but then lost interest for it being the same stupid .
to mitigate and trivialize the issue for your corporate overlords of course.
Climate science has become a dirtier business because political groups are throwing money at it, both sides. And most of the dire predictions are blown up by the press.
I read it. It's not unusual. It happens in cancer research as well. Once big money infects an area in science we are more likely to get people in on it working only for profit and not for accuracy. Peer review needs to be cleaned up and funded to counter other interests, like the biased news groups.
AGW is dirtied, is denied by financed by BigCarbon, throwing $100Ms at it for self-protection.
there's nothing on the pro-AGW side that corresponds
When The Guardian gets paid to put out Global Warming pieces and they have a larger readership than the conservative paper then one side got a cheap price for advertising.
So, you think this ice age claim is something that should be taken seriously?
oversimplifications of the simple minded. i no longer care if the stupidity is feigned or legitimate.
do you think that climate scientists ignore solar cycles and variability in their models?
who pays the Guardian to promote AGW?
Read about the Guardians's outgoing editor.
I don't care who creates the models. If they don't comport with reality, they are . Same goes for this ice age prediction.
A lot of truth bombs in there. I can see why Fuzzy and boobot hate it.
the AGW models ARE matching reality, but you refuse them as
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
