OMG, how are the greenies and Al Gore going to spin this:
Scientists warn the sun will ‘go to sleep’ in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet
**New study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles **
Says that between 2030 and 2040 solar cycles will cancel each other out
[*]**Could lead to ‘Maunder minimum’ effect that saw River Thames freeze over **
The Earth could be headed for a ‘mini ice age’ researchers have warned.
A new study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles - and says that between 2020 and 2030 solar cycles will cancel each other out.
This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the ‘Maunder minimum’ - which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715, even causing London’s River Thames to freeze over.
somebody will have to delete this duplicate post. The program doesn’t allow for deletions by users.
Yep, it really is funny how warming is caused by cow farts and automobiles, but cooling, is a product of the Sun’s activity levels. Hmmmm.
I’ll merge it with Old Dog’s thread.
The liberal whackjobs changed their screechings from Man Made Global Warming to Man Made Climate Change to cover all of this except the sun actually lowering its energy output. It’s funny how real science negates the claims of liberals.
LOL, we’re back to an impending Ice Age of magnatastic proportions that will freeze our very souls… if we had souls… since all of that religion stuff is hokey pokey anyways. Luckily we have a government that isn’t afraid to enact protectionist policies that cut down on carbon in the atmosphere, or else we’d probably not have any problem at all…
You guys really need to stop getting your “science” information from the media and then attributing it to “what scientists say”.
Real science? LOL Most of the people here spend their time trying to redefine it, not understand it. Case in point:
The terms Climate change and Global warming mean different things in the scientific literature and are both legitimate depending on what you are speaking too. Let me debunk the idea that it “used” to be called Global Warming until recently when XYZ changed and scientists changed the name…
So to sum up, although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ refer to different physical phenomena. The term ‘climate change’ has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term ‘climate change’ is less frightening to the general public than ‘global warming’. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth “they changed the name from global warming to climate change”.
1956 study of “Climate Change”, which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today’s widely accepted most likely value of 3°C.
One off? No, not really…Here is a 1971 paper that refers to “Climate Change” (right side bout 1/2 way down).
Need some more?
The Journal “Climate Change” was created in 1977.
Aww, come on. Seriously? Abandon MMT yet? The consensus of most economists, left and right, is that it’s a joke. Let’s see:
> Real economics? LOL Most of the people into MMT spend their time trying to redefine it, not understand it.
Just sayin’ and really, your comment is basically insulting and demeaning. It’s very bad persuasive writing. Think about it for a bit. It makes you unpersuasive. You may not persuade anyone with less colorful writing, at least not right away. Few people just swap one “belief” for another after reading an idea or a post or hearing an argument, etc. They roll the ideas around in their heads, and then rarely change their minds. You pretty much shoot your argument in the foot when you do this and guarantee to put your opponents on the defensive, never to change their minds. Maybe you just don’t care. Or maybe you do change your mind easily when people insult you. I dunno. Whatever. Have fun. Carry on.
RWNJ…There is an argument to be had within climate science, but saying things like “science said a global ice age was coming in the 1970’s now they want us to beleive X” is redefining what science says. While it may be demeaning to questions a persons beleif, it’s a fact. I’ve posted undeniable proof of this fact. If people can so easily believe something so blatantly wrong and so easy to prove is wrong, then why believe they aren’t doing the same things when it comes to more difficult theories of climate science? Hence my comment.
Anything I’ve posted on climate science hasn’t been to prove that Climate Science an undeniable fact, what I’ve been doing, with evidence from the most reliable sources I can find, is show flaws in how people came to understand the things they believe. Will any of those things make the consensus on Climate Change true? No of course not, what it should do is send people back to the drawing board on how they came to believe what they believe.
But the truth is, I’m not out to change the hearts and minds of people like Sam or Ret. I know I’m not going to change their minds, but there are a few people, some of which have already reached out and thanked me privately, for my dissenting opinion here, who are willing to re-evaluate their position, or at the very least know there is more work to do before forming an opinion of their own.
As far as being insulted and demeaned, really? You comment might mean more to me had you admonished others in some of the responses I’ve had…My comment was not meant to be insulting or demeaning and it wasn’t pointed at any one particular person. The beauty of that comment is that if you are insulted by it, chances are, you’re doing exactly what it says. If not, then you are free to ignore it. If on the other hand, you think I’ve insulted the “group”, well, that shows the flaw in “group think” and it demonstrates why it’s so difficult for groups as a whole to change their minds.
As far as MTT is concerned. I know your comment with respect to MMT was supposed to teach me a lesson, however, if you meant that, then let’s have a discussion where you show me, as I showed Mr. Blutarski, why you believe that is true.
Well, good for you then. You are effective. As for the coming ice age, I was there. I remember the freaking out. We only hear it from the media. That’s basically how we communicated ideas like that back then. It’s really how we do it now. The song and dance were the same, just about a different subject. I also remember “The Population Bomb” and the end of the world as we know it approaching. The sound we heard then is the sound we hear now.
If there were seven studies showing global cooling or whatever someone wants to call it, then there were studies. The viewpoint was what it was whether it was supported by many scientists or not. You can imagine how the fervency of the doomsday crowd falls on deaf ears. Nah, you don’t have to imagine it because it obviously does. Cry wolf too many times, people stop listening even if there really is a wolf.
And no, I’m not interested in debating MMT with you. We’ve done plenty of that already. My point was the parallel to your criticism, only with "economist"s instead of “scientists.” The evidence is not on your side. Your denial doesn’t change it. I understand that you disagree. But the vast majority of economists disagree with you.
Touche my freind.
Yes, the media did report these things, specifically two very respected magazines, Time and Newsweek. And you are right, most people didn’t have other outlets of access to that kind of information and I’m certain it felt very real. I was pretty young back then and wasn’t all that concerned with ice ages or warming, so I can’t say I remember. However, I do remember the Mobro 4000 hauling garbage up and down the east coast in 1987 and starting a political and media driven frenzy over landfill space. It’s another perfect example of political ideology and media driving an issue devoid of real facts…
It was wrong to misrepresent the consensus on climate and one could forgive a person in the 70’s and 80’s for believing such a thing. However, it’s 2016 and the excuse for believing something that isn’t true has slipped away. Now you can easily figure these sorts of things out with just a few keystrokes.
> If there were seven studies showing global cooling or whatever someone wants to call it, then there were studies
Obviously I’ve acknowledged this…But it sounds like your saying that if there is a single peer reviewed paper on any topic regardless of it’s conclusion, all of science should be made to account for it, even if there are many more studies that take the opposition position?..Is that what you’re saying?
As far as MMT, I’m ok with you or anyone else calling my ideas on the topic into question as long as their willing to back up their claims with, at the very least a conversation if not empirical evidence. I mean, you can do what you want, call MMT into question all you want, claim victory, tell me it’s empty and false…That is your prerogative, I’ll simply tell you you are wrong.
No not really. I’m saying, cry wolf too much, and people will be skeptical.
As for me, I’m skeptical of the climate Armageddon proposed by so many people – whether they are media, scientists or politicians. I don’t discount scientists collectively, and I would never declare all scientists ignorant or wrong. I will always be skeptical in general, and on this topic, we have enough perverse incentives economic and ideological – with a new media bullhorn to support it – that I will view it with even more skepticism. Scientists are humans and subject to the same incentives and disincentives everyone else is subject to. They also lie and cheat, not all of them, but some number of them are willing.
A few keystrokes are not a simple answer. In different ways, it’s more difficult to evaluate information today than it was 40 years ago. In other ways, credible information is more easily available. Just in the past few days, we had a post on this site from a year-old news story about an ISIS training camp within a few miles of our border in Mexico.
We’ve already been over MMT. I have nothing further to add about MMT, and I doubt you do either. I’m not discussing the merits of MMT one way or the other here. The reason I mention MMT is because the “scientific consensus” of economic “scientists” disagrees with you and MMT. Your appeal to the scientific consensus to support your arguments about climate change and global warming doesn’t seem reasonable when you discount the experts in another field in favor of an oddball theory promoted by a few oddballs.
It may surprise you to know that I agree that “climate Armageddon” as it’s being preached is probably false. Humans have a predictable habit of overstating their enemies and their potential dangers. I suppose, from an evolutionary standpoint (if you believe in evolution), that the behavioral trait of being over cautious was selected for as those that were less cautious got eat by bears, or fell off cliffs ect… This is why you won’t read panic into anything I’ve written, nor do I advocate radical changes and then threaten that failure to change will lead to the end of life on earth as we know it. I don’t believe that. As I’ve stated before, IF climate change happens the way the climate alarmists claim (and as I’ve said, I doubt it) the largest consequence would be the affect on agriculture and raising food animals.
It could lead to food shortages, but I suspect that humans, being the resourceful creatures that we are will adapt. I can imagine large scale desalinization plants feeding water to hydroponic farms near the coast if the areas we use to far become arid due to changes…There are solutions even if the climate deniers are right. Ironically, the US is on one of the best positions to deal with a changing landscape imo. We have the land, the technology and he resources to create the environments we need.
As far as cheating scientists. Of course you are right, there are lots of scientists that are unscrupulous, dishonest or just out for a buck, but that’s the point of peer review. Peer review isn’t a democratic process. It works on a LACK of trust. It’s not a group, or a click…I mean, when the body of knowledge sustains a claim over a long period, it can be difficult to break though, but as I said to RET, no one wins notoriety sustaining long held ideas. If you want to be famous, and scientists, like most people want what they do to memorialize them, then you prove the consensus wrong. Einstein did it to Newton and the person/s who prove climate change wrong will be known forever.
As far as my appeal to scientific consensus…Man. Really, go back and read what I wrote! I wasn’t claiming that consensus supported my ideas on climate change, I was pointing out that the media hyped a story about cooling that WASN’T the consensus view in the 70’s. My objection was that “science”, and when I say “science” I mean what the consensus view of science is, didn’t predict cooling. There were several papers on cooling, and rightly so, because particulates and aerosols were causing cooling. Many of the papers even recognized the cause and the fact that they would diminish over a short period of time. NONE of those papers predicted an ice age. Not one, nada. That was the media embellishing on the science of the minority view. Now that mis-information has led to a distrust of science as a body of knowledge (not individuals). Don’t trust scientists, trust the process of science (the scientific method) which is different as it implicitly does NOT trust and requires repeatable, verifiable evidence. All that’s left is interpreting the data, and that seems to me to be the place where the most conflict exists.
Economics is a social science, not a physical one. I think we’d agree that behavior is, by it’s very nature unpredictable, making the equivalent of “peer review” impossible in economics. So their not quite the same, but I understand what you were trying to say.
I’m not surprised. I haven’t read everything you or anyone else has posted. I’m happy to hear you’re not an alarmist, and point taken that you’re not relying on the consensus. I dipped in and felt obliged to respond based on my own memory of the coming ice age. It well may be there was no consensus, and that’s fine. But I also don’t particularly think the criticism you’ve been hearing is anti-science but anti-dishonesty and anti-alarmist. It’s wariness that arises from whatever source caused it, and I won’t blame the media solely either (although it could be solely the fault of the media). The fact is that this was early climate change alarmism, and it makes a lot of folks skeptical. I think we’ve seen in this thread and in the other thread plenty of reason to be skeptical. Folks around here aren’t so much skeptical of science or the scientific method but rather they are skeptical of human beings and human nature.
Hence I believe this statement, which you made, is wrong:
> Real science? LOL Most of the people here spend their time trying to redefine it, not understand it.
Perhaps you may not be so different from most of the the folks here despite what you and they may think – two or more points of view, two ore more lenses, on the same problem. I think you could be more convincing to the people here if you talked to them the way you’ve been talking to me instead of writing things like this.
On economics, well, yes. I think it can be fairly scientific and empirical, but it is a social science. The real challenge with economics is the variability of humans, the unpredictability you mention. Your point supports my own viewpoint that an economy cannot be effectively managed by public policy or central planning committees. That unpredictability represents 7 billion variables worldwide and 315 million in our country alone. But the logic and what we can measure does result in some mainstream consensus among economists. I don’t think consensus is an argument. My own economic school has a rich tradition, but it’s relatively minor (though considerably more orthodox) as well.
Not by scientists, you don’t. That was never something they said was coming in our life times. It’s expected to be more than 10,000 years from now. Which is short in a geological sense, but not in the sense of it impacting any of us, or anyone we’ll ever know. That was true then, and continues to be true. That prediction has not changed. It is completely separate from the view that the planet is currently warming at a rapid pace. Which is also a view that has been consistently held since the 1950s.
If there was anyone “freaking out” about a coming ice age, it was someone totally misunderstanding what they predicted. Which is not their fault.
There’s always someone freaking out. And when politicians hear it, most of us lose.