What Fresh Hell Is This?

December 1, 2015

The Tribune-Review STILL Misleading The Public On Climate Change.

Take a look:
Not only has there been significant pause in Earth's warming, there's credible scientific research — based on solar activity — suggesting a significant cooling decade beginning in 2030. But you won't hear anything about that in Paris. That's what happens when political and social re-engineering agendas replace science.
Ah, "the pause" - we've dealt with this myth before, haven't we?

But what about that other thing?  The cooling beginning in 2030?

The story begins here:
A new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645. Results will be presented today by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.
Professor Zharkova isn't actually a climate scientist, however distinguished a mathematician that she is.

So what do actual climate scientists think of this?  From the Washington Post: 
It’s a dramatic idea, but it isn’t being embraced by many climate scientists, who argue that anthropogenic global warming — brought on by a human outpouring of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere — will far outweigh any climate effects that might be caused by the sun. As far as the solar variations go, “The effect is a drop in the bucket, a barely detectable blip, on the overall warming trajectory we can expect over the next several decades from greenhouse warming,” said Michael Mann, distinguished professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, in an e-mail to The Washington Post.
And:
However, this belief is in direct contrast with much literature on the topic. Georg Feulner, deputy chair of the Earth system analysis research domain at the Potsdam Institute on Climate Change Research, co-authored a paper in 2011 specifically examining the effect a solar minimum might have on Earth’s climate. His paper, and subsequent related research has concluded that any solar-related temperature drops would be far outweighed by human-caused global warming. In the case of a solar minimum, such as the one predicted by Zharkova and colleagues, “The expected decrease in global temperature would be 0.1°C at most, compared to about 1.3°C warming since pre-industrial times by the year 2030,” Feulner wrote in an e-mail to the Post.

Complicating the matter further is the idea that the 17th century’s “little ice age” wasn’t even really the result of the solar minimum going on at the time. Feulner also authored another 2011 paper that concluded that volcanic activity was the major cause of a cooler climate during this time, rather than solar variations. The takeaway is that changes in solar radiation are unlikely to hold a candle to the climatic effects being brought about by human-related greenhouse gas emissions.
So all we have, truth be told, is the braintrust yelling and pointing: LOOK OVER THERE!

Anywhere but at the science and the rising temperatures.

7 comments:

Omega Supreme said...

"Professor Zharkova isn't actually a climate scientist, however distinguished a mathematician that she is."
So no math is used in the infallibly predictive highly accurate climate models of Michael Mann.

Asked and answered. Time to move on.

Ol' Froth said...

Aaaaannnnnd...he completely misses the point. Again.

Zeus0209 said...

"So no math..." Is that supposed to be a retort to the articles argument, a poor attempt at redirecting attention from the article's focus in general, or simply a statement of conclusion achieved via mal-logic?

(Please refrain by answering by posting a link that I'll never follow)

Ol' Froth said...

Its just his tiny, fevered brain trying to find some way to invalidate inconvienent facts that conflict with his dogmatically held beliefs. In his addled thought process, if Dayvoe points out that a mathmatician isn't a climatologist, then climatologists are not allowed to utilize mathmatics.

Of course, intelligent people know that all of science, indeed, almost all professional fields of any kind utilize mathmatics, and also understand that being a mathmatician doesn't make one a climatologist, or a geologist, or an astrophysicist. And while all those fields use highly advance math skills, a climatologist, astrophysicist, or a geologist wouldn't necessarily describe themselves as a mathmatician either.

Omega Supreme said...

Climatologist James E. Hansen channeled the condescending argument from authority when a mire statistician corrected his math.

"I’m not going to use McIntyre’s name, I don’t think he deserves the publicity but I can make some statement, how can we address it in a general way… Unfortunately the public does not have the scientific background to interpret whether or not it’s important and the same thing happened recently with the fellow from Canada who found a flaw in our data record of temperature stations. "

Zeus0209 said...

So you were expressing your discontent with Davyoe's reference to Professor Z as a mathematician (despite paid homage as a distinguished one at that) rather than a climate scientist, and equated it to a snub (a condescending argument from authority)?

I still find Davyoe's snippet of clarifying her profession as germane to the Trib's misleading the public on climate change.

Ol' Froth said...

For example, William Dembski is also a talented and noted mathmatician, but that doesn't make him an anthropologist.