• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

There's not much point trying to assign blame to people.  The proposals to contain the pine beetle early on were not guaranteed to succeed.

What is overlooked is that we don't really have any historical records going back any useful length of time to tell us how often widespread beetle infestations occur.  For all we know they are routine events occurring every couple or few hundred years.

The underlying point is still valid: fire problems have very little to do with climate warming (catastrophic or mild).

Everything unfortunate or unusual these days is because of "climate change".  The irony is that often anthropogenic factors feature prominently in things like unusually difficult fires, or flooding and erosion - but they are not the factors that anyone wants to acknowledge, because there is less sympathy and less money thrown at governments who mismanage their habitat.
 
I have adopted the term "Climate Reform" as, if warming is in fact occurring (and there is no credible sign of that in almost two decades now), then we are merely coming back to normal temperatures and conditions as seen in the mediaeval Warm Period (and its predecessor warm periods).
 
Meanwhile as to all that supposed hydrocarbon wealth on the Arctic seabed:

Bye, Bye Big Oil Drilling in US Arctic Waters
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/mark-collins-bye-bye-big-oil-drilling-in-us-arctic-waters/

Mark
Ottawa
 
My guess is they got a big tax write off as it would be classified as "Exploratory" drilling. That's how it works in Canada and I don't see the US being much different. It will all go up for sale again sometime in the future, no ones going to let that much oil and gas go, especially if climate change continues and the ice pack becomes a lesser problem.



Just my 2¢......


Cheers
Larry
 
One response to state sanctioned bullying and lawfare:
 

Attachments

  • FASCIST-448x600.png
    FASCIST-448x600.png
    165.4 KB · Views: 179
Sadly, law fare seems only to be practiced by one side. It looks like it would be perfectly valid to prosecute these jackasses, and slap them with massive civil suits as well, but I'm not going to hold my breath:

http://nypost.com/2016/06/30/the-imploding-cabal-to-criminalize-climate-dissent/

OPINION
The imploding cabal to criminalize climate dissent
By Adam Brodsky June 30, 2016 | 8:52pm

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and his fellow greenies are getting a lesson about the dangers of believing their own propaganda.

These know-it-alls claim there’s a “consensus” on climate change and what to do about it. And they believe that consensus is so broad that even prosecuting dissent would be a slam dunk. Claude Walker’s monumental crash-and-burn this week blew up that theory. Schneiderman and his ideological pals, from Al Gore to Hillary Clinton, would be wise to take note.

Walker is the attorney general for the US Virgin Islands who launched a ludicrous racketeering probe of ExxonMobil and sent sweeping subpoenas to the company and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Ostensibly, his suspicion, like that of a similar probe by Schneiderman, was that Exxon fraudulently downplayed climate change’s dangers to the public and its investors.

But Walker sought Exxon’s correspondence with some 90 groups suspected of the “crime” of questioning climate-change orthodoxy. The obvious point was to make these groups think twice about the findings their research produces and their positions on the issue. It was also meant to scare off donors, like Exxon.

Yet Wednesday, Walker withdrew his Exxon subpoena. He’d already taken back his order to CEI.

So his probe, it seems, is kaput.

Walker & Co. miscalculated. Schneiderman launched his investigation in November. In March, he held a presser with attorneys general from nearly 20 other states, promising a cooperative effort against Exxon. Al Gore even appeared.

Yet only a few AGs actually launched probes and issued subpoenas. Massachusetts AG Maura Healey this week delayed her own subpoena of Exxon. Schneiderman is quickly becoming odd man out.

No surprise: The climate-change “consensus” isn’t as widespread as greenies claim.

Indeed, the claim itself is just another attempt to silence debate. The science is settled, they say. Anyone who disagrees must be a kook, a “denier.”

Schneiderman’s move and the March presser may have won plaudits from the radicals, who hope to end use of all fossil fuel. But it also drew outrage from First Amendment champions and those who saw the probes as an abuse of office.

Lawmakers like House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) questioned the actions of the AGs. Exxon counter-sued.

And this month, attorneys general from 13 other states bashed their counterparts’ gambit as a “grave mistake.” They made clear the hypocrisy and political motives of attacking Exxon: Schneiderman & Co. claim the firm may have fraudulently minimized climate-change risks. But what about, say, renewable-energy companies that might be exaggerating them?

If temperatures rise more slowly than expected (or not at all), they write, “many ‘clean energy’ companies may become less valuable and some may be altogether worthless.” Why aren’t Schneiderman & Co., who claim to be looking out for the public and investors, subpoenaing them?


If Exxon was wrong to fund researchers who “understate” climate risks, the attorneys asked, what about all the money going to those overstating it? “Does anyone doubt that ‘clean energy’ companies have funded nonprofits who exaggerated the risk?”

The Schneiderman gang targeted Exxon and fossil-fuel companies for a reason, and it’s not to protect investors. They see political hay here. They truly (or cynically) believe slamming these companies — and anyone who fails to toe the radicals’ line — will draw overwhelming support. (And campaign cash.)

Sure, states like New York (one of just a few places in America where fracking is banned) may applaud Schneiderman. But Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds, a law professor, also notes some ironic potential costs to the attack: Under federal law, he writes, it’s a felony “for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person . . . in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.”

The right to free speech is secured by the Constitution, even when it comes to climate change. Conspiring to deprive non-believers of that right certainly sounds like it meets the law’s definition.

Inspired by the 1990s victory against tobacco companies, the Schneiderman cabal thought it could score big-time by threatening a RICO case against fossil-fuel companies. How fitting if the same threat brings them to heel.
 
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/21/global-warming-expedition-stuck-in-arctic-sea-because-of-too-much-ice/

Global Warming Expedition Stuck in Arctic Sea Because of Too Much Ice

by Warner Todd Huston

21 Jul 2016

An expedition to the North Pole intended to measure the effects of global warming ground to a halt this month when the scientist’s ship got blocked by the ice packs near Murmansk, Russia, reports reveal.

The Polar Ocean Challenge set out on a two-month campaign hoping to prove that the ice at the North Pole was melting. As the expedition’s website explains, the group aimed to show “that the Arctic sea ice coverage shrinks back so far now in the summer months that sea that was permanently locked up now can allow passage through.”

Despite their best intentions to show that the ice is melting and the temperature at the pole is higher than normal, the group has only been confronted with the exact opposite as ice continues to block their path.

The website Real Climate Science notes that the Polar melt season is half over, but temperatures have not climbed high enough to sponsor a large melt off of ice. According to the site, there has not been a big melt, and ice gains seem to be very close to the amount of ice lost because temperatures near the pole have been persistently below normal this year. And at the very least, large ice floes have blocked the ocean passages around the area.

The global warming expedition expected to be able to sail all around the Arctic Ocean through the Northeast and Northwest Passages because they assumed the ice would be gone, but they have been stymied because ice blocks most of the route they planned to take.
 
Loachman said:
The global warming expedition expected to be able to sail all around the Arctic Ocean through the Northeast and Northwest Passages because they assumed the ice would be gone, but they have been stymied because ice blocks most of the route they planned to take.

:rofl:

Darn climate change.  You never know how humanity's baleful influence on Mother Gaia is going to turn out.
 
Loachman said:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/21/global-warming-expedition-stuck-in-arctic-sea-because-of-too-much-ice/

Global Warming Expedition Stuck in Arctic Sea Because of Too Much Ice

by Warner Todd Huston

21 Jul 2016

An expedition to the North Pole intended to measure the effects of global warming ground to a halt this month when the scientist’s ship got blocked by the ice packs near Murmansk, Russia, reports reveal.

The Polar Ocean Challenge set out on a two-month campaign hoping to prove that the ice at the North Pole was melting. As the expedition’s website explains, the group aimed to show “that the Arctic sea ice coverage shrinks back so far now in the summer months that sea that was permanently locked up now can allow passage through.”

Despite their best intentions to show that the ice is melting and the temperature at the pole is higher than normal, the group has only been confronted with the exact opposite as ice continues to block their path.

The website Real Climate Science notes that the Polar melt season is half over, but temperatures have not climbed high enough to sponsor a large melt off of ice. According to the site, there has not been a big melt, and ice gains seem to be very close to the amount of ice lost because temperatures near the pole have been persistently below normal this year. And at the very least, large ice floes have blocked the ocean passages around the area.

The global warming expedition expected to be able to sail all around the Arctic Ocean through the Northeast and Northwest Passages because they assumed the ice would be gone, but they have been stymied because ice blocks most of the route they planned to take.

Well, that's an unfortunate turn of events.  But, never mind.  It'll all be over soon

SHOCK CLAIM: 'World will END' when poles flip and mega earthquake strikes ON JULY 29

THE world will reach a terrible and violent end in just EIGHT days, claims a shock video which has been viewed by nearly 2.5 million worried people.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/691945/SHOCK-CLAIM-World-will-END-when-poles-flip-and-mega-earthquake-strikes-ON-JULY-29
 
Thucydides said:
More on "settled science".

Most of us hard scientists don't consider psychology a real science.

Reproducibility is a problem.  That's why it bugs me when people try cherry picking ONE single article that was recently published and has never been cited as though it absolutely proves or disproves something.

Bias due to funding sources is also a problem.  I should cut and paste what I wrote about pharmaceutical firms and clinical trials here.

Some climate change is definitely due to human activity.  It is not a fraud.  That is absurd.  The science of how carbon dioxide traps heat is really simple to understand.

================
merged
================

Quote from: George Wallace on 09-05-2016, 13:38:35

    Here are some facts for the TREE HUGGERS, CLIMATE CHANGE CONSPIRACY/THEOROISTS, GREEN PEACE and other so called "scientists with no Degrees on the Subject" to mull over.


Hypotheses and theories should be evaluated based on the evidence, not on whether the person making the argument has a degree on the subject.  That's an appeal to authority and it's a fallacy.  Maybe you're making a point about people claiming to be experts.  I don't care what experts say - I try to be skeptical of everything.  I know not everyone is the same because not everyone is scientifically literate.

A lot of what is in what you posted is just rhetoric.  If you want to debate the facts, that would be great.  But citing blogs that focus on a single issue and are half-rhetoric isn't convincing.  I think the way you've started your post is just meant to appeal to emotion, rather than reason.  Maybe the topic pisses you off.  That's fine, but if you're going to criticize the "tree huggers" for committing some kind of massive fraud then I think you should stick to facts, rather than making an appeal to emotions.

I'm sure that climate change has been misused, intentionally or otherwise, to accomplish some goal.  That doesn't mean climate change is a giant hoax.  It means that some people might try to take advantage of it.  It also means that others will wrongly believe they're offering solutions, when they aren't.
 
GAP said:
:facepalm:

another energizer bunny.......

But the Energizer Bunny feigns the possibility of perpetual motion, I mean, they have never shown the thing slowing down like your old Walkman, right?

Aside: Maschinengewher,

Try forming one reply with your posts rather than quoting one in each reply, it makes you easier to follow and look less like you're on constant send. You can do this by having two tabs open on the site. One for a blank reply space, the other to use the quote post function with what you wish to reply to. Then copy and paste the code into the open and blank reply box. Go nuts underneath with your reply. Rinse and repeat.

Give it a try.

Scott
Staff
 
Scott,

my apologies, I'm used to a forum that automerges double posts so I've developed some bad habits.
Oh and you can call me MG42 for short.

-----------------

The thing about climate change is that the Earth isn't a simple system.  It's easy to understand how heat gets trapped under carbon dioxide and methane, but it's not like all there is to the model is a layer of gas trapping heat over a solid sphere that reflects heat.  The Earth has heat sinks with high heat capacities (the oceans).  It becomes tough to really predict accurately.  It's a system that can become chaotic.  The math isn't simple and the answers aren't exact.

There isn't a known analytical solution to three body problem.  We can't even absolutely predict the interaction between the Sun, Earth and Moon (and those aren't the only bodies in the solar system).  Even the Earth's orbit around the Sun isn't a sure thing: Earth's orbit could be perturbed by another body in the solar system and could end up drifting away from the Sun, out of the solar system.  That will take care of global warming, at least.  If we do stay in our current orbit, the Earth won't be able to hold liquid water in about a billion years because the sun will have increased just enough in size and luminosity.  Those scenarios are way in the future.

I saw another post about how most papers on climate change were probably absolutely wrong and that science will be swamped with so many faulty papers that climate change models will always be wrong and the self-correcting aspect of science won't kick in.  If all climate scientists are actually that bad and their models start to increasingly diverge from observation, then it won't be rational to use science any more and I guess we'll just have to give up and live in the dark ages.

I'm sure conflict of interest and bias do affect climate science.  Science is a social activity and it only works because it is subject to criticism.  I think people should be skeptical of climate change, but dismissing it outright and calling it a fraud isn't criticism.

I do have my own biases.  I'm inclined to trust other scientists.  I do always try to be skeptical but my inclination is to trust other scientists.  I'm not a climate scientist, but I think the basics of climate change are very simple and undeniable: carbon dioxide and methane trap heat.

I think anyone who wants to claim that the theory of anthropogenic climate change has to do is offer a better explanation that explains observations.  It isn't enough just to say that human-caused global warming is a fraud.  Science goes with the best explanation for our observations.  If you think you can offer a better explanation then please do so.
 
But the Energizer Bunny feigns the possibility of perpetual motion, I mean, they have never shown the thing slowing down like your old Walkman, right?

Hey! I resemble that!!.............. ;D
 
Anyone pointed this out to Al Grore?

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/08/no-major-us-hurricanes-in-11-years-odds-of-that-1-in-2300/

No major US hurricanes in 11 years. Odds of that? 1-in-2,300.
Earl is dead now, as yet another hurricane has avoided the United States.
ERIC BERGER - 8/5/2016, 10:15 AM

On Thursday some meteorologists (who are by nature a cheesy lot) had an opportunity to channel their inner Dixie Chick and sing "Goodbye Earl" as yet another hurricane went into the Yucatan Peninsula to die. Most of the rest of the United States yawned—another hurricane in the Atlantic, and no harm done.

But the hurricane was remarkable precisely because of this. Earl, which attained a maximum wind speed of 80 mph before striking Belize, marked another in a long line of hurricanes that have formed in the Atlantic basin—the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico—but have not affected the United States.

Consider some of the following statistics: the last hurricane to reach the Gulf of Mexico was Ingrid in September, 2013. The current, nearly three-year-long drought for the Gulf has not been equaled since at least 1851. The drought in hurricanes that make Florida landfalls is even more pronounced. The Sunshine State, which juts into the Atlantic Ocean like a lightning rod for tropical weather, has not been hit by a hurricane since Wilma (2005). Earl was in fact the 67th Atlantic hurricane in a row to not make landfall in Florida, according to hurricane scientist Phil Klotzbach. The previous record was a mere 33 hurricanes, a streak between Hurricanes David (1979) and Elena (1985).

For major hurricanes, storms with 111 mph winds or stronger, a drought exists as well. According to data from another hurricane scientist, Brian McNoldy, a major Atlantic hurricane hasn't hit the United States in 3,938 days, again since Wilma hit Florida in 2005. That streak is longer than any other in the long Atlantic record, greater even than the 3,315-day drought from 1860 to 1869. Since Wilma, a remarkable 27 major hurricanes have developed in the Atlantic basin, but all have avoided the United States. Klotzbach said the odds of none of those striking the United States is 1-in-2,300.

It's not clear why this drought has occurred, as Atlantic hurricane activity has remained more or less near or above normal levels during the last decade. One recent peer-reviewed paper put it down to chance. On one hand this is great—fewer bigger storms mean less widespread coastal devastation.

But as the Capital Weather Gang warned this week, it also has the potential to lull coastal residents into a false sense of security. "It’s only a matter of time before the luck reverses and storms start bombarding the U.S. coast again," the influential weather site concluded. "Growing coastal populations and lack of recent hurricane activity, from Florida to Texas, raise concerns about the nation’s readiness."
 
But as the Capital Weather Gang warned this week, it also has the potential to lull coastal residents into a false sense of security. "It’s only a matter of time before the luck reverses and storms start bombarding the U.S. coast again," the influential weather site concluded. "Growing coastal populations and lack of recent hurricane activity, from Florida to Texas, raise concerns about the nation’s readiness."

They don't even know what's going on but they close with a fear paragraph to keep the sheeple scared.
 
Good article about why the Ontario Green Energy program is resulting in a spiralling increase in electricity costs when in fact the wholesale price of electric energy is dropping.

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/ontario-electricity-has-never-been-cheaper-but-bills-have-never-been-higher

"Ontario electricity has never been cheaper, but bills have never been higher

Ross McKitrick, Special to Financial Post | August 10, 2016 8:10 AM ET

The more the wind blows, the bigger the losses and the higher the hit to consumers.

You may be surprised to learn that electricity is now cheaper to generate in Ontario than it has been for decades. The wholesale price, called the Hourly Ontario Electricity Price or HOEP, used to bounce around between five and eight cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), but over the last decade, thanks in large part to the shale gas revolution, it has trended down to below three cents, and on a typical day is now as low as two cents per kWh. Good news, right?

It would be, except that this is Ontario. A hidden tax on Ontario’s electricity has pushed the actual purchase price in the opposite direction, to the highest it’s ever been. The tax, called the Global Adjustment (GA), is levied on electricity purchases to cover a massive provincial slush fund for green energy, conservation programs, nuclear plant repairs and other central planning boondoggles. As these spending commitments soar, so does the GA.

In the latter part of the last decade when the HOEP was around five cents per kWh and the government had not yet begun tinkering, the GA was negligible, so it hardly affected the price. In 2009, when the Green Energy Act kicked in with massive revenue guarantees for wind and solar generators, the GA jumped to about 3.5 cents per kWh, and has been trending up since — now it is regularly above 9.5 cents. In April it even topped 11 cents, triple the average HOEP.

So while the marginal production cost for generation is the lowest in decades, electricity bills have never been higher. And the way the system is structured, costs will keep rising.

The province signed long-term contracts with a handful of lucky firms, guaranteeing them 13.5 cents per kWh for electricity produced from wind, and even more from solar. Obviously, if the wholesale price is around 2.5 cents, and the wind turbines are guaranteed 13.5 cents, someone has to kick in 11 cents to make up the difference. That’s where the GA comes in. The more the wind blows, and the more turbines get built, the bigger the losses and the higher the GA.

Just to make the story more exquisitely painful, if the HOEP goes down further, for instance through technological innovation, power rates won’t go down. A drop in the HOEP widens the gap between the market price and the wind farm’s guaranteed price, which means the GA has to go up to cover the losses.

Ontario’s policy disaster goes many layers further. If people conserve power and demand drops, the GA per kWh goes up, so if everyone tries to save money by cutting usage, the price will just increase, defeating the effort. Nor do Ontarians benefit through exports. Because the renewables sector is guaranteed the sale, Ontario often ends up exporting surplus power at a loss.

The story only gets worse if you try to find any benefits from all this spending. Ontario doesn’t get more electricity than before, it gets less.

Despite the hype, all this tinkering produced no special environmental benefits. The province said it needed to close its coal-fired power plants to reduce air pollution. But prior to 2005, these plants were responsible for less than two per cent of annual fine particulate emissions in Ontario, about the same as meat packing plants, and far less than construction or agriculture. Moreover, engineering studies showed that improvements in air quality equivalent to shutting the plants down could be obtained by simply completing the pollution control retrofit then underway, and at a fraction of the cost. Greenhouse gas emissions could have been netted to zero by purchasing carbon credits on the open market, again at a fraction of the cost. The environmental benefits exist only in provincial propaganda.

And on the subject of environmental protection, mention must be made of the ruin of so many scenic vistas in the province, especially long stretches of the Great Lakes shores, the once-pristine recreational areas of the central highlands, and the formerly pastoral landscapes of the southwestern farmlands; and we have not even mentioned yet the well-documented ordeal for people living with the noise and disturbance of wind turbines in their backyards. We will look in vain for benefits in Ontario even remotely commensurate to the damage that has been done.

The province likes to defend its disastrous electricity policy by saying it did it for the children. These are the same children who are now watching their parents struggle with unaffordable utility bills. And who in a few years will enter the workforce and discover how hard it has become to get full time jobs amid a shrinking industrial job market.

Electricity is cheaper to make than it’s been for a generation, yet Ontarians are paying more than ever. About the only upside is that nine other provinces now have a handbook on what not to do with their electricity sector.

Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics at University of Guelph, is Research Chair, Frontier Centre for Public Policy."

:cheers:
 
This one is for you FJAG and Thucydides:

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13925338_817149658386234_3086406773356730668_n.jpg?oh=b1eb43f9a07de7bc61ae0b357b21c13f&oe=584CB9B8

What more proof do you need?  ;D
 
Ha Ha Ha!

However, there is very real proof of climate change mechanisms, just not acceptance of it.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/09/scientist-predicts-little-ice-age-gets-icey-reception-from-colleagues/

Scientist Predicts ‘Little Ice Age,’ Gets Icy Reception From Colleagues
MICHAEL BASTASCH
11:05 AM 08/09/2016

NASA  NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory image in extreme ultraviolet light shows an active region of the sun's coronal loops taken over about a two-day period, from February 8 - 10, 2014 and released on February 18, 2014. Coronal loops are found around sunspots and in active regions. These structures are associated with the closed magnetic field lines that connect magnetic regions on the solar surface. Many coronal loops last for days or weeks, but most change quite rapidly. REUTERS/Solar Dynamics Observatory/NASA/Handout via Reuters ∧

Professor Valentina Zharkova at Northumbria University is being attacked by climate change proponents for publishing research suggesting there could be a 35-year period of low solar activity that could usher in an “ice age.”

Zharkova and her team of researchers released a study on sunspot modeling, finding that solar activity could fall to levels not seen since the so-called “Little Ice Age” of the 1600s. Zharkova’s conclusions may have huge implications for global temperature modeling, but her analysis is not accepted by some climate scientists.

“Some of them were welcoming and discussing. But some of them were quite — I would say — pushy,” she told The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) in an interview on her solar study.

In fact, Zharkova said some scientists even tried to have her research suppressed.

“They were trying to actually silence us,” she said. “Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our press release.”

Zharkova found that solar activity is driven by two magnetic waves from within the sun that can either dampen or amplify solar activity. Solar activity is believed to play a role in warming and cooling average global temperature.

Zharkova’s team incorporated solar data into predictive models and found that the sun is heading into a period of low solar activity similar to the Maunder Minimum of the late 1600s. During this time, scientists believe low solar activity contributed to cooler average global temperature.

“Whatever we do to the planet, if everything is done only by the sun, then the temperature should drop similar like it was in the Maunder Minimum,” she said. “At least in the Northern hemisphere, where this temperature is well protocoled and written. We didn’t have many measurements in the Southern hemisphere, we don’t know what will happen with that, but in the Northern hemisphere, we know it’s very well protocoled.”

“The rivers are frozen,” she added. “There are winters and no summers, and so on.”

The so-called “Little Ice Age” is a controversial topic among scientists. Some argue low solar activity contributed to cooler temperatures over Europe and North America, but others argue volcanic activity drove temperatures lower since the trend began before solar activity fell.

Climate scientists were quick to ask the U.K.’s Royal Astronomical Society to suppress Zharkova’s findings.

“The Royal Astronomical Society replied to them and CCed to us and said, ‘Look, this is the work by the scientists who we support, please discuss this with them,’” Zharkova told the GWPF.

“We had about 8 or 10 exchanges by email, when I tried to prove my point, and I’m saying, I’m willing to look at what you do, I’m willing to see how our results we produced and what the sun has explained to us,” she said. “So how this is transformed into climate we do not produce; we can only assume it should be. So we’re happy to work with you, and add to your data our results.

“So don’t take the sunspots which you get, we can give you our curve. Work with our curve. So they didn’t want to,” she said.

Zharkova isn’t the first to suggest a period of low solar activity is on the way that could cause a cooling trend. Solar activity was reportedly at a 200-year low in February.

A July 2015 study by Jorge Sanchez-Sesma at the Mexican Institute of Water Technology found the oscillations in the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth could have a much bigger cooling impact on the climate than previous estimates by climate scientists.

Sanchez-Sesma examined solar cycle data going back 100,000 years and compared them to about 25,000 years of surface air temperature data in the Congo River Basin and found that “information from reconstructions and models indicates a potential continental tropical temperature cooling of around 0.5oC for the rest of the 21st century.”

Shrinivas Aundhkar, director of India’s Mahatma Gandhi Mission at the Centre for Astronomy and Space Technology, said in 2015 that declining solar activity could mean a “mini ice age-like situation” is on the way.

In 2013, Professor Cliff Ollier t the University of Western Australia posited low solar activity could bring cool the planet.

“There is a very good correlation of sunspots and climate,” Ollier wrote. “Solar cycles provide a basis for prediction.”

“Solar Cycle 24 has started and we can expect serious cooling. Many think that political decisions about climate are based on scientific predictions but what politicians get are projections based on computer models,” he wrote.

Russian scientists argued in 2012 the world could expect the start of the another Little Ice Age starting in 2014.

“After the maximum of solar cycle 24, from approximately 2014 we can expect the start of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055,” wrote Habibullo Abdussamatov of the Russian Academy of Science.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/09/scientist-predicts-little-ice-age-gets-icey-reception-from-colleagues/#ixzz4H2K3cWQ1
 
Back
Top