Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

ONW said:

But it was colder than usual in Buffalo yesterday!

Click to expand...

pourdeac said:

LOL. Cold spells are just weather....but hot days are proof of CO2 induced warming. Big forest fires and hurricanes causing property damage are proof of CO2 induced warming.......even though the numbers of both are way down! Get hysterical!

This recent talk by Valentina Zharkova is a pretty good overview of what some of the solar modelers have been saying for years...that the sun is about to go into a phase where real TSI will drop, and possibly pretty dramatically in the 2020s. I first heard about it 20-25 years ago and brought it up on these boards back then. What they predicted seems to be occurring at some level as seen by the unusually "quiet" sun in recent years. The implication of Zharkova's model is an energy drop leading to a cooling of >5°C as the 4 magnetic fields all go out of phase, and that it'll have a strong effect starting in 2020. She believes some of the unusually wet weather we've seen this year is already caused by the drop in TSI...and also thinks that plants could be directly responding to the change in magnetic fields too. Interesting stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_yqIj38UmY

Click to expand...

birdman said:

I looked up the original peer reviewed paper (https://www.researchgate.net/public...und_Magnetic_Field_Variations_in_Cycles_21-23), and the paper doesn't make any predictions about effects of the predicted changes in the Sun on earth's climate and temperature. The predicted effects on earth appear to be entirely based on the one occurrence of the Maunder Minimum in the 1700's which coincided with a "mini-ice-age" but the causal link between these two events is speculative (alternative hypotheses for the "mini-ice-age" include volcanic episodes), and using that to predict the future occurrence of a second "mini-ice-age" would also be speculative. How come that part was left out of the peer reviewed paper? Are there other peer reviewed products that I've missed linking the predictions that you laid out here in this post?

Click to expand...

birdman said:

The source is IFLScience so it's reputability is, perhaps, questionable but they do use named sources and direct quotes. https://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-hoopla-giant-failure-science-communication/
The article/post concludes that the mini-ice-age connection/prediction was first asserted by science journalists, not the scientists them selves and includes the quote from Zharkova her self "We didn’t mention anything about the weather change, but I would have to agree that possibly you can expect it [a mini ice age]."

Click to expand...

In Canada, addressing the question of how governments use the money raised from carbon taxes, Trudeau's government has promised to return the money collected from the provinces directly to taxpayers.

But in France most of the revenue generated will be used to tackle the national budget deficit, increasing anger at Macron, who left-wing opponents call the "president of the rich".

Of the 34 billion euros ($38.71 billion) the French government will raise on fuel taxes in 2018, a sum of only 7.2 billion euros is earmarked for environmental measures.

Click to expand...

“Our findings show there is little or no statistical evidence for a ‘pause’ in GMST rise. Neither the current data nor the historical data support it. Moreover, updates to the GMST data through the period of ‘pause’ research have made this conclusion stronger. But, there was never enough evidence to reasonably draw any other conclusion.

“Global warming did not pause, but we need to understand how and why scientists came to believe it had, to avoid future episodes like this. The climate-research community’s acceptance of a ‘pause’ in global warming caused confusion for the public and policy system about the pace and urgency of climate change.

“That confusion in turn might have contributed to reduced impetus for action to prevent greenhouse climate change. The full costs of that are unknowable, but the risks are substantial. There are lessons here for the science, and for the future.”

Click to expand...

awaken said:

https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/30/...e-change-damage/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Click to expand...

It looks like Chuck is at the forefront of an encouraging trend. A recent Monmouth poll found that 78 percent of Americans believe climate change is real and leading to sea-level rise and more extreme weather. That’s up from 70 percent three years ago. The headline-grabbing takeaway: A majority of Republicans — 64 percent — are now believers, a 15-point jump from 2015.

To learn more about these converts, researchers at Yale and George Mason crunched the numbers from a blend of responses to surveys conducted between 2011 and 2015. They found that 8 percent of Americans said they had recently changed their opinion on the matter, according to a new analysis from Yale University and George Mason University. Nearly all of the recent converts said global warming had become a bigger concern for them.

Click to expand...