Republicans have jumped on a report about sunspot cycles as if it's the latest Taylor Swift song. I gather they like Taylor Swift songs although I'm really not sure why. I'm not sure why they care all that much about sunspot cycles either but so it goes at the RNC ... they're strange people. (RT: Winter is coming: Earth awaits ‘mini ice age’ in 15 years, solar cycle study suggests)
After years and years of jibber jabber about the warming climate, the position now is that, yes, yes, the climate is warming ... but ... it's going to change and go back down again ... for fifty to one hundred years ... and then ... and then ... we have no idea what it will do.
The science in the analysis of sunspot cycles appears valid and was performed as real scientists would do it (i.e. opposite to anything one sees from Creationists, Anti-Vax, or Flat Earth Society). The correlation of the result with history is valid ... except ... it only goes back a few hundred years as there is no information on sunspots prior to that time.
The passionate way in which conservatives have embraced this study is amusing relative to how they have rejected just about any other form of science except that which results in explosions.
The small-scale Ice Age projected in this study relates to a Maunder Minimum which was observed starting in 1645 and extreme cold weather continued for sixty years or so. (WIKI: Maunder Minimum)
Conservatives often chastise liberals for being too enamored of the latest science but this is a priceless example of conservatives doing exactly the same thing. In a geological time scale (i.e. the time between Ice Ages), the Maunder Minimum isn't much more than anecdotal evidence in a criminal trial as it's such a short period that it will only be of marginal interest over a period of tens of thousands of years.
Judging by the reaction, conservatives regard this as a refutation of climate change but, if anything, it's another confirmation of the instability of climate. Besides, the study doesn't go one millimeter toward changing the fact that through most of its history Earth had no ice on it anywhere.
Even if there is a Maunder Minimum, so what. Music works the same way as sometimes there's a Hendrix Period and sometimes there is the Pop Chick Era and the one thing that stays the same is they always change ... although the Pop Chick Era is hanging around far too long. Most can't play instruments and a good many can't even sing without Autotune. You think these times are bad for weather? They absolutely suck for music!
There are additional scientific phenomena to observe along with the Maunder Minimum and likely all have about the same predictive value for future weather changes. The next item for scientific consideration is the enormous size of Kim Kardashian's backside. Typically, larger women are more valued for desirability, sexuality, etc in poor economies and thinner women are more valued in up-scale economies. We have another data point in the Expanding Backside Phenomenon as Amber Rose has an even fatter ass than Kim Kardashian and she's just as determined to break Instagram with it.
Note: unknown if she has to pay more to take that on aircraft.
Using the egregiously poor writing style of those who wrote the paper regarding the sunspot cycles, we will combine these facts together and ...
(Ed: you CANNOT combine things together as anything combined is already together)
I know this, Dictionary Man. The scientists do not know this. We try to help them because scientists are stupid and we are smart, yes? Donald Trump said he is smart and we (cough) believe him.
So, based on the science of the Maunder Minimum, the modern era's awful music, various physical observations, we conclude sunspot cycles cause fat backsides.
Note: this one is a special to assist my friend Ronald with understanding science in the modern era.
After years and years of jibber jabber about the warming climate, the position now is that, yes, yes, the climate is warming ... but ... it's going to change and go back down again ... for fifty to one hundred years ... and then ... and then ... we have no idea what it will do.
The science in the analysis of sunspot cycles appears valid and was performed as real scientists would do it (i.e. opposite to anything one sees from Creationists, Anti-Vax, or Flat Earth Society). The correlation of the result with history is valid ... except ... it only goes back a few hundred years as there is no information on sunspots prior to that time.
The passionate way in which conservatives have embraced this study is amusing relative to how they have rejected just about any other form of science except that which results in explosions.
The small-scale Ice Age projected in this study relates to a Maunder Minimum which was observed starting in 1645 and extreme cold weather continued for sixty years or so. (WIKI: Maunder Minimum)
Conservatives often chastise liberals for being too enamored of the latest science but this is a priceless example of conservatives doing exactly the same thing. In a geological time scale (i.e. the time between Ice Ages), the Maunder Minimum isn't much more than anecdotal evidence in a criminal trial as it's such a short period that it will only be of marginal interest over a period of tens of thousands of years.
Judging by the reaction, conservatives regard this as a refutation of climate change but, if anything, it's another confirmation of the instability of climate. Besides, the study doesn't go one millimeter toward changing the fact that through most of its history Earth had no ice on it anywhere.
Even if there is a Maunder Minimum, so what. Music works the same way as sometimes there's a Hendrix Period and sometimes there is the Pop Chick Era and the one thing that stays the same is they always change ... although the Pop Chick Era is hanging around far too long. Most can't play instruments and a good many can't even sing without Autotune. You think these times are bad for weather? They absolutely suck for music!
There are additional scientific phenomena to observe along with the Maunder Minimum and likely all have about the same predictive value for future weather changes. The next item for scientific consideration is the enormous size of Kim Kardashian's backside. Typically, larger women are more valued for desirability, sexuality, etc in poor economies and thinner women are more valued in up-scale economies. We have another data point in the Expanding Backside Phenomenon as Amber Rose has an even fatter ass than Kim Kardashian and she's just as determined to break Instagram with it.
Note: unknown if she has to pay more to take that on aircraft.
Using the egregiously poor writing style of those who wrote the paper regarding the sunspot cycles, we will combine these facts together and ...
(Ed: you CANNOT combine things together as anything combined is already together)
I know this, Dictionary Man. The scientists do not know this. We try to help them because scientists are stupid and we are smart, yes? Donald Trump said he is smart and we (cough) believe him.
So, based on the science of the Maunder Minimum, the modern era's awful music, various physical observations, we conclude sunspot cycles cause fat backsides.
Note: this one is a special to assist my friend Ronald with understanding science in the modern era.
4 comments:
Well, a couple of points:
* Sunspot records go back to 800 BC. Enough to validate the known cycles of solar activity.
* Solar impact on climate is nothing new. Helios-astronomers have long postulated that climate change is the result of fluctuations in solar activity. The new study merely refines the model and has provided greater accuracy in forecasting solar activity to the point where astronomers can now pinpoint the next solar minimum.
* In the Maunder Minimum, famine was the primary result. Deaths resulting from the mini-ice-age were close to 100 million. Now, we're better off today technologically, but in the third world the impact of a solar minimum is still extreme.
* "Judging by the reaction, conservatives regard this as a refutation of climate change..." Not quite. Conservatives don't deny the existence of climate change. Rather, we deny the claim that climate change is caused by humans. This solar model supports our view that climate change is a natural phenomenon.
Point by point:
- I'd need to go back to the article for it but there was mention of accurate collection of sunspot records for 172 years. No doubt they have been observed for much longer but I'd have to re-read to discover what happened 172 years ago that was significant enough to report in the article.
- Not much to add on that one.
- Susceptibility to famine is likely much higher due to more bodies and I've heard of high-tech solutions for famine in Africa (e.g. Radin China IV rice, etc) but people still starve all the time. I wouldn't count on technology for too much of an assist in resolving such a situation.
- I don't get much out of discussion of what humans caused as the only significant matter to me is when will the ice caps melt because history tells us they will be swimming pools at some point. This Maunder Minimum may forestall that outcome but I don't see this changing it.
So the actual question to answer - and thus far, no model has the answer - is if we are in the final interglacial period of the current ice age or if there is at least one more glacial period remaining. Remember, the ice caps only completely melt when the current ice age ends. Now, geologists believe that we're not at the end of the ice age, although there's no valid means of determining that one way or another.
As to 172 years ago, that was the discovery of the solar cycle in 1843 by Heinrich Schwabe.
That's always been the question for me. We see it's going up and there's no reason to argue but whether this is the final ascent to the peak is a valid question. However, for my view, it really doesn't change much as a perturbation of sixty or a hundred years isn't that significant, notwithstanding the immense potential loss of life, in terms of a change which will last for thousands of years (or whatever much longer period you like). It seems to me prudent and (gasp) conservative to prepare for that inevitability.
Post a Comment