Study predicts next phase of solar cycle will bring on 'Mini Ice Age' as early as 2020

Discussion in 'General Announcements' started by NC8X, Jan 13, 2018.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: l-assoc
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
  1. K6LX

    K6LX Ham Member QRZ Page

    Man-made Global Warming, adjusted to cover whatever will happen in the future to Man-Made Climate Change is a classic example of Group Think. From the Global Warming Policy Foundation by Christopher Booker: Global Warming – A Case Study in Groupthink.

    A Yale research psychologist called Irving Janis used the term "Group Think" in the title of his influential 1972 Victims of Groupthink. According to Janis there are three rules of groupthink.

    They are:

    Rule One. A group of people come to share a common view or belief that in some way is not properly based on reality.

    Rule Two. Because their common view/belief cannot be subjected to external proof they have to reinforce its authority by claiming ‘consensus.’ The idea is to emphasize that all right-thinking people hold this view and that it is no longer open to challenge.

    Rule Three: Anyone who disputes this ‘consensus’ must be excluded from the discussion: at best marginalized; at worst openly attacked or discredited.

    These, Janis showed, were the rules which led to the Pearl Harbor/Korean War/Bay of Pigs/Vietnam War disasters above.

    They are also, as Booker shows, the rules which explain the current global warming hysteria.
     
    AC0OB likes this.
  2. KA5ROW

    KA5ROW Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    It would be nice to get Iowa type snow in Oklahoma I say that just in fun.
     
    KK8MM likes this.
  3. WA4ILH

    WA4ILH Subscriber QRZ Page

    It would be nice to get Oklahoma type BS in Texas :)
    Tom WA4ILH
     
  4. KB4QAA

    KB4QAA XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Well, you can use this vague popular concept to justify denouncing any sort of conclusion or action one dislikes. The problem is that it preferentially overlooks all the situations where group decision making resulted in a "correct" or successful result.

    The difference with science is that it is a continuous process of hypothesis, testing, evaluation, theory, repeat. Predictions can be made based on theory, tested and proven false by any single scientist. So far, the climate change deniers are in the minority of science, not based on opinion, but based on facts known so far. This can always change based on new facts, but personal opinions are not the driving force.

    Further, most scientific research is done by individual scientists or with a lead scientist and graduate students or small teams. Climate research conclusions are not the result of massive or worldwide bureaucratic committees.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2018
  5. N2NH

    N2NH Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well, we just had the warmest February on record here. Last year was the second warmest and 2012 was the 4th warmest. I'll keep an open mind, but regionally, we're not showing any signs of cooling down. Rather we've been warming up pretty fast. The droughts in the southern half of the US also doesn't belie her 'findings.' Polar ice is at a record minimum with the temperatures a few degrees above freezing in the Winter.

    None of this says climate is getting cooler, but Chicken Little only has to be right once as an old friend used to say.
     
  6. AF7TS

    AF7TS Ham Member QRZ Page

    http://forums.qrz.com/index.php?thr...n-mini-ice-age-as-early-as-2020.595250/page-6

    There are strong flavors of groupthink/religion on both sides of the climate 'debate'. There is also reality, which we should be working to discover.

    1) If you look at what the science can actually show about climate history, there have been huge variations without human input. There is strong evidence that CO2 _follows_ rather than _leads_ these past variations. My _hunch_ as a technically trained guy who isn't a 'climate scientist': CO2 is one of the many feedback loops that is part of the climate balance, and that dumping large amounts of CO2 into the air could as easily _lead_ a climate variation as follow it.

    2) There is a huge 'natural is by definition good' belief held by many people, the gut feeling that human changes to atmospheric composition is automatically bad even before the evidence is in. Anyone who says that CO2 is not harmful, or who questions the assumption of 'natural balance' is going against their religion.

    3) There is a huge 'government regulation is bad' belief held by many people, the gut feeling that regulating CO2 emissions will lead to 'big government' or other grievous harm, and that suggesting CO2 is even potentially harmful is tin foil hat crazy. In some cases even attempting to study the potential risk is going against their religion and needs to be prevented.

    4) Human population is the biggest thing driving human caused changes...but the _best_ way to reduce human population is to increase human wealth and education. If you make the assumption that human activity is driving climate change and that the change will be bad, it still might make more sense in the long term to drive industrial expansion and wealth creation, _increasing_ the supposed harm to the environment in the short term to benefit the environment in the long term.

    5) The unforeseen consequences of climate change regulation may very well be worse than the harms they seek to prevent. Look at 'biofuels', in particular ethanol, and at world food prices.

    6) IMHO global climate change caused by CO2 is very likely to be the case but not necessarily bad. There will be winners and losers, and we should think carefully about these aspects. Lower heating bills in the Northeast of the US, higher AC bills in the Southwest. Will Siberia take over as the world's breadbasket and what are the geopolitical consequences of giving Russia more economic power?

    7) IMHO we should be working to reduce net CO2 put into the atmosphere, but need to recognize that human activity is a small part of a much larger cycle, and need to come up with business and growth positive approaches to CO2 reduction. Just because I see some truth in 'human CO2 production will change the climate' does not mean I buy the rest of the religion; IMHO we need to be working on enhanced CO2 sinks rather than reducing CO2 production, and we need to do this in a way where the government involvement is a small as possible.

    8) Too many politicians make their living promoting the various climate religions (on both sides) rather than trying to see what reality actually is.

    I am not going to comment again in this thread; I've made my points and this could be a huge time sink.

    73
    Jon
    AF7TS
     
    WZ7U and N1OOQ like this.
  7. N1OOQ

    N1OOQ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Along with "nature is always good" has come "and has been, is, and should forever be static and unchanging", which is just false. It is possible that human activity is changing things now, but change is and has always been the rule, not the exception in nature. Again, the ground on which I stand here in NH was under a mile of ice 12,000 years ago... the forests, mountains all ground to powder under the advancing glacier. I am reminded of this every day. Every large hill has a pile of enormous bolders on its southern flank, dropped as the ice passed over.
     
  8. KF0G

    KF0G Ham Member QRZ Page

    Godzilla!
    臨時ニュースを申し上げます
    臨時ニュースを申し上げます
    ゴジラが銀座方面に向かっています
    大至急避難してください
    大至急避難してください
    Oh, no, they say he's got to go
    Go, go, Godzilla (yeah)
    Oh, no, there goes Tokyo
    Go, go, Godzilla (yeah)
    History shows again and again
    How nature points out the folly of man
    Godzilla!
    History shows again and again
    How nature points out the folly of man
    Godzilla!
    History shows again and again
    How nature points out the folly of man
    Godzilla!
    History shows again and again
    How nature points out the folly of man
    Godzilla!
    Songwriters: Donald Roeser
    Blue Öyster Cult
     
  9. VE3OIJ

    VE3OIJ QRZ Lifetime Member #42 Life Member Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    All scientists do is collect clues and see where they clues point. Consequently they always have a clue, but the clues can be misleading. Sometimes radical new clues come up that put all the old clues in a new light.

    The people who need to admit they don't have a clue are the ones who ignore all the clues while they wait for the Ultimate Clue that doesn't exist and thus can't be found.
     
    N4AAB likes this.
  10. KG4RUL

    KG4RUL Ham Member QRZ Page

    'Climate Change' has always been happening. The difference now is that there are people who can make a profit from it.
     
    K3XR and AC0OB like this.

Share This Page