durangopipe wrote: ↑
Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:07 pm
gaining_age wrote: ↑
Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:51 pm
durangopipe wrote: ↑
Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:16 pm
Well, here we are, again.
For the umpteenth time in the past 40 years.
Nah. Read my post carefully. There is something shifting in the solar activity cycle(s) (see NASA article) -- which a cycle we're entering is the next 11 years. If (notice the conditional) there is a strong correlation between solar activity behavior and climate then (second part of a conditional) we should observe that correlation.
There's not umpteenth time about the post.
Also note that I am not giving credence to social media uproar. The only thing I had seen was information that had mentioned a change in the solar activity which I shared here.
As a scientist, I'm interested in observing correlation (or lack there-of). It will take a few years to get into the cycle.
Did my response as a scientist cause the tears? Or the fact that I am looking for evidence which could be misunderstood (similar, as far as being misunderstood, to NASA reporting in the article) the reason?
I apologize for stimulating an emotional response.
No need for an apology, ga.
It’s a serious matter, with serious consequences and you’re thoughts are far more considered and reasoned than many - but still, for me, kind of frustrating.
If you have read (notice the conditional “if”
- your response suggests that you either didn’t read the linked articles, or you prejudged them) the linked articles (selected from many, many more like them not from suspect but from reliable sources) you saw that any connection between solar cycle variation and the current measured rise and multi-year rising trend in global temperatures has been very thoroughly researched: there is no significant contribution from solar cycle variation, for several reasons (discussed in the articles).
Likewise, the spread of disinformation about solar cycles and a coming mini ice age spread in media (that you say you “do not know about” - meaning, I believe, “I don’t think so”) is clearly established.
I am well aware that current solar forecasts are suggesting that we may be entering an era of protracted, weak solar cycles. I’m a ham. It’s why I’m looking for another linear amplifier and hoping to convince my wife that a tower and some Yagis won’t look all that bad.
This is interesting if I may add more at this level. I read through the links and each was discussing the 70s and how it wasn't a mini ice age. I did not notice in reading through the articles a note about solar activity.
My presumption was that the bit I had read about with coming reduction in solar activity (in other locations) may be related why people may think we're headed toward a "next" mini ice age. This does seem to be true from your response-- that you have been reading or hearing about discussion concerning the solar activity related to the predictions (by some) of a coming colder time.
I suppose my comment was received from that background and my "we'll see" was on both sides of the argument-- which is why I decried it as a scientific perspective. I'm not predicting it will nor am I predicting it won't. I merely phrased that it will be a time to observe and record. That's the scientific method which is why I highlighted it.
Social media is neither social nor media. It's an insane way to have people shout and the media now reports about recent "loud shouting". I've been in some government situations and have seen it played out in a not dissimilar way. The committee chair will ask for a verbal vote and the smaller group in the clear minority tries to shout louder. The chair then has authority to move on according to his perceived alignment unless there's a quick call for written/hand vote. It seems to me social media is about people wanting to be heard-- even when they don't have anything to say. "Trending" is a goal while character is lost.
The decades long, repeatedly expressed, desire to wait for more data after 40 years of research specifically directed toward discerning the impacts of anthropogenic forcing on climate, after greater and greater clarity regarding the mechanisms and the consequences has been achieved, is the “here we go again” I was referring to. Nothing in science is certain. But the level of certainty now achieved is far beyond the degree that suggests a significant response.
The level of agreement about this among researchers in the field is almost unprecedented.
The degree of public denial, likewise, unprecedented.
I can only guess at why. My guess has much to do with human nature - denial (the psychological mechanism) for many understandable reasons.
My lament regarding “here we go again” is founded in the decades long observation that we have had many, many years to come to an understanding and to address the situation. And still (while most of the world’s population has come to accept this reality), too many in the U.S. feel the need for even more data, more certainty.
This is worth a pause.
The methods of research have changed and improved in the recent decades. Let's call it 40 years (80s to now). I completely agree with that. Yet the definition of climate is about behavior observed over a 30 year period. I'm not calling into question the experts per se-- they've all come along in the past 40 years about the research. Tracing backward and tracing forward over long periods of time is especially tricky in science. Repeatable experiments cannot be done at the global level for review and assessment of predictions (within that experiment to isolate individual variables). We don't have a control and a lab.
That doesn't mean, from me, that we can't do science. I'm noting that the science is a different form--- such that with updated measuring techniques there is great value to take a natural occurrence of reduction of solar activity (lowest cycle considered in 200 years) it's worth paying attention to. I make no predictions-- just that it is a valuable time to use the current methods of measurement, etc.
I'm not an advocate on either "side" on this arena. I'm a thinker, an assessor, and a scientist (in a different arena).
Do you recall the media grab and run of initial experiments done by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons on room temperature (cold) fusion in the late 80s? The potential positive was received in such exponential hype and propagation it spread faster than verification. My comparison is not on the science side but on the media and social media (which bleeds into politics) side. I am saying this becomes a super hot button issue for some that it seeps into their fears, worries and bias (see Goose's common sense seeming remark about what is obvious).
We had a major cold spell in the US in the 30s-- a whole decade. Likely very much related to the dust bowl era as a cause. What was happening elsewhere in the world? We saw recently a polar vortex dip deep and bring a chill during the summer--- and heat waves in France. The world is a very large system-- every time I fly and have a window seat I am amazed. We have jet streams, huge bodies of water, vast regions of unpopulated land and a huge atmosphere. Isolating variables or measuring a representative value for the whole system in this open environment boggles my mind.
Yet, it is worth doing. I applaud the scientists seeking to understand and wrap their minds around the system and figure out approaches.
It is worth being aware of our environment, recycling, prevention, waste loss and recover pursuits. We're a capable people and I like seeing progress at the low level up to the highs. I do not believe that reckless behavior should be valued-- I don't think government intrusion is of great value either (my one major peeve at Obama administration was to unilaterally decide incandescent bulbs were the bane of our culture and we should go without for the good.... That heats me up on the political side).
Let me add this, although I wasn’t going to - because it smacks of name dropping. Please forgive this. I did not know how else to give credibility to the following assertion about the integrity of the science.
One criticism of the science is that it has been corrupted by “agendas.”
The recent, former acting director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, Dr. Richard Armstrong, was for years a very close friend and back country skiing buddy. When we were both in Silverton (he was then the director of a snow physics research project the Univ. of Washington had established in the San Juans) we spent hours together on snow and in conversation socially.
I contributed to two of his papers, one on the economic impact of avalanches in the San Juans, and an atlas of avalanches effecting US Hwy 550 between Silverton and Ouray and along the road from Ouray to the Camp Bird Mine. I know how thorough and careful he was.
Since, he has been associated with INSTAAR (the institute for Alpine and Arctic Research), NOAA, and he was responsible for coordinating, gathering together the research, and presenting the summary of international research on the state of science regarding climate change to the public.
His current work regards remote sensing of snow and ice water content in central Asia in order to predict the impact of current trends on water supplies for a large percentage of the people living on earth.
I know him and others like him I’ve met to be hugely capable scientists of extraordinary integrity only interested in the growth of our understanding of these phenomena. If they have an agenda, it might be summed up in one word: truth.
I appreciate that you dropped a name. I am glad you have experience and relation with good people and those out to pursue the science of it all.
I could have a pithy remark about Al Gore on the media, political side.... but I'll let you use your imagination.
It's a contrast and not a comparison. Solid scientists are desired and should be cherished and those on the fringe who make headlines their goal are like the muckrakers of this generation: A problem, not a solution.
I think we're rather on similar thinking with a potential flare up on opposing bias points. It is not wise to reject the efforts on climate science-- I completely agree. It is not wise to assume our doom is locked in like some political advocates indicate-- this would be my bias flare.
I appreciate your response and your point of view, Durangopipe. I'm not looking for this to be taken as an "opt in" disagreement or discussion. It's good we're relating on key practical points and concerns about our culture and our world.
Out of control odd rare old man (or possibly an hobbyist). -- Label by The Big R.
The 6s of 1st John:
2:6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus walked
3:6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning