UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

Keep it in mind, the central theme of today's climate debate is about climate alarmism which unscientifically gives us a scary prediction and asks us to take action immediately and drastically. In the eyes of alarmists, both lukewarmers and skeptics are climate dissents and both are called deniers. Today anyone who don't believe alarmism, i.e. don't believe climate change is as serious as alarmists claim, are called climate deniers

The climate change community did their cause a disservice by trying to mobilize people with fear-inducing worst-case-scenarios. They apparently felt that the public would not respond otherwise.

But that does not mean that the science is wrong.

As I have noted, the deniers have changed from arguing that the earth is not warming to maintaining that it is not warming because of human activity. The sun suddenly kicked into high gear, in a completely unprecedented level, or some such unscientific nonsense.

If you put together a venn diagram with Trump voters, climate change deniers and creationists, there would be a helluva lot of overlap.

(no message)

I agree with some of what you wrote. I just wanted to point out:

You said, As I have noted, the deniers have changed from arguing that the earth is not warming to maintaining that it is not warming because of human activity."

To be fair, it is the climate alarmists who intentionally confused "mere global warming" (MGW) with "imminently harmful anthropogenic global warming" (IHAGW).

They did this because MGW is a scientifically provable concept regarding which there is a general scientific consensus.

But, IHAGW is a policy evaluation of a scientific principle, about which there is no scientific consensus at all. They are building their political consensus on that point, but they are being opposed, and they don't like it at all.

The alarmists wanted to silence the opposition, so they intentionally confused MGW with IHAGW, just calling it GW or climate change. Getting control of the language was a brilliant political move (not a scientific move), and trying to transfer the certainty of science to politics was also a brilliant political move. Basically, the alarmists tried to pull a Gruber, relying on successfully confusing people to get their funding. (Yes, we are seeing a pattern. The elitists think most people are stupid.) But, just because they fool enough liberals to get something to pass Congress, or to get the media on board, or to get governments to hand out money...that doesn't mean they are right. The article I linked talks about all of this in detail.

You said, "The sun suddenly kicked into high gear, in a completely unprecedented level, or some such unscientific nonsense." That is not unscientific...except perhaps in how you stated it. There is science on solar cycles and many other contributing factors to global temperatures Even you would admit, I assume, that the warming of the earth and rising of the seas started thousands of years before human civilization arose. Something had to cause it, and it certainly was not humans. The debate should be whether or not the sun or the other factors are more or less of conributors than man-made warming. As for me, since warming started with a vengeance well before man entered the picture, it seems reasonable to assume that there are cycles which control the world's temperature more than we do ourselves.

So how can we be sure, using comparatively crude techniques to measure prior to what we have now, that the earth never changed this "drastically" over a similar period of time?

Because lately each successive year has been hotter than the last.

I hope you guys are right. But I trust scientists more than internet climate hobbyists who happen to be deeply partisan on all other issues.

That's just me.

(no message)

There are different data sets, and there are cycles within cycles within cycles (see the link below on superposition of effects, and then look at the wavy line of temperature history, and ask what causes all those fluctuations...man?...sun?...atmosphere?...whatever).

There have been short term periods of cooling which the Right latches on to to say that there is no warming. They are correct in some time frames, but not others. If you look back 5 years, the Left may be correct (warming!), but if you look back 15 years, the Right may be correct (cooling!), but if you look back 50 years, the Left may be right (warming!)...regardless, if you look back 18,000 years, there is definitely a warming trend. After all, South Bend used to be under what, a mile of ice?...and the oceans were, what, 120 meters lower because of that? But, THAT warming undermines the alarmist's argument, because it had nothing to do with humans. So, the Left needs us to look only at their sample set, and not any others. That is why they need to silence the Right to get their policies passed.


Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle

On climate change I am agnostic.

They changed their name from Global Warming when it was clear that one wasn't going to get any street cred. Now they just say "Climate Change" Well of course it is going to change.

I am a firm "Climate Stasis" Denier.

But now, with the money and the politics involved, the data has been hopelessly tainted. What to believe then? Well, I don't think it matters one bit since I don't think that whatever happens is impacted in any significant way by mankind.

(no message)

social security, the least I can do is pay it forward.

trend. Life on earth flourshes in warmth and freezes to death in cold.

Even the Dude Ned cites admits 2016 was the warmest year on record.

(no message)

suddenly kicked in. You added that because of the way you view issues. Always add to what's said.
keep your response to the subject Hillary

(no message)

(no message)

Or, at least, that's how it would be done today.

Record cold coming to ‘almost entire USA’ – Low temperature records set to be SHATTERED

First Arctic Blast of the Season Arriving as Pattern Change Brings Colder Temperatures from Coast to Coast

Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. announced: " I cannot recall last time I have seen such a cold anomaly forecast across almost entire USA."

The record warmth that much of the U.S. experienced this fall will just be a distant memory this week. A change is arriving, courtesy of the first arctic blast of the season, engulfing the western states early in the week, then spreading east throughout much of the Lower 48 into next weekend.

The pool of arctic air that is beginning to invade the Lower 48 originated in Alaska and northwestern Canada.

Parts of Alaska saw frigid conditions over the weekend, with lows dipping to minus 36 degrees in Fairbanks on Sunday. Though very cold, it's still quite far from their daily record of minus 53 degrees for the day. Arctic Village, Alaska, saw their temperature dip to minus 42 degrees Sunday.

A pattern change has now dislodged that arctic air, allowing it to spill southward in the days ahead.

Specifically, a southward dip in the jet stream, or upper-level trough, that originated in the Gulf of Alaska and western Canada is now slipping into the western U.S., and will then slide eastward as the week progresses. High pressure at the surface is also diving southward, allowing arctic air to spread into parts of the Lower 48.

This is the first arctic air mass of the season for the U.S., just in time for the first full week of December.

Big temperature drops are anticipated, with highs and lows falling 20 to 30 degrees.

These very cold conditions will first be felt in the northern Rockies on Monday and will spread through much of the West and into portions of the northern and central Plains by Tuesday.

The first sub-zero temperatures of the season for some locations are expected Tuesday through Thursday mornings from the Rockies to the northern Plains.

High and low temperatures will be as much as 30 degrees colder than average. This translates to high temperatures below freezing for much of the West and into the northern and central Plains and Midwest. In fact, highs may hold in the single digits midweek in parts of the northern Rockies and northern Plains.

Even with these very cold temperatures, widespread record lows are not expected.

It will be windy as well, which will make it feel even colder than what the thermometer reads, resulting in brutal wind chills.

In addition, snow will accompany the cold temperatures in some locations.

Arctic air will continue to plunge through the Plains and into the Midwest midweek. Above-average temperatures will be replaced with below-average readings. Highs will drop from the 40s to the 20s for much of the Midwest.

Late in the week, the colder conditions will reach the East Coast.Many areas in the South will experience a hard freeze late this week with lows dipping well into the 20s, including Atlanta, Nashville and Raleigh.

The Ohio Valley, southern Great Lakes and mid-Mississippi Valley will see lows crash into the teens later this week. Chicago, Cincinnati and St. Louis are among the cities where the mercury will plunge into the teens.




Link: Britannica Maunder Minimum

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Link: https://youtu.be/bgiQD56eWDk

Google "gamma ray burst" for example.

And on a global scale, we have about as much influence to prevent.

...to the detriment of more pressing problems and risks.

Funny how the carbon tax leftists changed the nomenclature from "global warming" to "climate change".

We are all gonna' suffer from a deep freeze, starting this winter.

Not to worry....they'll still find a way to screw us out of our hard-earned $$$.

(no message)

Or some such bullshit.

Very convenient.

Are you a warmist? You seem to want to play into their policy language by wrapping policy in the packaging of science.

You say, "How convenient." It hasn't been too convenient for me. I've felt this way for a while, stuck in the middle. I finally found a guy who put a name on what I believe. So, yeah, that was convenient for me. I now have a label.

Warming has been happening for 18,000 years (since the last Ice Age), and it is the best thing to happen to humanity. 97% of scientists think it is continuing at least at a mild pace (some smaller subset believe it is continuing at a faster pace). But the policy makers would have us believe that 97% of scientists believe that ceratin costly and counterproduct policies must be implemented. This guy points out that that is bullshit.

So, what's your label on this issue? Do you have a convenient position?

It isn't.

The science doesn't predict a disaster. That is the claim of the political movement. There is no scientific consensus on "disaster."

He deals with this in his article. Just for example, he notes how the IPCC gives a predicted range or temperatures. The policy makers like Gore and Kerry go straight to the top of the range, and push policy based on the top temperatures alone. But, if you take the low end of the range, then disaster is not indicated.

You are playing semantic games.

Understanding these distinctions allows you to object to the "lots of freakin scientists" without disagreeing with science.

occurring. Pretty fucking simple. If the thing is warming or cooling on its own, go publish that shit in Naure Magazine, that's how interesting it is to me. It is what it is.

Remember my Mere Global Warming (MGW) and Imminently Harmful Anthropogenic Global Warming (IHAGW). We've agreed all along, apparently.

The left is trying to blend the two, because there is science (and consensus) on the first one (MGW), but they need people to believe in the second one (IHAGW) to get policies and spending passed (but there is no consensus on the second one...which is good for you and I because we both oppose the allegations of IHAGW).

(no message)

(no message)

I believe like ned, that climate has been warming for 18000 years and will keep going. What will happen after that, next 1000years, I don't know.

(no message)

anything that can be done about it. I rather ignore that problem, and look for the motive. I tend to disbelieve when the motive is not legitimate.
In the case the motive is always money. Our money. Everyone wants it. So they say things that might not be true. I am not a scientist--so who to believe.
A scientist who wants money--a foreign government that wants money--who?
Cynical, maybe. I only note our resent election campaign to make my point.

if climate warming/change is man made or at least man hastens it,
then the solution is to illuminate man from the equation.

(no message)

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change was begun in 2003 by Dr. Fred Singer, emeritus professor of atmospheric physics from the University of Virginia. Dr. Singer and other scientists were concerned that IPCC reports selected evidence that supported the theory of man-made warming and ignored science that showed that natural factors dominated the climate. They formed the NIPCC to offer an independent second opinion on global warming.

Climate Change Reconsidered I (CCR-I) was published in 2009 as the first scientific rebuttal to the findings of the IPCC. Earlier this summer, CCR-I was translated into Chinese and accepted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences as an alternative point-of-view on climate change.

Climate Change Reconsidered II is a 1,200-page report that references more than one thousand peer-reviewed scientific papers, compiled by about 40 scientists from around the world. While the IPCC reports cover the physical science, impacts, and mitigation efforts, CCR-II is strictly focused on the physical science of climate change. Its seven chapters discuss the global climate models, forcings and feedbacks, solar forcing of the climate, and observations on temperature, the icecaps, the water cycle and oceans, and weather.

Among the key findings of CCR-II are:

· Doubling of CO2 from its pre-industrial level would likely cause a warming of only about 1oC, hardly cause for alarm.

· The global surface temperature increase since about 1860 corresponds to a recovery from the Little Ice Age, modulated by natural ocean and atmosphere cycles, without need for additional forcing by greenhouse gases.

· There is nothing unusual about either the magnitude or rate of the late 20th century warming, when compared with previous natural temperature variations.

· The global climate models projected an atmospheric warming of more than 0.3oC over the last 15 years, but instead, flat or cooling temperatures have occurred.

The science presented by the CCR-II report directly challenges the conclusions of the IPCC. Extensive peer-reviewed evidence is presented that climate change is natural and man-made influences are small. Fifteen years of flat temperatures show that the climate models are in error.

Each year the world spends over $250 billion to try to decarbonize industries and national economies, while other serious needs are underfunded. Suppose we take a step back and “reconsider” our commitment to fighting climate change?

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is a project supported by three independent nonprofit organizations: Science and Environmental Policy Project, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and The Heartland Institute. Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.

(no message)

(no message)

Gore said it was a very productive meeting...a genuine search for common ground. I think that is promising. The first (or an early) negotiational meeting should include that search for common ground, even if the end result is war between the two parties. If you don't engage in that first search for common ground, you don't know what is possible.

This is going to be fun to watch.

to willing to compromise their principals.

Not sure which Republican presidents you are talking about.

(no message)

(no message)

Additional greenhouse effect can be good or bad, depends on a number of other variables, especially sun output.

A scientist who claims waning solar activity in the next 15 years will trigger what some are calling a mini ice age has revived talk about the effects of man-made versus natural disruptors to Earth's climate.

Valentina Zharkova, a professor of mathematics at Northumbria University in the United Kingdom, used a new model of the sun's solar cycle, which is the periodic change in solar radiation, sunspots and other solar activity over a span of 11 years, to predict that "solar activity will fall by 60 percent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645," according to a statement.

At the National Astronomy meeting in Llanduno, north Wales last week, Zharkova said that a series of solar phenomena will lead to a "Maunder Minimum," which refers to the seven decades, from 1645 to 1715, when the sun's surface ceased its heat-releasing magnetic storms and coincided with the Little Ice Age, a period of chillier temperatures, from around 1550 to 1850 in Europe, North America and Asia, according to NASA. [Top 10 Ways to Destroy Planet Earth]

"The upcoming Maunder Minimum is expected to be shorter than the last one in 17th century (five solar cycles of 11 years)," Zharkova told Live Science in an email. "It will be lasting about three solar cycles."

However, many scientists are not convinced. Georg Feulner, the deputy chair of the Earth system analysis research domain at the Potsdam Institute on Climate Change Research, has studied the effect a solar minimum might have on Earth's climate. His research has shown that temperature drops correlated to a less intense sun would be insignificant compared with anthropogenic global warming, according to the Washington Post.

Regarding the Maunder Minimum predicted by Zharkova, Feulner said, "The expected decrease in global temperature would be 0.1 degrees Celsius at most, compared to about 1.3 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times by the year 2030," Feulner told the Post. Furthermore, this isn't the first time research has predicted waning heat from the sun, to which experts also said that man-made global warming won't be trumped.

Solar cycles and the Maunder Minimum

Solar cycles rise and fall over an 11-year cycle, though each cycle is unique. The sun can emit extreme ultraviolet and X-ray emissions that heat the part of the sky where planes fly. "Although the change in total solar irradiance seems too small to produce significant climatic effects, there is good evidence that, to some extent, the Earth's climate heats and cools as solar activity rises and falls," wrote David Hathaway, a solar physicist with NASA's Ames Research Center, in a 2010 review paper published in the journal Living Reviews in Solar Physics.

The Maunder Minimum was named by solar astronomer John Eddy in 1976 after E.W. Maunder, an English scientist who, along with German scientist Gustav Spörer, first noticed the decrease in solar activity in the 1890s, according to the New York Times.

“I have re-examined the contemporary reports and new evidence which has come to light since Maunder’s time and conclude that this 70-year period was indeed a time when solar activity all but stopped,” Eddy wrote in the Times.

Eddy looked through historical documents dating all the way back to Galileo to find any mention of visual observations of sun spots — everything he found corroborated, though to double check, he looked to some hard data.

Carbon-14, the radioactive isotope that is associated with living things, correlates with solar activity. The isotope is produced in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays hit nitrogen-14 and convert it to carbon-14. Increased solar activity reduces the amount of cosmic rays that penetrate the atmosphere, decreasing carbon-14 formation. Eddy determined that the carbon-14 measurements in tree rings indicated a period of lower solar activity from 1450 to 1540, during a period Eddy called the Spörer Minimum.

In a paper detailing the study published in the journal Science in 1977, Eddy pointed out that both the MaunderMinimum and the Spörer Minimum happened during the coldest intervals of the Little Ice Age.

The Little Ice Age

The Little Ice Age saw rapid expansion of mountain glaciers, especially in the Alps, Norway, Ireland and Alaska. There were three cycles of particularly chilly periods, beginning around 1650, 1770 and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals, according to NASA. Although the Maunder Minimum corresponds with the first of the three cooling periods, the connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate are topics of on-going research, according to NASA. [See Photos of Greenland's Gorgeous Glaciers]

Some historical records peg the onset of the Little Ice Age earlier, to around the year 1300, which includes the Spörer Minimum. Records are more robust for the later part of the millennia-long cooling, with figures like Charles Dickens' writing about white Christmases, and records of Mary Shelly spending an unusually cold summer in 1816 indoors, where she and her husband shared horror stories, one of which became "Frankenstein," according to climate scientist Michael Mann in Volume 1 of the Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change (Wiley, 2002).

"The Little Ice Age may have been more significant in terms of increased variability of the climate, rather than changes in the average climate itself," Mann wrote. Furthermore, the most dramatic climatic extremes happened with year-to-year temperature changes, rather than prolonged multiyear periods of cold.

Mann points to atmospheric circulation patterns, like the North Atlantic Oscillation, to explain some of the regional variability during the Little Ice Age. Although the coldest year in Europe and over much of the Northern Hemisphere was 1838, temperatures were relatively mild over significant portions of Greenland and Alaska during the same year. A large volcanic eruption in Cosigüina, Nicaragua, in 1838 may have emitted aerosols that circulated through the atmosphere, deflecting incoming solar radiation and cooling the air.

Also, Dickens' white Christmases may have benefited from the 1815 eruption of the volcano Tambora in Indonesia.

Although solar activities can align with changes in temperatures, there are many processes that contribute to climatic variations, and human-induced climate change will likely prove too big a force for muted solar activity to influence.

Elizabeth Goldbaum is on Twitter. Follow Live Science @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Original article on Live Science

I remember in the 90's they were saying NYC and Miami would be underwater by 2020. I'll take my chances buying the real estate.

Some of the conclusions are fake science which appropriately go well with fake news and fake protests in this day.

(no message)

Physically, personally or geo-politically.

Still scientifically interesting though.

(no message)

(no message)