Oh no it isn't, despite what you can read in the Indescribablyoverhyped. At most, a solar min might make a detectable reduction in the warming trend. It won't cause significant cooling.
It is not clear to me who is responsible for this made-up story, it could be due to exaggeration from the scientists, a badly worded press release, or a journalist trying to get their story published. But in any case, it's not true.
Oh, thanks to ATTP, the press release seems ok, I can see how the journalist might have got confused. I wonder if she actually spoke to any scientists - solar or climate - before writing her piece.
Oh, thanks to ATTP, the press release seems ok, I can see how the journalist might have got confused. I wonder if she actually spoke to any scientists - solar or climate - before writing her piece.
14 comments:
Overhyped or deliberately distorted?
Kind of upside down Malthusian....better leave the hyping to the warmistas, they're much better in it.
CIP, this time I think I will break with tradition and say it was probably an innocent mistake. The press release seems reasonable (reading it from the POV of someone interested in solar physics), but I can see how someone might easily misinterpret it. Still, the journalist could have tried to speak to anyone with a clue, it's not like climate scientists are hard to get hold of...
Murdoch can do better:
"EARTH faces a new “mini ice age” in the next 15 years, bringing year-round snowfields and turning normally ice-free waterways to sleet, scientists predict."
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years/story-e6frflp0-1227439329592
"ice-free waterways to sleet" is particularly good
Innocent mistake? You would be wrong
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201762133/uk-scientist-suggests-a-mini-ice-age-be-upon-us
The climate-consensus tactic seems to be to pretend solar changes are all about TSI & nothing to do with solar wind affecting cloud seeding by cosmic rays. So we're just going to pretend that the Maunder minimum had nothing to do with the river Thames freezing over. Someone's a denier alright.
Nice find, Eli.
Thanks for that Eli, obviously she's a bit clueless and perhaps got confused over the geometry/albedo effect (3W from the sun is maybe 0.5W forcing). That doesn't let the journalists off the hook though, as competent opinions are also available. She did say she wasn't an expert on climate, and was only offering a vague guesstimate (though maybe that was already influenced by comments received).
It's amazing how much traction this story has gained, especially in the right-wing blogosphere and US media --- one single damn study from someone I never heard of from a university I never heard of and it's touted as gospel here in the US. Yet they ignore the thousands of corroborating peer-reviewed studies, IPCC reports etc.
More proof of Eli’s theory of the random Russian of the month
Carl, the deniers have fewer and fewer straws to seize. The science is moving fast, consequences are becoming much more apparent, we have people like the Pope and the head of the OECD making very strong statements, divestment campaigns are gaining ground, the BRICS are finally getting real, etc., etc. It's a far cry from the glory days of "Climategate" and the "hiatus."
Steve Bloom -
Which consequences might those be that are becoming more apparent?
You're not worth the oxygen, Tom C.
No Bloom - like usual, you lie about the "consequences becoming more apparent" and then dodge the question with a juvenile insult. There are no "consequences becoming more apparent" and you know it. I've seen this for years from you.
Post a Comment