Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


652 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157


Topic # 226284 29-Dec-2017 21:22
One person supports this post
Send private message

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/scientists-warn-mini-ice-age-that-could-hit-earth-freeze-major-rivers-by-2030-754819

 

 

 

And this is why I'm so sceptical about Climate Change/Global Warming...
Scientists run numerous 'computer models' that say the Earth is 'heating up dangerously'.
Then some other scientists run their computer models, that say the earth is in imminent danger of freezing!

 

Wait, haven't I heard this all before? Why yes, scientists claimed in the 1970s - 1980s that the Earth was facing an imminent ice age...


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

gzt

10184 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1560


  Reply # 1926760 29-Dec-2017 21:48
One person supports this post
Send private message

MaxLV: And this is why I'm so sceptical about Climate Change/Global Warming...

As soon as you find out this particular article is atrocious science reporting you will change your mind right?



652 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157


  Reply # 1926761 29-Dec-2017 21:54
Send private message

gzt:
MaxLV: And this is why I'm so sceptical about Climate Change/Global Warming...

As soon as you find out this particular article is atrocious science reporting you will change your mind right?


Change my mind to believe what exactly? Reporting that X computer models are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Any other computer models that dont support x computer models are bad science and atrocious science reporting?

 

 


gzt

10184 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1560


  Reply # 1926767 29-Dec-2017 22:07
2 people support this post
Send private message

A true skeptic would be more sceptical about that article.

2853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 491


  Reply # 1926772 29-Dec-2017 22:29
Send private message

Have you heard of Ancel Keys? I know it's nothing to do with climate change but still scientific research related. He "proved" cholesterol was bad and convinced the world to reduce cholesterol consumption. Until very recently cholesterol was considered a major contributor to cardiac health problems. His theory has now been debunked, but it didn't stop years and years of anti cholesterol sentiment. I'm skeptical of any scientific research. Some people have too much invested (either professional reputation or money) to acknowledge they might have got it wrong. Ancel Keys did some dodgy stuff to prove his theory.

 

I'm on the fence so far as climate change being primarily caused by mankind. There's too many variables.





Sony Xperia X running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS 
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3
Nokia N1
Dell Inspiron 14z i5




652 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157


  Reply # 1926775 29-Dec-2017 23:10
Send private message

gzt: A true skeptic would be more sceptical about that article.


I am. Just as I'm sceptical of most articles about the causes of climate change, and especially those that promote the idea the human species can control the planets climate so it'll 'behave' the way we 'want it to'.


Mad Scientist
19012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2469

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1926777 29-Dec-2017 23:24
4 people support this post
Send private message

nobody knows for 100% sure. heck nobody can even get 99% on predicting the weather 24hrs ahead.


2699 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 688


  Reply # 1926808 30-Dec-2017 07:38
One person supports this post
Send private message

Technofreak:

 

Have you heard of Ancel Keys? I know it's nothing to do with climate change but still scientific research related. He "proved" cholesterol was bad and convinced the world to reduce cholesterol consumption. Until very recently cholesterol was considered a major contributor to cardiac health problems. His theory has now been debunked, but it didn't stop years and years of anti cholesterol sentiment. I'm skeptical of any scientific research. Some people have too much invested (either professional reputation or money) to acknowledge they might have got it wrong. Ancel Keys did some dodgy stuff to prove his theory.

 

I'm on the fence so far as climate change being primarily caused by mankind. There's too many variables.

 

 

this and dont get me started on vacination research.





Common sense is not as common as you think.


636 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 218


  Reply # 1926813 30-Dec-2017 08:34
One person supports this post
Send private message

Didn't have to look far to find questions re this study - and even moreso the reporting/exaggeration therein:

 

http://theconversation.com/the-mini-ice-age-hoopla-is-a-giant-failure-of-science-communication-45037

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/14/news-about-an-imminent-mini-ice-age-is-trending-but-its-not-true/?utm_term=.dcf4872faf9e

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/16/no-the-sun-isnt-going-to-save-us-from-global-warming

 

https://theconversation.com/no-we-arent-heading-into-a-mini-ice-age-44677

 

Quote:

 

Should we be worried?

 

If this link between variations in solar activity and changes in the Earth’s climate seems obvious, that’s because it is. When the amount of energy emitted by the sun changes, it has an affect on our climate.

 

But the real issue is just how strong this influence is compared to other factors. The total solar irradiance, a measure of the power produced by the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation, varies by only about 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle. Climate scientists have understood this effect for some time and it is already built into the computer models that are used to try and forecast our climate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


3127 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 947

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1926830 30-Dec-2017 09:05
2 people support this post
Send private message

MaxLV: Wait, haven't I heard this all before? Why yes, scientists claimed in the 1970s - 1980s that the Earth was facing an imminent ice age... 

 

No - they didn't. Journalists did. This article is a good place to start with the 1970's ice-age myth. From the article:

 

A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today


2459 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1205

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1926855 30-Dec-2017 09:38
Send private message

Whether we're going to freeze or cook is almost irrelevant. Either way is a bad thing.

 

If there are computer models which give widely disparate results, we need to spend some effort on finding out which (if any) is most accurate. Part of that is figuring out what's causing it... I doubt that you can have a good predictive model without knowing cause-effect relationships.

 

Once we've figured out what is going to happen, then look at what effect it will have, how bad it will be, and finally how best to mitigate that.




652 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157


  Reply # 1926858 30-Dec-2017 09:45
Send private message

frankv:

 

Whether we're going to freeze or cook is almost irrelevant. Either way is a bad thing.

 

If there are computer models which give widely disparate results, we need to spend some effort on finding out which (if any) is most accurate. Part of that is figuring out what's causing it... I doubt that you can have a good predictive model without knowing cause-effect relationships.

 

Once we've figured out what is going to happen, then look at what effect it will have, how bad it will be, and finally how best to mitigate that.

 

 

You mean so it (the planets climate) will 'behave' the way we 'want it to?'.

This claim, made most often by not only media reporting, but also by scientists (who should know better) is most often the cause of my skepticism.


676 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 241


  Reply # 1926869 30-Dec-2017 10:18
One person supports this post
Send private message

getting the earth's climate to behave the way we're used to would be more useful.

 

 

Evidence points reliably to an increase in the average temperature of the earth since around 1800, not a cooling. I wouldn't worry too much about that ice age. You should be more concerned about the changes coming sea level rise, changes in precipitation and the millions of climate refugees.

 

Happy New Year !

 

http://rockyrexscience.blogspot.co.nz/p/this-graph-shows-how-temperatures-have.html

 

 

 

 


13430 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1926876 30-Dec-2017 10:32
Send private message

Lets say the OP's article is correct, solar changes can cause Ice ages. That has nothing to do with climate change, its a solar system change. You would expect global warming to help us out as we have insulated against some heat escaping. Another cause of ice ages is the Earth's axis, it is not stable

 

http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html

 

Also unrelated to OUR climate change. 


11900 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3858

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1926914 30-Dec-2017 11:32
2 people support this post
Send private message

The climate will do whatever it does. Humans will adapt or die.

The end.





113 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 64


  Reply # 1926932 30-Dec-2017 12:17
6 people support this post
Send private message

Geektastic: The climate will do whatever it does. Humans will adapt or die.

The end.

 

 

 

Humans can adapt by making less of an impact on the Climate. 

 

When 99% of scientific studies support an idea (and have been studied thousands of times) then that is deemed scientific consensus.

 

When 1% find alternate statistics, they are subsequently peer reviewed and Always found to be lacking.

 

 

 

The scientific truth is that man is affecting the climate faster than what the climate would change naturally. You might say this is debatable, and it has been debated, thousands of times as a matter of fact, and the scientific consensus still remains the same: Humans are affecting the climate at a rate that is unsustainable to life as we know it.

 

 

 

 


 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.