4 ms·
Will these people lose any reputation if the possible grand solar minimum happens? EDIT: Also: "The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change announced la
by nonbel 8y ago
Will these people lose any reputation if the possible grand solar minimum happens?
EDIT:
Also:
"The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change announced last week that 157 million more people were exposed to heatwave events in 2017, compared with 2000."
There are about 1.5 billion more people in 2017 vs 2000, only 10% being exposed to heat waves seems like a good thing.
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/ http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-populati...
- JasonFruit 8y agoWill they lose any reputation in any case? There seems to be no career downside to sounding an alarm, whether the calamity occurs or not.
- gameswithgo 8y agoGlobal warming has been proceeding as was estimated back in the ~1980s so how do you know if there is a downside when the calamity does not occur?
- nonbel 8y agoInteresting. Can you give a 1980s source for the prediction matched with current data?
- gameswithgo 8y agogood starting point: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-adva...
- nonbel 8y agoThanks. That is also my favorite prediction paper: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pd...
- gameswithgo 8y agoNo, as that would not have a huge impact on global warming, and it would be a short term impact at that. https://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-barely-dent-AGW.html https://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-barely-...
- nonbel 8y agoThat page does not address the actual issue. It argues: >"We're fortunate that the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface is very stable." The actual issue is totally different. It has to do with a (supposed) link between solar magnetic field activity and cloud formation on earth. Your source is simply irrelevant since it argues against a strawman.
- gameswithgo 8y agoAs far as I can tell no domain expert thinks that is an actual issue. You are at this point wondering if a magnetic activity event MIGHT occur in the future that then MIGHT have some indirect effect on clouds that then might impact global warming substantively. We might also get a supervolcano eruption which would cool things for a while!
- nonbel 8y agoIt all depends on who you call a domain expert. That is a political (in the general sense), not scientific, term.
- ghthor 8y agoReally frustrating that this is still the argument presented by skeptics. The Suspicious Observers community has been debunking the solar radiance theory for years. Looks like the next major disruption in science is coming concerning whether the sun is gaseous or not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A7VFVwAA5U&t=0s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A7VFVwAA5U&t=0s
- yongjik 8y agoSome people have this weird idea that anthropogenic global warming is just a bunch of data simulation that will crumble like a house of cards if only we could find the right reason for why the temperatures are changing... Every steps of how mankind's activity leads to increased CO2 level to increased infrared absorption to increased temperature is very well understood. If for some reason science discovers yet another source of global warming, that won't be what you fancy it would be. It won't disprove AGW or absolve us of our responsibility. Instead, it will be an "Oh shit, we are truly fucked" moment. I have a hard time understanding why some people are attracted so much to this possibility. ...Heh, who am I kidding. I know perfectly well why.
- mikeash 8y agoThat’s an increase of 300% over the average. Still seem like a good thing?
- nonbel 8y agoWhat is an increase of 300%?
- mikeash 8y ago157 million more people being exposed to heatwaves.
- masonic 8y agoGiven the corresponding population increase of 1.5 billion over the study period, most of that in areas subject to heatwaves... is that figure even noteworthy?
- mikeash 8y agoFour times as many people experience heat waves in a period where the population increased by ~20%. You don’t find that problematic?
- nonbel 8y agoMore people -> more people exposed to heatwaves. It is a flawed metric to use for assessing an effect of climate change.
- mikeash 8y ago~20% more people, ~300% more people exposed to heatwaves. This change is clearly not due to population growth.
- nonbel 8y ago>"~20% more people, ~300% more people exposed to heatwaves." One interpretation: 90% of people born in the last 20 years or so are not being exposed to an increased number of heatwaves. They only tell us an increase of 157 million people since 2000, not sure what the baseline is and don't feel like signing up for the lancet article. If you want to check it please share the baseline percentage of people? I just know its a rabbit hole... I'd start asking stuff like: is this people exposed at least once in their life to a heatwave, what is the definition of heatwave and how has the definition changed, in general how is this measured? >"This change is clearly not due to population growth." This is wild speculation, it all depends where the population growth has occurred.