It's time to stop worrying about global warming, and time to start worrying about global cooling. The problem with climate scientists is that they can't successfully predict temperatures in the future. This scientist, a solar physicist, has demonstrated the ability to predict the sun's behavior, and the tie in to the historical Maunder Minimum is scary.
Warming is easy to deal with. It helps plants grow and gives us more energy. Cooling is a much bigger challenge.
UPDATE: A reader points to this article as refutation. My comments below the fold.
The recent paper from Zharkova is not the first time I've seen the solar radiation cycle hypothesis pointing towards a coming lower temperature cycle similar to the Maunder Minimum, which you may recall coincided with the "little ice age". This hypothesis matches up with the sunspot data we have had over the last two solar cycles. Sunspots are known to be correlated with the sun's energy emissions and the earth's temperature.
The author does some math with some irradiative forcing, and concludes that it's less than the "radiative forcing" produced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. He fails to note that a) greenhouse gases don't do "irradiative" forcing, they trap heat; b) We don't know what the magnitude of greenhouse gas forcing is, and the majority of that effect is based on a postulated and unproven feedback loop, and c) the models based on what the "warmists" say it is have failed to predict reality -- they ALL run hot by a factor of 3x to 4x.
Bottom line: Solar physicists like Zharkova have demonstrated the ability to predict solar cycles. Those cycles are linked to temperature and climate on earth. The exact magnitude of the effect is unclear, but we know it's big enough to cause a little ice age. (It might well be big enough to cause a full-on ice age without the "little"; we've had them in the past and we don't know why, but solar radiation seems a reasonable hypothesis for at least some of them). So we have a prediction that is buttressed by past successful predictions, a correlation with climate, and a good argument for causation.
To counter that, we have "climate science", which is a joke, with models that have no predictive value. And they are reduced to arguing "but even if the prediction about solar-based cooling is true, global warming will be enough to counteract it", a prediction based on their already failed models and faked experiments.
This entry was published Sun Nov 25 07:47:19 CST 2018 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2018-11-25 17:09:42.0.