Science vs science




Vagitarian said:
When global cooling meets global warming -n other words, 'climate change'.

Save your winter coats, this has happened before.

http://www.inquisitr.com/2249690/mi...5-years-2030-predictions-by-solar-scientists/
Click to expand...

Not so fast vag. From spaceweather.com

ICE AGE NEWS REPORTS ARE EXAGGERATED: Stop the presses. The mainstream media is reporting a sensational new study about the sun's inner magnetic dynamo. According to a double-dynamo model advanced by researchers at Northumbria University, solar activity could drop by 60% in the 2030s, mimicking conditions during the Little Ice Age of the 17th century. A widely copied quote-fragment from lead researcher Valentina Zharkova notes that "...we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%." In fact, the model has never successfully predicted any future solar activity. So far it has only been used to "predict" solar cycles from 1976 to 2008. Almost any model can be fine-tuned to match the past. As forecasting tools, previous dynamo models have failed spectacularly. The double-dynamo model of Zharkova et al may yet prove to be correct, but until it passes the test of correctly predicting future solar activity, there is no reason to worry about an historic decline in sunspots, much less an Ice Age.
 


I didn't say it was 'going to happen', I said science meets science, take a look. That's ALL I said. Don't stick your head in the sand. The globe has been warming since the last ice age when people walked across from Siberia. And the globe has cooled before. That's fact, no exaggeration. What's missing is a predictable timetable.
 


Vagitarian said:
I didn't say it was 'going to happen', I said science meets science, take a look. That's ALL I said. Don't stick your head in the sand. The globe has been warming since the last ice age when people walked across from Siberia. And the globe has cooled before. That's fact, no exaggeration. What's missing is a predictable timetable.
Click to expand...

U said science vs science. I provided the other side. Your artical did not.
What's missing is a predictable timetable, correct. So dont grab your coat.
 




You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back