Winter is coming

[ddstory]

'Mini ice age' coming in next fifteen years, new model of the Sun's cycle shows

"We are now able to predict solar cycles with far greater accuracy than ever before thanks to a new model which shows irregularities in the sun’s 11-year heartbeat. The model shows that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent between 2030 and 2040 causing a "mini ice

Comments

[dexeron]

Phil Plait did a piece on this a few years back. The upshot is: while we might be approaching a "solar minimum" akin to the old Maunder Minimum, there are three things to note:

1. There is no actual evidence that the Maunder Minimum had a causal relationship with the "Little Ice Age".

2. The Little Ice Age was a regional effect, not a global one.

3. Even if such a phenomenon were to occur again today, it would not undo the damage we've done, nor signal an end to climate change. At best, it would be a temporary slow in the process.

Here's Plait's piece on it:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2011/06/17/are_we_headed_for_a_new_ice_age.html

EDIT: what's frustrating to me is that regardless of what scientists are actually saying about this, I could probably make a small fortune betting that the usual conservative mouthpieces will trumpet this as "proof" that man-made climate change is a hoax, or isn't as serious as thought, or whatever. Anything to continue to champion the status-quo. I bet oddsmakers could set up a lucrative business setting up pools trying to predict exactly how many days before Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Jones, and the various smaller names in the blogosphere begin parroting the "climate change is a hoax" line. :P

[sandwichwarrior]

Well it probably is a hoax (or at least bunk) but this is not "proof" by any means. ;)

[dexeron]

I might regret asking this:

But what is the difference between a "hoax" and "bunk," and how does either possibility jibe with the consensus of qualified scientists?

[sandwichwarrior]

A hoax is intentionally perpetrated where as bunk is simply the result of bad or incomplete data and worse methodology. Appeals to consensus being a prime example of shitty methodology.

ETA:
If you need to come up with complex reasons (tropospheric entrapment, oceanic sequestration, urban heat islands, etc...) to explain discrepancies between modeled behavior and observed maybe you should consider the possibility that the models themselves are at fault.

[sandwichwarrior]

One of the core principals of science is that nothing is ever "established" or "settled". That said, some theories resist falsification and the Null Hypthesis a lot better than others.

Do we all have to do all the same experiments with our own two hands?

In an Ideal world? Yes absolutely. But we don't live in an ideal world so we must, on occasion, trust the work of others which of course begs the question of trustworthiness. Simply put, a model that fails to generate accurate predictions is a shitty model and should be discarded. Any attempts to make the observed data fit the model, smells an awful lot like an epicycle and should be treated with a great deal of skepticism by anyone who actually values science as a method for assessing truth.

[dexeron]

Michael Crichton is very often quoted by conservatives who want to attack the concept of consensus. They like to pretend that Crichton was a scientist, partly because he wrote about "scientific" things, but mainly because he agreed with their foregone conclusions about climate change. So you will constantly see his words requoted: "If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." It's a tidy solution to the problem they face: it would be absurd to deny that the vast supermajority of qualified scientists all agree on climate change, so they have to find some way to (laughably) pretend that it doesn't matter what scientists think. "Sure, everyone who is qualified to speak on this says it is X, but I'd rather it be Y, so I'm going to insist that my opinion carries equal (or more) weight to the collective knowledge of qualified scientists. Also, here is some author saying that I'm to do so." How the intellectual bankruptcy, the utter fallacy, of this argument isn't immediately evident to everyone is just completely beyond me.

I mean: "consensus is a shitty methodology?" Seriously? Anyone can say that with a straight face? I mean, I'd laugh if that statement didn't make me want to cry.

I rambled for perhaps too long awhile back about Crichton's statement in this post, but to sum it up, anyone who repeats the idea that consensus isn't a valid part of science (or is "shitty methodology") misunderstands the definitions of both science and consensus, and probably should do more study before speaking on either.

As you said, it is an important metric. Even granting the imperfection of science and the fact that nothing can be every fully proven or "established," we can be damn sure about a lot of things, and the fact that "Science Doesn't Know Everything" (or even that "Science was Wrong Before") doesn't mean that consensus is suddenly an invalid metric with which to judge the current state of scientific understanding.

[sandwichwarrior]

Simple question. Which is better?

Looking for a theory to fit your data, or looking for data to fit your theory?

[peristaltor]

I'm going to call you out on your terminology.

"Bunk" refers to "Bunkum," a spelling corruption of Buncombe. Upton Sinclair used that original spelling, for example. Buncombe refers to the county in North Carolina. A Representative from that county used to bore the House with his tirades. Once, he made clear that he needed to say something quotable for the press in order to impress his voters. "I shall not be speaking to the House," he confessed, "but to Buncombe." That quote turned the county's name into a synonym for far-fetched silliness or claims that have little basis in reality.

Later usage, especially with police "bunko" squads, made "bunk" exactly the same as "hoax."

Therefore, you might want to select another word for "simply the result of bad or incomplete data and worse methodology."

[sandwichwarrior]

I was not aware of the Upton Sinclair origin but "bunk" data as it is typically used in engineering and coding is data or a result that looks or sounds good at first blush but falls apart upon further inspection. In other words, there is no shame in being had (shit happens) but failure to recognize that you've been mislead indicates a lack of due diligence and/or process. That was the context from which I was approaching it, but I will keep your comment in mind moving forward.

[dexeron]

I addressed the issue with consensus in my reply to Oslo. Let me just say this: an "appeal to consensus" might (at times) be a fallacy, but that's no excuse to point to the well-established scientific consensus of qualified scientists validated by repeated experiments and observation, and say that it's "shitty methodology." Such a statement does nothing but make the utterer look ignorant about the current state of science, and the current understanding of the leading scientists in the field.

As far as your comments about models, that stuff was debunked over a decade ago. "Complex reasons" are not required to explain "discrepancies" (though the global system is certainly "complex," and better models are always being created to replace older ones that weren't quite as good at incorporating all the variables.) That slow tweaking of methods and understanding is called scientific progress. You might note that at no time did this progression lead to a reversal of the initial conclusion. We have gotten better at understanding certain specifics, reasons, and variables, but the conclusion has been repeatedly, and thoroughly, validated.

You are welcome to believe that climate change is a hoax, or bunk, but understand that if you do so, you are stating that you are more qualified to speak on climate matters than at least 97% of the world's scientists who are qualified to speak on these matters and whose opinion on the matter has been well validated through years of successfully repeated experiment and data collection.

[sandwichwarrior]

Look, if word got out that I as junior engineer was tweaking my systems data to show greater adherence than was actually attained, I would loose my job. A senior engineer would likely loose his job and most likely end up in court. In other words I am held to an infinitely higher standard than Micheal Mann has been. The fact that people still defend him and cite him as a expert tells me that I am indeed more qualified to speak on climate matters than these panic-mongers.

[peristaltor]

From the article:

Those who express even the mildest doubts about dangerous climate change are ostracised, accused of being in the pay of fossil-fuel interests. . . .

Here's a question: why didn't the author cite researchers who have admitted to being paid by fossil-fuel interests? They exist, they have admitted their pay, and they have been debunked. Heck, I've read a book noting this conflict of interest.

Yet it is not even addressed in your linked article. Interesting.

[sandwichwarrior]

Redacted:
Assuming for that moment that you were not being sarcastic...

It doesn't get mentioned because the accusation is meaningless to start with. So long as the scientific process is being adhered to where the money comes from is irrelevant. Reproducible results will be reproducible regardless of who paid for em.

[peristaltor]

It doesn't get mentioned because the accusation is meaningless to start with.

Wow.

Perhaps in some circles this could be true, but not in science. A researcher paid by fossil fuel interests declares with no grey areas that atmospheric carbon discharges will be Good is the very definition of Conflict of Interest.

I agree in principal that "So long as the scientific process is being adhered to where the money comes from is irrelevant", but in practice those researchers that are paid by the industries they research have almost to a person disagreed with those that have not had the benefit of such largesse.

If you want a stroll down Conflict of Interest Boulevard, The Heat Is On is a good place to start; even better is The Merchants of Doubt, a tour through the careers of researchers who have obfuscated their way through "research" questioning topics as varied as whether climate change exists and whether cigarette smoking can be linked in any way to cancer . . . despite the fact that these researchers are specialists in rocket science, not climate science or disease!

There's big money in drawing conclusions that fit the relevant business paradigm.

[sandwichwarrior]

Perhaps in some circles this could be true, but not in science...

If a researcher paid by the government declares with no grey areas that a massive government intervention is required to save the world are they not equally compromised? If one is a conflict of interest, so is the other.

THAT is exactly why things like transparent methodology, open data, and reproducible results are such a big fucking deal. And why those who fails to produce them need to be shown the door. Accusations based on how someone pays their bills rather than on the quality of their work says a lot more about the accuser than the accused.