Climate Change

GURGLETROUSERS · Joined: 30 Dec 2009 Posts: 2643

Mac. Leaving aside all the stupid playgroup pottiness that this discussion has got stuck in, there now is quite a lot more information published concerning the Russian Science Academy claim, which I first mentioned a few years back, of an imminent global cooling phase starting in around 30 years time.

Astrophysicist Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov has published an account of his findings. He (as I read it) is claiming that the prediction of imminent cooling claimed to be starting in about 30 years time is upon us now. (It can all be Googled.)

It is pointless quoting details since it the main conjecture which is the important point, and future events will either prove him right, or wrong. But it does seem that winters in our neck of the woods ( and apparently in parts of yours) are reverting more to type, rather than consensus overall warming pattern.

I still tend to believe (and hope) that the cooling predictions are not just a load of hot air, so to speak, and it will be interesting to hear the warming consensus rebuttal of the Academy claims. In any event, if the academy claims are now starting to take effect we will be able to see that clearly over the next decade.

mac · Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:07 am Post subject:

GT—give me a url for a peer-reviewed paper by them and I will take a look. The most recent thing I read said that we are 100,000 years away from another ice age—a length of time that has increased because of global warming.

Most people don’t realize that the last ice age ended quickly in geologic time scales, beginning about 20,000 years ago—and sea level rose about 300 feet in only 8,000 years.

GURGLETROUSERS · Joined: 30 Dec 2009 Posts: 2643

1) Who precisely do you suppose would be qualified to peer review the body of research carried out by multiple highly qualified scientists from the 'flag ship' Russian Science Academy?

2) What knowledge or expertise would your peer reviewer (or reviewers) possess that the Academy scientists lack? Or would he/they simply claim their reading from their research (prediction of future changes) is wrong?

3) Nobody is forcing you to deign to look at their research. Your opinion of it would be irrelevant, unless you are claiming equal standing in the scientific community, to theirs!

GURGLETROUSERS · Joined: 30 Dec 2009 Posts: 2643

Further to peer reviewing -

The number of wrong fully peer reviewed PREDICTIONS from recorded and understood data in global warming consensus is legendary. Of course peer review is desirable in many cases, but it is NOT an infallible or even accurate certainty interpreting what to predict from a given set of facts in such a complicated issue as climate change.

The Academy prediction based on their research has equal validity to the warming range of predictions. The fact that the two are not in accord cannot be settled by peer review, since both must be using a different interpretive computer model. How can any peer reviewer say which may be wrong!

It is events which will tell us which (if either) is nearer the truth, and we shouldn't have too long to wait. (i.e. 10 to 30 yeras range of time.)

nw30 · Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 1:56 pm Post subject:

J64TWB · Joined: 24 Dec 2013 Posts: 1685

https://themoscowtimes.com/news/russian-ministry-warns-coming-environmental-apocalypse-fueled-climate-change-62804

mac · Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:55 pm Post subject:

Peer review is an accepted element of responsible research. I’ve served on the board of research institutes, and I know the difference between peer-reviewed literature and grey literature. I would expect that any geologist also knows the difference in credbility. Obviously NW does not.

Carry on. Maybe you can figure out why a mild request to establish the credibility of your non-cited, apparently not peer reviewed study, touched such a nerve.