Scientists Conclude Dire Climate Change Models Were Wrong, Now What? | Hacker News Reader

Scientists Conclude Dire Climate Change Models Were Wrong, Now What?

mishtalk.com

4 pointswillmadden9 comments

Yeah, but they also didn't know about massive methane and C02 leaks coming from melting permafrost in Siberia and other frozen places. So any potential win could be lost to other negative impacts not accounted for.

I'm not sure how you would quantify the impact of something like that scientifically considering how flawed the major climate models have proven to be.

What is impossible to deny is that we're heading into a grand solar minimum, and that the earth cools substantially every time this happens.

Personally, I believe it is time to take a very hard look at how grant money is distributed, and get politicians, governments, and special interests out of the process.

Depoliticizing grant money distribution and open sourcing the research process itself before publication are the two most powerful things we can do to speed along scientific progress.

Isn't a solar minimum just an 11-year cycle, while climate change is more about the long term implications of natural and human-caused impacts? I don't think that's the same as a little ice age.

I do agree that there is a huge amount of waste in government grants, but there is value as well.

Solar cycles are 12 years, but grand solar cycles are every 350-400 years. Half way between grand solar cycles, we have a grand solar minimum, which is a period of ~100 years where solar activity is suppressed throughout 12 year solar cycles.

These coincide with population reductions throughout history (mini ice ages). Check out the Maunder Minimum for the last time this happened. We're heading into one now, there is no denying it.

This is climate denialism. There's no actual information in here - just bullshit.

Climate denialism? No one is denying that the climate exists. What do you mean by "climate denialism", and what science do you have to support your beliefs? I'm sorry, but that phrase is jibberish and sounds like a religion, not the scientific method.

Go ahead and play stupid. Maybe that works on Face**, but I think people here are more apt to see through your silly games.

I'm still waiting for you to define "climate denialism" as well as the scientific evidence that supports your view, because from where I sit, it was entirely based on the major climate models which have all been proven laughably inaccurate.

Please point to a single climate model that has accurately predicted the future climate. They can't even predict past climate accurately. They don't take into account all energy from the sun and they don't model clouds and the oceans properly.