Saturday, June 3, 2017

Kenneth Richard — Russian Scientists Dismiss ‘Global Warming’, Predict Decades Of Cooling

A new scientific paper authored by seven scientists affiliated with the Russian Academy of Sciences was just published in the scientific journal Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics.
Defend Democracy
Russian Scientists Dismiss ‘Global Warming’, Predict Decades Of Cooling
Kenneth Richard

18 comments:

Ryan Harris said...

Wait, I thought we had consensus, the science was settled? Or no?

Unknown said...

Just as in economics, certain models become the preferred models of the academic establishment, while other alternative models are actively discouraged.

Bob said...

Wait some more... if there's no 'hockey stick' in the temperature observations, something will have to give.

Bob said...

There's a surge of enthusiasm for The Paris Agreement, and geopolitics is driving it.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/06/03/clim-j03.html

Bye-bye Yankees, don't let the door hit you on your way out.

Dan Lynch said...

Surprise, surprise, a petro-state doesn't believe that burning carbon harms the environment!

Russia's climate may actually benefit from warming as the formerly frigid North turns into a wheat belt.

John said...

Some biologists don't believe in evolution. Some physicists don't believe in the big bang. The vast majority do. The vast majority of climatologists believe the overwhelming evidence in front of them. You're always going to find some scientists who'll say all kinds of stuff. Cold fusion is another crackpot theory, and so is the denial of manmade climate change.

Bob said...

Soil in Siberia may be too acid or otherwise unsuitable to grow wheat.

lastgreek said...

Speaking of infrastructure,

Trump plans week-long focus on infrastructure, starting with privatizing air traffic control

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-plans-week-long-focus-on-infrastructure-starting-with-privatizing-air-traffic-control/2017/06/03/12aacb04-47c5-11e7-a196-a1bb629f64cb_story.html

They are trying to compare this move with the creation of the Canadian Transportation Agency. I don't think it's a proper comparison.

PS: In the link above, I got rid of everything following and including the question mark as someone here kindly suggested for snooping reasons. See, I pay attention and I have a good memory

lastgreek said...

Oh darn. My posting was for the "Hunan" thread. Oh well :)

Dan Lynch said...

For the second year running, Russia is the world's top wheat producer with exports of 22.5 million metric tons of grain this year, according to the US Department of Agriculture. And they have room to grow.

@lastgreek, your air traffic story is yet another data point suggesting that, despite his populist campaign rhetoric, Trump is governing as just another Republican. :'(

Ignacio said...

Russia is the only country to benefit from rising temperatures, too.

Bob said...

Dan, what does that have to do with soil compatibility? You should be looking at soil maps of your imagined wheat belt.

You guys are claiming this Russian paper is a politically inspired ruse. Unbelievable.

Ignacio said...

Just saying (not the only country, but one of the few), not saying all that there is behind the paper!

We can see there is a connection between values ΔТ [temperature] and N [charged particle flux]: with an increase in cosmic ray flux N, the values of changes of global temperature decrease. This link is expressed by the relation ΔT = –0.0838N + 4.307 (see the dashed line in Fig. 2), where the ΔT values are given in °C, and the N values (in particle/min units) are related to the charged particle flux measured at an altitude of 1.3 km. The correlation coefficient of the line with the experimental data is r = –0.62 ± 0.08.”

So there is a correlation and their base their thesis on that. Ok. Other models work based on other correlations which are equally powerful? The problem for all models is the same: the data set is too small, and most work based on correlations. All are models in the end, and only time will prove who is right because there. Is unfortunate that this may prove to be critical.

The problem I've with this is that it sends the signal of "hey, we are fine, we can't do nothing about it as it depends on events beyond our control, so let's just keep doing what we are doing!". Which is what a lot of people want to hear (the majority I would say).

In a perfect world science would not have anything to do with politics, and definitively the scientists should work in peace and do their thing, but this is like economics (maybe because it impacts economic policy to start with...), and every paper has to be challenged because it has potential real impact on policy and behaviour and is not a mere abstract science exercise.

Bob said...

The problem I've with this is that it sends the signal of "hey, we are fine, we can't do nothing about it as it depends on events beyond our control, so let's just keep doing what we are doing!". Which is what a lot of people want to hear (the majority I would say).

That is where we are politically and in public perception. More dire reports have been issued and they failed to impart any sense of urgency. This paper won't change much in terms of proposed mitigation, which remain voluntary. If there is action, it will be because it is profitable.

Turning up the rhetoric wouldn't have helped either. Apocalyptic pronouncements, even when backed by science, cause most people to double down on denial.

Bob said...

And there is a small segment who are eager to embrace catastrophic predictions, scientific or otherwise.

Tom Hickey said...

One of the biggest problems with "science" today is bad journalism.

Added to their lack of knowledge about complicated and complex systems is a business model that is based on advertising and therefore sensationalism, eye candy and click bait. Throw ideology and politics into the mix and the result is BS.

This is especially the case with medical reporting and the known propensity of the public to read only headlines and maybe the lede, while the qualifiers come at the end of the article.

Andrew Anderson said...

Well, we'll see. But I do note that "God resists the proud ..." James 4:6 so I won't be surprised if some "crow eating" is soon in order.

Otoh, The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; ... Proverbs 19:9 so we should be afraid of Him and cease provoking Him with systematic oppression of the poor, e.g. with government subsidized private credit/debt creation, i.e. if the Bible is against usury (Deuteronomy 23:19-20) then how much more would it be against government privileges for usurers?

Ben Johannson said...

This is not a study. It is an old hypothesis that cosmic ray flux will at some point help increase cloud cover and reduce solar insolation. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever to support the assumptions made in the paper. Those of you who have regularly attacked the validity of climate models are suddenly embracing a conclusion derived solely from a model because you're less than intellectually honest.

Big surprise.