|
|
What follows is an article called "Scientists: Sun's irregular 'heartbeat' could mean future freeze" by reporter Ashley Fantz, published by CNN on July 14th, 2015, along with my observations. (CNN)Scientists have made a discovery about the sun's "heartbeat" that they say indicates that Earth's Northern Hemisphere could experience a deep freeze in 15 years. Scientists have grown bored with their global warming theory, and have decided to thrill the masses with a new product of their imaginations. The sun has a "solar heartbeat," or cycle of activity, that produces energy that causes sunspots and solar flares. Scientists at Northumbria University in northeast England developed a model that illustrates the history of these heartbeats and that predicts there will be irregularities in them. The model suggests that solar activity will fall by 60% during the 2030s. Scientists have decided to design a new theory around existing data, with the hope of producing another windfall of research grants from a population afraid of freezing to death, as decades of threats of global warming have become impotent based on personal experience. According to the Royal Astronomical Society, the researchers studied the sun's magnetic field activity between 1976 and 2008. They compared their predictions with average sunspot numbers, another strong marker of solar activity, the society reported. Researchers took a cherry-picked collection of data from 1976 to 2008, and used a particular aspect of that data (average sunspot numbers) to support their hypothesis. As a description of one element of data extracted from the 1976-2008 data, "another strong marker of solar activity" becomes a selling point with the selective use of the word "strong." The researchers' model showed a 97% level of accuracy, said Valentina Zharkova, a Northumbria University mathematics professor. The researchers' model shows a 97% level of accuracy because the data they chose to use conveniently supports their hypothesis. Notice how the opinion of a mathematician becomes handy for astronomers trying to prove this particular point; unlike for evolutionary biologists, who claim the odds against us being here are merely improper calculations because 'obviously,' speciation by natural selection happened. So how cold could it get? So how cold do the scientists want you to think it will get? The scientists say their findings could mean a deep freeze like the one Great Britain experienced around 1900, when the Thames River froze over. This time, scientists are shooting for less apocalyptic results than their original global warming predictions, because they have learned that the general population are not quite the rubes they previously thought. CNN meteorologist Brandon Miller says the study looks intriguing, but it has not been peer reviewed, or subjected to the scrutiny of the larger scientific community. One wise scientist steps forward in an attempt to prevent the entire "scientific community" from being a laughing stock once again. "This isn't published research yet," he said. To scientists trying to seed future research grant generosity, fueled by paranoia, this is beside the point. "Our ability to forecast the specifics of a solar cycle is incredibly poor. It's worse than forecasting in a hurricane season." Just replace "solar cycle" with "global climate change," and this is what should have been pointed out during the initial global warming scare, as the data for that particular prediction was and always has been very selectively chosen to support the hypothesis. Doug Biesecker, who works at the Space Weather Prediction Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colorado, agrees with Miller. Another reasonable voice we could have used in the early 1980's. He said the research shouldn't give anyone the idea that because the weather may cool, climate change is not something to be worried about. I spoke too soon; apparently Biesecker is still holding onto global warming, even though through time, the theory has been refuted by additional data dismissed by the original researchers. "It's a very complicated issue," Biesecker, an expert in solar physics, told CNN. "Does the sun have a role in our variable climate? Yes. Is the dominant role? No. Even the concept of the sun being responsible for Europe's mini ice age -- it's not hard-and-fast true." Translation: regardless of what a single scientist, or even an entire "scientific community" would like you to believe, theories are still just theories, and should not be confused with facts, especially when dealing with past events that are no longer subject to the scientific method (designing and performing experiment[s] to test a hypothesis). Bottom line: The research needs a closer look. Taking a closer look at any given research may not always be the friendliest activity toward that research, if the scientists wish to continue to be taken seriously. |