Opinion: UC Davis climate study flawed
Dear Publisher,
Your recent story about a $230,000 UC Davis study that predicts a 40 percent decline in snowfall due to global warming was fascinating, but scientifically flawed. Fortunately, the dire predictions by these UC Davis scientists overlooked compelling new solar research that insists global cooling, not warming, lies ahead.
Regardless of any increase in greenhouse gases, or any other arguments for global warming, it is the output of the sun that drives our weather and climate. Now we have hard evidence that our sun has entered a period of minimum solar output.
According to peer-reviewed research, published in June of this year, solar scientists are now predicting global cooling due to several decades ahead of lower solar output: “…using new data for the geomagnetic aa index we foresee that a Grand Minimum is immanent. Thus, a prolonged period of relative global cooling is forecasted.” See details at: http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange111.html
Think snow,
Steve Kubby, South Lake Tahoe
And I thought it was getting warmer because the United States and other western countries were going to hell.
Steve, I agree with you: the earth has long followed cycles alternating warming and cooling, and we are in for a cooling period. It is always interesting to me human’s arrogant assumption that we can actually have an effect on any of this…
From the Stanford Solar Center:
During the initial discovery period of global climate change, the magnitude of the influence of the Sun on Earth’s climate was not well understood. Since the early 1990s, however, extensive research was put into determining what role, if any, the Sun has in global warming or climate change.
A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, “it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes.” That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.
Mr Kubby,
Simply because one may have found equal and opposing evidence to refute the UC Davis study, does not mean that one can negate the study as scientifically flawed. Using your same logic, I can consider the study in the “The Journal of Cosmology” scientifically flawed because of the existence of the data from the UC Davis study. Your source also does not carry the credibility to support your claim, as even basic high school freshmen are taught to avoid using sources from “.coms”. Simply because it is peer reviewed does not make a study the truth or even without flaws.
However, global warming vs. global cooling aside, we must all act with great care and responsibility to protect the resources that surround us. The debate concerning the extent to which human impact is affecting global climate change will always be hotly contested, yet this does not mean that we should act as if our actions have no consequences. We must all do what we can to protect our winters, our environment, and our lake.