You just need a university login to access them. Trust me, NOBODY in academia pays the price you see for unsolicited access to an article.I find these demands for papers to be really funny. Considering it COSTS MONEY to read them.
Yeah, sure. A University login that costs, at minimum $10,000 a year, at least, probably more, to have. Once you're out of college, or if you never could afford it, you can't have that login. But can we please stop talking about this in here? We can continue it in the other thread actually about global warming.You just need a university login to access them. Trust me, NOBODY in academia pays the price you see for unsolicited access to an article.
Yes. we should start forming packs anytime soonSo since this should be a mini ice age, do I need to take notes from the movie Ice Age to learn how to survive when this happens??
Most universities allow you to keep your email address and accompanying system login for life these days - I just assumed you would still have yours, assuming you're of college age.Yeah, sure. A University login that costs, at minimum $10,000 a year, at least, probably more, to have. Once you're out of college, or if you never could afford it, you can't have that login.
Duuuuude, I found that topic really interesting, and it seriously catches my eye, but for real: that's super-offtopic!I'm still waiting for someone to start discussing the issue of the status of the persistant storms in the other parts of the solar system after this happens.
I'm cool with it
Can we chill with the puns?anything having to do with Climate change is going to get heated.
The conditions predicted have not been experienced since the last "mini ice age" which lasted from 1645 to 1715, called the Maunder Minimum.
We're not going to be able to get around this involving climate change are we? I thought we weren't going to discuss this? Ughh...... I guess we can't avoid it now if people are going to try to undermine this finding in the name of climate change alarmism. These articles are frauds. They are using the OLD models of solar activity from five years ago, and not the one developed for this study that made this prediction, note that nagging "2010" in the corner. While the model for this latest news is very recent and couldn't have been used in that graph. Proponents of man-made climate change belief have always disregarded the impact the sun has on the climate. Funny thing... the sun is the source of all of our climate. If the input changes, it'll drastically change the result. And the input is going to significantly change. I figured climate alarmists would immediately try to debunk this study the moment that they realized it shattered their mythology. There's still the issue they're disregarding that this model has a 97% match with previous solar cycles while the previous models did not and the climate models have never been right and can't even match what's already happened. They're lying to you, you know what the truth is? The truth is no one has any idea what is going to happen. But there is no way there will not be a cooldown because the input is going to signifcantly drop. By how much though is uncertain and we do not have the ability to be certain. All we can do is wait and see.From the article:
No, this is wrong. There will indeed be a minimum in sunspot activity. However, conditions will not be like they were during the Maunder Minimum, because anthropogenic climate change has radically altered our planet's system. We are headed for an accelerated increase in global temperature; the solar minimum will only have a small effect in comparison.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/13/3679662/global-warming-speed-up-not-ice-age/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-barely-dent-AGW.html
We're not going to be able to get around this involving climate change are we? I thought we weren't going to discuss this? Ughh...... I guess we can't avoid it now if people are going to try to undermine this finding in the name of climate change alarmism. These articles are frauds. They are using the OLD models of solar activity from five years ago, and not the one developed for this study that made this prediction, note that nagging "2010" in the corner. While the model for this latest news is very recent and couldn't have been used in that graph. Proponents of man-made climate change belief have always disregarded the impact the sun has on the climate. Funny thing... the sun is the source of all of our climate. If the input changes, it'll drastically change the result. And the input is going to significantly change. I figured climate alarmists would immediately try to debunk this study the moment that they realized it shattered their mythology. There's still the issue they're disregarding that this model has a 97% match with previous solar cycles while the previous models did not and the climate models have never been right and can't even match what's already happened. They're lying to you, you know what the truth is? The truth is no one has any idea what is going to happen. But there is no way there will not be a cooldown because the input is going to signifcantly drop. By how much though is uncertain and we do not have the ability to be certain. All we can do is wait and see.
Whatever near-term jump we see in the global temperatures is thus likely to be followed by an accelerating global warming trend — one that would utterly overwhelm any natural variations such as a temporary reduction in solar intensity. A recent study concluded that “any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming.”
I'm content to make it non-serious and disregard the..... other stuff that is irrelevant and not worth the time. Have any ideas? Should we make iglos? Big snowshoes? Parkas?Oh, fudge this...
It seems that it is impossible to have a non-serious thread about anything anymore