The Real Climate Debate: A Russian Point of View

Russian scientists failed to get the memo that told them the climate debate was over. I suppose they recognise Lysenkoism when they see it.

The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason—solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.

Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.

This is my point, which environmentalists hotly dispute as they cling to the hothouse theory. As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground. Advanced in the late 19th century by Svante A. Arrhenius, a Swedish physical chemist and Nobel Prize winner, this theory is taken for granted to this day and has not undergone any serious check.

Source

Notice that the Russian academician makes predictions which can be falsified within the next ten--even five years. Contrast that level of confidence with computer models giving predictions for 90 or 100, or 1000s of years in the future. Long distance forecasting is too much like Nostradamus. I prefer scientific hypotheses that can be falsified within a reasonable timeframe. Whatever you may call unfalsifiable theorising--using computers or not,--it is not science.

Via Green Watch