Do the AGW models do a better job of postdicting Antartic temperature changes, or does the Svensmark hypothesis? Hm, one fits a few decades of data, then breaks down, and the other works for thousands of years (at least). We report, you decide. 😉
Categories
- Angry Atheism
- Announcements
- Blogs
- Blue Dogs
- Common Sense
- Conservatism
- Corrections
- Courts and Law
- Debates
- Defense
- Dumbasses
- Economics
- Election 08
- Election 2012
- elections
- energy
- Europe
- Fascism
- Fiscal Policy
- Florida
- Freedom
- General
- Healthcare
- History
- humor
- Klimacht
- Liberals
- Mainstream Media
- Multiculturalism
- personal
- Positive Racism versus Negative Racism
- Republicans
- Sanctity of Life
- Thinkers
- UK
- Uncategorized
- University Life
- Weird Stuff
- Welfare sucks
-
Recent Posts
Time to Choose Again · America is the last best hope for liberty on planet Earth-and it is fading fast…
Time to Choose Again 
Verrry interesting. I’ve noticed before that Antarctica doesn’t cooperate with the rest of the globe very well, though I’ve never heard it articulated before. Still, before I buy into Svensmark, I want to see a change in low cloud cover beyond the 11-year cycle. Cycle 24 should be a good test for solar influence on GCR bombardment. The most likely weak cycle should lead to a weak IMF/ aa index, which should do something to low cloud cover. This long minimum and potential weak upcoming cycle(s) will be great testing conditions for climate. By the way, have you heard of/read the paper projecting the disappearence of solar sunspots by 2015? Rather frightening, if you ask me.