Climate Change Linked to Sun's Magnetic Field

-douggy writes "Found this story at Science daily - Assistant Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth, examined existing sets of geophysical data and noticed something remarkable: the sun's magnetic activity is varying in 100,000-year cycles, a much longer time span than previously thought, and this solar activity, in turn, may likely cause the 100,000-year climate cycles on earth. Couple this with the fact that the climate (global temperatures at least) also mirror the sunspot cycle almost perfectly. Makes an interesting case for global warming really."

Comments

Junk Science

[Anonymous Coward]

It is junk science

I am amused by how many people say "Global warming is junk science", yet never, ever give a concrete example of HOW it is junk science.

Don't let the research grant loving "we'll say or do anything for another dollar" scientist scare you into believing this.

And we should instead believe the scientists who are hired by the oil companies?

Please....

Global Warming != Junk Science

[Pauly]

Global warming is not junk science. As a former knowledge-craving, research-grant-supplicant, I assure you profit is nary a motive among the world's climate researchers. Only politicians, pundits and preachers profit from scare tactics.

As for your time-scale assertion, you're correct, we cannot PROVE(obnoxious style yours) that the warming pattern we have found existed outside the time frame of the Industrial Revolution. But that doesn't matter since that is not the point.

The point is that humans are changing the global climate relatively drastically in such a short period of time that it outstrips the rate of normal climate variation. Sure, the changes we're experiencing might happen on their own over the next 100 million years. I for one would rather it happen then than in the next 50 years. To frostall this, we could make just minor changes in our so-called American "lifestyle." What is a little less gluttony in light of the bounties of future climate stability?

Maybe your SUV is more important to you?

Re:Global Warming != Junk Science

[Pauly]

Profit is not a motive?? You don't get the research grant if you don't show a reason. As a current researcher myself, I know how difficult it is to shake down the military for cash, unless you have a solution to their problems.

The military is hardly the primary source of funding for this research. Think DOE. The military's bottomless trust fund certainly makes barons out of its contractors, but few if any of those are pursuing global warming/climate change inititiatives. In any case, I'll suspect the profit motive when a climatologist runs me down in a Escalade. Maybe I'm too old, but my peers all drove bicycles.

If we're making such drastic changes, which is arguable at best, then how can minor changes help one damn it?

An example: The CFC's emitted as propellant and leaked as coolant nearly wiped out the ozone layer. Enforced by international treaty, we changed the chemical compounds used for these purposes to a similar, but benign cousin of CFC's and we are now making progress undoing that damage. In terms of global warming, raising the CAFE standards would be a major step in the right direction.

I'm tired of hearing this "junk science" rap. It's entirely too much like Dubya's "fuzzy math". If you're willing to dismiss an enormous field of study, and each of its thousands of scientists in a single, trite phrase, you're not part of the discussion. Show me some valid, non fossil fuel industry sponsored research that counters research published by the likes of the National Academy of Sciences.

Re:Global Warming != Junk Science

[Pauly]

What the folks with an IQ greater than their shoe size probably realized from my post, is that I was pointing out the conflict of interest between supposedly objective scientists and the need to get funding for their research. That money doesn't fall from the sky you know. And to get funding, you have to sell yourself/your research. So naturally, it's in the climate researchers best interest to talk big about global warming, even in the face of dubious evidence, to get that next grant. Get it now?

Lucky for me, I have enormous feet. You're just another hypocrite: you want to dismiss the research of scientists based on some highly dubious profit motive with one hand and on with the other hand cite the work of an economist author as refutation of this whole field of research? How many people care to read what a meteorologist has to say about macroeconmics?

And thanks for stooping to insults to get your point across. I see I no longer need to waste my time in this discussion. I'll take

Not out of the woods

[darthBear]

Even if this guy is right it doesn't mean we can continue to be abusive of our environment. Global Warming is just one concern we face. The link between human activity and a general degredation of the environment is quite clear. Couple that with our dependance on our environment and it is painfully evident that we can no longer afford to treat our environment with disrespect.

Even when it comes to global warming, to assume that CO2 and greenhouse gasses in general don't have an effect is to ignore a large body of scientific evidence. (Note scientific meaning arrived at by the scientific method)

Re:Not out of the woods

[Gaijinator]

Thank you for providing no factual information whatsoever. While his results may be true, telling us that he is a "left-wing sympathizer who is vegetarian because he does not want to kill animals" is entirely useless. 1) He may be saying this to make people more likely to believe he is an impartial researcher, 2) acceptance of his theories should be based on their reflection of the facts, not what kind of food he eats, 3) giving lectures/debates at famous places does not make a theory true - this is similar to saying, "If it's on TV, it must be true." And remember, Gene Ray of Time Cube fame lectured/debated at MIT.

Remember: Everyone is biased. That's why you need to look at the facts instead of trying to find someone who can justify your views. But then, you have to be able to overcome your own biases for this to happen.

Before we all get carried away with this stuff ...

[Evil Pete]

This is talking about a 100,000 year cycle. So it has NOTHING to do with the Greenhouse debate. Right ? Absolutely.

Also the Milankovic Cycle of heating due to orbital factors has a very good fit to the onset and end of the various ice ages over the last 2 million years. So I wouldn't agree that this is the trigger of Earth bound climate yet. Again this has nothing to do with current global warming.

Re:Junk Science - burden of proof

[ch-chuck]

I think the burden of proof is on the proponents of gw, to show that it is real science. I could make the outrageous claim that ailens landed in my backyard, but it would be up to me to cough up the evidence of that extraordinary event, not on /you/ to disprove it. Specifically, we want conclusive proof that GW is a result of human use of CO2 releasing activity before shutting down entire industries and displacing millions of employees, like some kind of primitive race tossing virgins into the volcano to appease an angry weather god or to bring the sun back from winter solstice before it disappears over the horizon forever, or to atone for some communal cosmic guilt trip.