Slashdot Mirror
Sun Not a Significant Driver of Climate Change
damn_registrars writes "Scientists from Edinburgh, Scotland have recently published a study based on 1,000 years of climate data. They have compared the effects of differing factors including volcanic activity, solar activity, and greenhouse gases to find which has the most profound effect on climate. They have concluded that the driving factor since 1900 has been greenhouse gases."
How shocking that drivers are the significant drivers of climate change, and not the Sun. Who knew, right?
In related news, angered Sun goes supernova, replies "I'm not a significant what!?"
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
c. 1350-1850 A.D. Increased volcanic activity was noted but is only one of several (possibly compounding) possible factors.
Besides, changes in solar activity levels may have a delayed impact via ice melt, changes in atmospheric circulation, etc.
Sherlock
weather stations near heat vents!
climatologists trying to make a buck off the rest of us!
anti free market hippies!
last time you said it was an ice age!
look at my linear fit to the last 4 years of data!
I posted this same bit as a journal entry and it took very little time to see a standard conservative reply. I don't expect it will be long until we'll see the same one here.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Therefore, the Sun is always the #1 contributor\ driver for climate change. Any changes to the Suns output would significantly and directly impact climate models.
In other words, these guys are loons.
Because science is for chumps.
Yeah, ever since Oracle bought them . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
give total control over the economy to the politicians, it is the only way to appease mother earth
Jeeze I wish these guys had studied physics. But then, THAT is why they are Geographers!
Another fail paper extolling the beautiful majestic wonders of the Mighty Anthropocene, which cannot be observed let alone measured.
The "Holy Ghost" is what Anthropocenists call it.
I'm not one of them for sure.
... is the question of whether anyone has bothered to do any studies of the southern hemisphere? This study seems to focus on the northern hemisphere. Which makes sense since that's where most of the industry has been set up.
Seriously? Who didn't knew that already and thought instead the sun was somehow getting hotter?
How did the world warm up and cool down before then? Perhaps that is relevant?
'driving factor" - what _exactly_ does that mean?
So they've never even seen the Sun.
Ouch!
I don't know what that was, but it was sarcastic rather that conservative or liberal.
Now a scientific mind, if one were actually interested in science - well a scientific mind would look at this study and say, well then I guess we can conclude the low period of solar activity we are in has nothing to do with the now decade long pause in global warming.
So even though we've poured many, many tons of CO2 into the atmosphere (well, other countries anyway, the U.S. having done their part in lowering emissions already) we still don't see significant warming increases.
I wonder, is it possible you can draw a scientific conclusion from these interesting facts in combination?
Probably not, for the religious fanatics never have been able to abandon their cherished gods, no matter how bitter the Kool-Aid becomes.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
after all these years on /. this is the summary that jumped the shark for me. i knew the editors were progressive but this is the kind of propaganda that would make daily beast, new republic & huff post blush. sad day.
Over the last 2 months the Drudge report has been full of climate news. All of it being evidence against AGW. Such as the US just had one of the 10 coldest years on record. The UK getting record snowfall despite AGWers claiming the UK wouldn't see snow after 2008. Antarctica getting within .5 degrees of the coldest recorded temperature on earth. Along with 2000 record low temperatures recorded over the last couple of months. Add that to the IPCC report showing no warming for 17 years.
Its become pretty obvious which side has been lying. Now they are grasping at straws to report ANYTHING that shows their side "might" be right. I'm going to ignore the alarmists and look at the evidence myself. If AGW was real, they wouldn't have to lie as often and at least ONE of their predictions would have happened.
I see you did not actually look at the Nature paper they published. The title is: "Small influence of solar variability on climate over the past millennium". The key word is variability. As in variations in solar activity aren't a major driver in climate change, not the Sun itself.
In other words, you are the loon.
"The Sun is not the major driver of the climate..." wow this is not just borderline retarded, it is so full-on moronic, the idea must have come from 7th generation cloned array of mouse-brain cells embedded in a 'nutritive' substrate of polysorbate-80, coca-cola and the proto-testicular extracts from the pile of fetuses Melissa Gates couldn't carry to term.
It doesn't get any dumber than this, at least not without a papal edict. I'm sorry, you are going to have to enforce this inane belief at gun-point, no way anyone is going to buy into this.
Well tell that to my dog Max who only naps in the sun beams.
Our oceans and lakes would boil away.
Therefore I conclude that the sun certainly plays a role.
As in variations in solar activity aren't a major driver in climate change, not the Sun itself.
Is this the best reasoning you can come up with? It doesn't even make logical sense.
Do you know how derivatives work? Probably not, so I'll remind you. The derivative of a function is its rate of change. The derivative of a constant is always zero, no matter how big that constant is. So if you have a small function that's rapidly fluctuating, it can have a big derivative, whereas a really large signal that's barely changing at all can have a small derivative.
Yes, almost all of the Earth's energy comes from the Sun. But that doesn't matter, because we're talking about climate change. Is the derivative of the Sun's output power big enough to explain the derivative of the Earth's temperature, and are the two at all correlated? Some people who are much, MUCH smarter than you, have looked at the data, and decided that the answer is no.
As an aside, this is why math education is important even for people not interested in STEM fields. You can't think logically when you don't understand such basic concepts.
I wonder if, in a decade or two, when evidence mounts to even greater certainties, whether AGW deniers will apologize to the rest of us for the damage they caused, or whether they will simply disappear into the mist like GWB supporters did.
Maybe they'll just go Tea Party, and become strident climate-change activists, whose plan of action somehow involves keeping Mexicans out.
The article's title is patently false and provable as such. Time to report reality.
The Earth's orbital changes around the Sun varies from more circular to more elliptical and its axis wobble changes and the net effect is that the different solar inputs are what causes the major climate shift on about a 110,000 year cycle.
The Sun rules. Eventually as the Sun becomes a Red Giant, the Earth will become hotter until all life and water evaporates and eventually the Sun will effectively consume the Earth.
In a very short period of time, other factors may cause climate changes including asteroids, volcanism, forest fires and mankind's creation of soot, CO2 and such.
On a geological time scale there's the ongoing dilemma of what is known as the Faint Young Sun Paradox. So yes, the sun did drive global warming... billions of years ago.
They found that their model of weak changes in the sun gave the best correlation with temperature records, indicating that solar activity has had a minimal impact on temperature in the past millennium.
This methodology does not justify that headline.
Because a millennium is suuuuch a long period of time.
Not.
Heh, Look at all those moronic posters replying to the headline.
The study says that greenhouse gases were the most significant factor and that the sun was negligible in comparison, not that the sun has no effect on warmth. The sun would certainly tend to contribute heat but we're talking about CHANGE, not stable sources of warmth, over more time than the 11 year solar cycles.
Please tell me the oil companies are paying shills to post here, the posters are seriously challenging my faith in humanity otherwise.
So first you call people dumb. Then you go full dumb. You want calculate the derivative of the Sun's power output? Then how about you calculate it on a big enough period and not just 1000 years or whatever "fits". I'll tell you why you don't do that, or why you don't look at temperature, CO2 and biomes in other ages. It is because it fucks up their models so badly they can't mangle them enough to make the data fit what it should.
If the sun isn't the major driver of temperature then why is it colder at night?
... shouldn't every year have to be warmer than the past?
Also why isn't the effect of carbon dioxide cumulative? How can we have colder years
Somewhere, there are people who took the science out of science --- maybe to argue with religious people or something --- but this social consensus crap isn't how real science is done.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
I don't need to calculate shit. The scientists did, and they're better at this than I am.
You don't know what you're talking. Seriously, you have NO FUCKING CLUE. Do you tell the contractors what thickness screws to use in your roof? Do you tell your electrician what gauge wire he should run? Do you tell your doctor which drug he should prescribe? So why the fuck do you think you can tell scientists how to better do their job?
This idiot culture, where we glorify "folksy wisdom" and condemn "book-learnin" is going to be the death of us.
Astronomical objects hate being anthropomorphised.
OK, so if we have a bowl of water under a heat lamp, and we turn the lamp on and off at a steady rate, say, toggle it twice a minute. Now we measure the temperature of the bowl of water, and it's average over the the week is pretty consistent. Now let's say we came in to measure it one day and there's some plastic wrap across the surface of the bowl. We measure the water and the temperature is increased. We say, Hey, the greenhouse effect caused by the plastic wrap is causing a change in temperature.
Then some morons say, "But the Steady Heat Lamp! The Heat comes from the Heat Lamp!" We're talking about an increase or change in temperature, and you're saying it doesn't make logical sense that variation in the heat lamp activity isn't a major driver of change to the climate because the heat lamp cycle is steady?
Please explain your troll logic, because I need a good laugh.
You need to educate yourself. Start reading about the Jurassic period in Earth's history. Please check the CO2 levels and temperature throughout that time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic
Our issue at work as mainly been that our usability department thinks too much in term of specific devices instead of thinking in term of screen size and input type.
They think "Desktop", "Lap-top", "ipad", "iphone". Thats it.
That omits the fact that there's desktops with less screen than some lap-top, that some laptops have touch screens, some tablets have keyboards (and mouse!), that there's more than 1 kind of iphones, that sometimes desktop OS run on tablets, and the entire android ecosystem (which, while a minority in e-commerce, is still 1/3rd of our traffic).
We're pushing for responsive layouts that ignore what specific environment you're in, and instead adjust to screen size and input type, which will work regardless of what combination of resolution and touch/mouse you have, but its hard to make them understand, instead we end up with features that only work on very specific devices, and look like crap on everything else. And the moment Apple releases a different device form factor, its panic. The mini might be a similar resolution, but its physical size is different, making buttons hard to see/touch, etc.
What journal are you publishing your theories in?
How about a list of your publications on this topic?
................. what?
Really? The seasons don't have to do with our earth orbiting the sun in an oval pattern? Evening isn't relevant?
...Steve
Let me see if I've got where you are coming from right.
Meanwhile every little snowflake holds in their heads the certainty of a true reality but thanks to relativism we can pretend that everyone is correct! Apart from the experts of course. Anybody with a clue has to be denied because then where does that leave the people that want to argue that white is just a lighter shade of black?
I'm sorry but I see such a fuzzy viewpoint as opportunistic bullshit and I'll go with the experts on this one.
Feel free to write something that shows you are not such an idiot as it seems from what you've written.
then we could destroy the sun, and our climate would be the same, without a sun.
They are looking at a much shorter time frame which does not include your "reality", so, while interesting it's not at all relevant. Such a thing should of course be obvious to anyone aware of it so I can only conclude that you have put it in to be silly or to try to fool the kiddies and make them think an irrelevant argument refutes what is in the TFA. So what is it - joker or slimy manipulator?
I'm really getting sick of this science denial bullshit that started with biology and geology but is spreading through everything like a cancer.
Scientists from Edinburgh, Scotland have recently published a study showing that the sun is not a significant driver of recent climate change.
Of course they think that - there is no sun in Edinburgh.
Look at it this way. The variance in solar radiation over a thousand year period is less than 0.01% of the variability seen in global temperature increase during the same period. In other words, the variability in solar radiative output (insolation) is far too small to explain the wide range of variance in global warming since the onset of the industrial revolution. In contrast, increase in carbon dioxide, as expected from the physics of its absorbtion spectrum explains cha.nge in temperature quite well (in fact it explains it rather well over the past 500 million years if isotope data is evalatuated).
It should be noted that there is no 18 years pause in global warming of sea temperature records. In fact, if one uses the arbitrary 18 year intervals to assess global atmospheric climate change, the record still shows global warming. Its just that within the last 18 years it has not been increasing as fast as the average over the last 100. Consequently, no one should be surprised that November 2013 proved to be the warmest November in recorded human history.
At least denialism is better funded than science. Who needs a future?
we don't have 1000 years of climate data. we know what the conditions were like based on samples found in the earth and even in some living plants, but we do not know enough information to have any real determination on cause. 1000 years is a too small of a sampling size, anyways, for the planet's climate data even if we had enough information. ~4.5 billions years old is the current accepted trend of the earth's age. assume that is still a bit long and make it 1 billion years (math is easier). 1000 years is .0001%. the results of study should be laughed out of the lecture hall.
Fucking stupid summary! A couple of million miles is all it would take to change how the sun effects Earth's climate. Look, I'm all sold on the effects man has had on our weather, but to say that the sun is not a significant driver of climate is stooping to the depths of the deniers. Stop it!
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
That if the Earth was removed from our sun's orbit, that our climate would not change because the sun is not a factor in the Earth's climate?
Are you saying the total heat output of the sun is constantly constant making it comparable to a blinking light bulb in a lamp that doesn't vary at all?
I'm curious because your explanation seems to indicate the lamp continues to function the same with or without the plastic wrap and the idea behind the sun being a driving factor is that the total heat output varies to some degree either by processes within the sun itself or in between the sun and the earth. What would you think if the lamp toggled 3 or 4 times a minute instead of just 2 for some periods of time?
There's a great video by Bill Nye performing this very experiment.
Check it out at result of carbon dioxide in atmosphere
What the deniers are claiming is that somehow the bulbs really aren't of equal intensity, which in this experiment is easily shown false since one can place a second pair of thermometers on the top of the vessels at equal distances from their respective lamps and readily demonstrate that for these two thermometers the temperature outside the vessels are the same. Not surprisingly the deniers ignore the findings of the scientific article, which demonstrates that at least for the last 1000 years (of which the last 100 has seen the most warming) solar output has been relatively stable by comparison, with very little variation outside of the usual solar cycles that amounts to less than 0.01% difference in output from maximum to minimum.
Actual paper behind a paywall.
OK, now ask yourself - Why in the world would a nominal peer-reviewed scientific journal publish a paper about the political funding of an opposing viewpoint? Is that what counts as science? And you wonder why people don't just sit down and shut up?
I'm not saying the sun is causing climate change... but its input to the system so radically dwarfs anything else that it can't help being relevant.
Even a tiny change in that input would have to have an impact. Now has the sun's input changed? Maybe not. I really don't know. But I'm dubious of any claim that its not worth incorporating into models. Especially when all the models didn't account for the pause in AGW that we've had in the last 10 years.
There hasn't been an increase since 1998. None of the models saw that coming. And that alone tells you that the models need to be taken with a grain of salt.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You don't think over the millennia the earths atmosphere has stabilized to deal with the output changes that occur quite frequently. Think of it this way, yes the sun's output fluctuates but the percentage of the change is normally quite small. The Earth only receives a tiny fraction of the Suns output, so in essence the differences we feel are mostly blunted by our magnetic field and the rest is smoothed over by the oceans stored heat.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
There is no anomalous "climate change" - the climate has changed many times over the course of history and will continue to do so. Humans are a minor contributor - one volcano pumps 5-10x the amount of CO_2 into the atmosphere as people do in a decade. Humans are like and ant's-fart - of course, the Liberals can't rape you out of taxes on the truth, so they publish non-sense, and popularize BS...
Let's say that I believe this even less than I believe Congress - or the President, and I wouldn't trust either of them if they said, "The sun will rise tomorrow." I would wait and see...
... would admit that climate drivers change every one-hundred years. One-hundred years is more like daily-weather than climate or the ageing time for decent 2nd-rate ... scotch.
Are we really obliged to refute every manufactured opinion of faux scientists, paid liars and psychotic ideologues float in order to keep the fossil fuel gravy train going ? At what price.
Wikipedia comes through in fine form on this topic. I urge people to everyone reading this to donate 3 bucks a month on an ongoing basis to Wikipedia. It's a commons we all draw upon daily.
Thanks Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
There's this.
http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/
They are also looking for donations:
Right on, the SUN is the only driver.
Remove it, and place earth in plutos orbit, and darm its gona get cold.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
that's significant. the sun changes our 'climate' (temp.) 24/7/365. free the innocent stem cells.
Earth tilt 23deg, has some effect ya know
Thats why we have summers and winters.
Even with all the clouds sunshine is variable, not constant.
Dude, go check 1000 years of sunspot history by chineese compared to global temps.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
1000 year sample out the last hundred million years (which itself is only 1/10th the time of life on the planet), is just not a good enough sample to conclusively state any facts about the sun vs. man made greenhouse gases as "the major cause". It is preposterous and pseudo-science at best.
Also, where are the charts comparing natural sources of methane (a much greater green house contributing gas) vs. man made CO2? Because there is a lot more methane released naturally then made made CO2 in every report I've read on the subject. Why is this never mentioned in these articles?
Over the 5 billion years earth has been in existence, what were the key drivers (top 10 list) of major climate changes? We know for a fact it was not man made greenhouse gases. Do we know for a fact that man made green house gases is for the first time in 5 billion years of earth's history the prime reason for climate variability and change? Or are we perhaps pointing fingers in the wrong direction and one of the culprits from the past is to blame and history is repeating itself?
I'm super happy that the climatology profession has been the longest profession over tallow renderer. Since sun is the catalyst to any multiplier effect i.e. refractory clouds I'm kinda surprised they've calculated it to have sucha tiny effect.
Do you tell the contractors what thickness screws to use in your roof?
I sure hope you don't because, uh, you attach your roof with nails.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The thing with Science is that you amend established theory in the light of new evidence or improved analysis of existing evidence. And that's what we see here.
Of course you never bothered to glance at the article before grabbing your keyboard, but if you had, you would have seen that this study tries to see which hypothesis about what factor was the main driver of climate the best fits the reconstructed temperatures over the past 100 years (based on observations).
The reason why we conduct studies like these isn't to identify the drivers of climate in the past hundred million years. It's to identify the main drivers now and in recent times, such as the past 100 years.
The question of what the driver of climate has been in the past 100 years is one open to investigation and debate. To be blunt: that case wasn't closed after you finished your geophysics course.
Counter to your claim, this study finds that assuming insolation was the main driver of climate over the past 100 years is not consistent with reconstructed temperatures.
I think you do a genuine disservice to any informed debate on what the cause of the (observed) global warming by donning a mantle of quasi-authority and (a) confusing the question of climate drivers on a geological timescale with those happening now and (b) dismissing a study you never even bothered read.
It would affect the probabilities slightly.
Do you tell the contractors what thickness screws to use in your roof?
I actually agree with you, but as an aside, I do know an engineer that ran the numbers himself and asked for a sturdier roof design than what the contractors were planning to do.
Mars used to have plenty of water, a comfortable atmosphere, and perhaps some living microbes.
Mars had undergone a very nasty climate change, and the peculiar thing is, Mars has no human.
Anyone care to explain what happened to Mars (without the involving the Homo Sapiens Sapiens) ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
And just a week or 2 ago it was lack of sun spots that was stopping global warming......... So if the sun spots have very little effect, that means this article just disproves man made global warming.
I don't know why solar activity is not part of the sun. My guess is that the scientist is trying to confuse the low information guy into thinking the sun dose not effect climate change when it dose.
I thought that this was understood, but good to make it explicit.
As in variations in solar activity aren't a major driver in climate change, not the Sun itself.
Is this the best reasoning you can come up with? It doesn't even make logical sense.
Where's that '-1, deliberately obtuse' mod when you need it?
"Or are we perhaps pointing fingers in the wrong direction and one of the culprits from the past is to blame and history is repeating itself?"
If it is, where is the experimental evidence?
Do you imagine that people who do this science for a living have never ever once thought about this in the decades that they've worked? Your question is presupposing a scientific capability somewhere near Aristotle.
One of the culprits from the past, present and future is the greenhouse effect. On this, the extra gases emitted by humans increase the magnitude of the existing, natural effect, and this is validated by direct experimental measurements.
It is more oft a School debate where People give the Same tired fucking Ten already debunked Stuff and Cry censorship/endofdebate/scienceisnowfaith when they get rebuffed that on their poorly thought Argument get rejected. So come up with new Shit or stuff you.
Oracle?
I feel. . .so. . .loved.
Thank you!
If only this fraud wasn't getting buried by glaciers.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Submited the story earlier but wasn't voted. The paper can be found here
Let's see, that is the last 0.000025% of Terra's 4 billion year age. That is the equivalent of deciding what is normal for a 35 year old man by looking at what he did in last 20 minutes. What would someone decide is normal for you if they looked at the last 20 minutes of your life?
I am very interested to know how this researcher determined solar output for the last 1000 years with no records.
As near as I can tell, this is simply a rehash of other people's research say "I concur with what they said even though I did no actual research"
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
CO2 and other anthropogenic pollution and depletion factors are accelerators and destabilizers. Not fuel - per se. The Sun is a humungous source of energy - but far from the only one.
The difference is tlike that between facing an explosion in a cardboard shanty or in a small concrete bunker with the doors closed. No bathtubs. No baffles.
No laundry chutes. We clogged most of those up pretty well. With trash.
Energy accumulates in the system. Dynamic equilibrium center-points move about. Excursion ranges increase. Patterns change. Energy is more than just heat. All well known facts from the early 80s on.
No, I'm not talking about the article or merits of the study. I'm talking about the fact that we, as a civilization and a species, approach these issues without politicizing them, turning them into a referendum on everything from the existence of God to whether or not blind people should be allowed to buy handguns. We live on the Earth -- the only Earth we are currently able to access and inhabit, given our current technology and resources. So why is it that we constantly cannot reach any sort of consensus on how to proceed on these issues? Is making a few trillion more from fossil fuels that important, for those who attack the idea of climate change? Likewise, is the elevation of science to a religion so important to those on the left that this has become a dogmatic, holy cause where dissent is met with ridicule? I understand that American society is awash in stupidity and complete ignorance of even basic principles of logic (anecdotal evidence is the deciding factor about how most people seem to feel about things), but here has to be some point where everyone says enough is enough and starts approaching the issue with a level head and realizing the implications if the science is right and nothing is done. Yeah, sorry for the rant...I'm tired of humanity's inability to get its head out of its butt and look past more than the next Super Bowl or imperial...err...presidential election.
Solar output has been gradually increasing for a long time, and some "skeptics" claim this is the real reason for the climate changes we've observed (ie: not greenhouse gas emissions). But the emerging consensus is that this increase in solar output is nowhere near enough to account for the warming we've seen in the last century.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
I see you did not actually look at the Nature paper they published. ... In other words, you are the loon.
Excuse me?? That anon up there didn't RTFA - he is not a loon, he is just upholding /.'s finest traditions.
A RIAA-financed study proved that the largest cause of global warming is copyright violations.
Do not look directly at the sun!
Or, to put it another way - - "Do not pay any attention to the Sun behind the curtain."
Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
An appeal to authority which has at times been wrong, paid for publish and simply fabricated and passed.
I never understood this side of the argument. Let's say that the "skeptics" are right, and that the reason for the climate changes we've observed is in fact a gradually increasing solar output. Does that mean that we should just throw up our arms, sit back, and wait until the sun cooks us? That it doesn't make sense to try to stem the warming trend? That rising oceans inundating our coastal cities aren't a problem?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
The guys who published this "scientific work" must be off of there rocker. So all of the previous work that has found a strong correlation between solar activity and climate were flawed.... pull my other leg.
"Greenhouse gases" are insignificant without solar radiation to react with them. I know what they're saying, but it is not an accurate assessment and is obviously intended as a political jab at those of us who seem to have more clarity when evaluating all of the facts absent of a leftist political agenda. Greenhouse gases generated by humans is insignificant compared to your average volcano. Mt. Pinatubo in the early 1990s dumped more "greenhouse gas" pollution into earth's atmosphere than all fossil fuel emissions cumulatively going back to the invention of the internal combustion engine. The "science" of global warming is nothing more than a political agenda fostered by an unscrupulous minority of pseudo-scientists and statist policy-makers to garner more power, and manipulate the vast, uninformed populace to vote/support/lobby for the perpetuation of that power. If "climate change" is truly happening, then it will happen despite what Man does on this planet. The planet has undergone catastrophic climate changes in the past 4 billion years or so, and all without "evil" corporations and their scary smokestacks, and SUVs. Message to all you "Global Warming" fanatics: Get over yourself already. You're not that smart. And you're not that important.
It should say that the Sun was not significant compared to all of the other factors they took into account over the past 1,000 years, including freaking volcanic eruptions. Umm.. ya think?
But it also doesn't sound like it says that much for anthropogenic warming however, because man has only contributed to that in any significant manner in the past 100 to 150 years, just 10% to 15% of their time base sample. Does it still answer whether mankind is putting the same levels of CO2 into the atmosphere, in the same time frame (essentially a burst), that a volcanic eruption does?
Mind you, I have no issue with alternative energy, far from it; I really wish solar were further along in efficiency than it is; oil and coil are filthy and crude (no pun intended) and kinda primitive, we need to outgrow fossil fuels; I just don't quite buy into the alarmist scenario, which has some questionable political motivations behind it.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Is we coded our climate change computer models NOT to respond to changes in sun. And therefore, when we adjust the intensity of the sun there is minimal effect.
And yet, we know that even sunspots and minor things such as that have a pronounced affect on Earth's climates.
Computer Models != Real Life (at least not on the scale of estimating a planetological scale.
Has this emerging consensus investigated increase of aerosol particles due to increase of input?
Is the emerging consensus fully versed in mathematical chaos and deterministic unpredictability?
Change means a new reality, new paradigms. History NEVER exactly repeats itself, just rhymes sometimes.
It's the same type of bullshit of the human condition repeating over and over again. This time, the same people are calling it "scientific".
Einstein asked what is the definition of insanity? Few people listens.
How wrong was Leonardo Da Vinci? How inspired and talentful?
How wrong was Einstein? How insightful and progressive?
Consensus doesn't make anybody "right", and other people "wrong", except in people's delusions.
Historically, it's been a fallacy, again and again.
Why? Because the masses and leaders can't take that some people are trend-leaders and more inspired, more insightful, etc. than themselves. So they arrogantly need to define themselves "correct" (whatever that means).
Look, I also think it's horrible what we're doing to our planet. I'm not seeing much action to correct the wrongs though, or fund true understanding of our conundrums. At least not publically. Yes, there are always more than one perspective, and often, historically, the unpopular notions prove to be _more correct_ (not perfect) over time.
But it's not so satisfying to truly investigate and admit that we don't really know that much, as it is to ridicule and marginalize, to cover up one's own flawed and biased thinking.
Captcha: conceive
Where the fuck do you think all of that fuel we burn comes from? The sun is *THE* driving factor, as it is with every other thing on this planet. Plants can't grow and die and break down to become greenhouse-gas releasing fuel without the sun from the get-go. The sun + axial tilt is responsible for driving our weather patterns, which is the biggest form of climate change we have.
Whoever wrote this is one ignorant and short-sighted person. How does this drivel make it past the editors? Perhaps we need editors with brains.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Solar output was relatively high from 1950 until about 1985, but has been falling ever since. The following link plots solar output vs temperatures: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp-dts/mean:12/offset:1.40/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:136/scale:0.024/plot/pmod/offset:-1365.35/mean:136/scale:3
Solar output is typically around 1365.5 WM^-2. Every 11 years or so it rises by 0.5 or even as much as 1 WM^-2, but then falls back down to around 1365.5 after a few years. CO2 is currently causing a sustained forcing of 1.9 WM^-2 relative to preindustrial CO2 forcing (given by 5.35 LN(C/C0)). This sustained forcing dwarfs the periodic energy fluxuations from the sun.
Curiously, "skeptics" who argue that these small changes in solar output can cause the changes we've seen in temperature are arguing that the Earth is very sensative to relatively small forcings. If this is the case then it would seem inconsistant to also argue that the sustained forcing from CO2 is insignificant.
Awe.....look. Santa left more Global Warming Crap Science under the xmas tree.
Santa even wrapped it in "Climate Change" to make the present prettier.....so thoughtful!
-Hackus
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
A carpenter that works with my brother attaches everything with screws, but pounds them in with a hammer.
In hurricane- and tornado-prone areas they're attaching the roof decking (plywood) to the trusses with screws, since the roof will be less likely to peel off in extreme winds. There are special screw guns available just for this application.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
For the first time in over a hundred years, it snowed in Cairo. Yes, Cairo. Jerusalem had three feet of snow, and last week Vietnam had snow. Yes, Vietnam. Also for the first time in a hundred years.
Fact is, none of the computer models accurately predict the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm period (when it was considerably warmer than now, Britain grew very nice grapes and had its own wine industry), and the Dark Ages Ice Age. During the Medieval Warm period, Greenland had grasses and TREES. The Glaciers retreated.
If you want me to believe a theory of Global Warming, it has to account for these known historical climatic periods, as well as the sudden end to the last Interglacial Maximum, around 9,000 years ago, when Earth suddenly got a LOT warmer.
All these dramatic, less than fifty years or so, transitions from very cold to very warm (both quite a bit colder and warmer than today) took place with miminal if any human effect on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or really any effect on the Earth's environment.
It is NOT SCIENCE if it does not adaquately explain both past experience and accurately predict the future. It is merely relgious belief.
If you want to believe in human original technological sin and redemption by rejecting technology, go ahead. Live like a hippy in the dirt. Me, I want science. not baked data, hidden data, "trust us" opaque computer models, no open sourcing, and worst of all, no sharing of raw data, methodoligies, and results.
Science requires experimental proof. See Einstein's theory of relativity, proven over and over again not by a model but by experiments. This is not science. It is not falsifiable or provable. Merely a religious belief.
His experiment only illustrates that CO2 has the ability to absorb energy, which everyone understands. However he used 100% CO2 in his experiment and the earth's atmosphere only has .04%, so it is quite misleading "proof".
The report from is not even written by all of the scientists of Edinburgh, Scotland; much less the world. Your assumptions are as faulty as the person you are criticizing.
The most accurate predictor of weather in the UK does so by watching what the sun is doing.
He mentions that in the film mentioned in "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
As we all know now the Hadley Climate Unit was fudging the data and I am sure
that others were as well, and this is more about the money then some Oil man
board member for Occidental Petroleum making a "Inconvenient" film.
As they used to say long long ago..... Cui bono....aka "Who Benefits" ,
other also like to say follow the money.
When you check out the Carbon Credit Exchange scam and who lined
up to rake in the mega bucks it starts making more sense, and why
big oil will get more of a dodge then small time independent coal operators.
I agree 100% we need to get off fossil fuels, and I believe Iceland already has
shown the way for most of the world, especially nations on the ring of fire and
other highly volcanic areas of the planet.
Geothermal, Wind, Tidal, Ocean Current, Solar Thermal, Vertical Hydroponic Algae Oil,
can solve all our energy needs and much cheaper then the current military adventures
by the Military Industrial Complex tacked onto government subsidized oil prices.
Shingles are fastened to a roof with nails.
One of the popular theories of the demise of Mars is that a solar flare stripped off the atmosphere. Dont listen to thr globalist carbon tax pushing minions and their greenhouse agenda.
Nighttime
Do you know what frequency response is? That the sun is not monochromatic? So you can't simply summarize the output of the sun with one value (the "solar constant," which is stationary only for short time periods)? And that if the sun is outputting more ultraviolet today than say, green, the effect on the earth would be different?
So what are their predictions? You know those pesky tests to see if your theory is correct. We have had rising CO2 and flat temperatures for 17+ years. A simple and valid question would be: How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? Almost there. 30? 50? Never?
What happens if Dr Libby's predictions from the 1970s turn out correct? She correctly called the following: it will stay cold until the mid 80s (it did), then it will warm until the end of the century (it did), then the warming will stop (it has) and lastly a 1-2 degree FALL in temperatures globally with an outside chance of a 3-4 degree drop.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/1979-before-the-hockey-team-destroyed-climate-science/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/23/claim-solar-activity-not-a-key-cause-of-climate-change-study-shows/#more-99806
Read both sides and make up your own mind :)
Cheers and merry christmas to all
The title is absolutely misleading, it should read: "Sun Not a Significant Driver of CURRENT Climate Change", and then again it could be a significant contributor and not yet the main cause of recent warming.
It might be easy for the message to get lost here. The Sun's variability is not a factor in climate change is different from saying that it is not involved in climate change. The claim here is that other factors are more correlated with climate change, namely the production of greenhouse gasses. Even without that, there would still be variation caused by the regular changes in the earth's orbit, inclination, that are enough to account for the dramatic changes from glacial and interglacial intervals in earth's climate over the past several million years. I read the story as saying that variability of the Sun's radiation is not significant. The input of greenhouses gases is significant, with other factors in play. So orbital elements might set us up for another glacial period is say 15,000 years, but the load of greenhouse gasses might extend the current interglacial that far or make it stronger.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/21/climate-change-ipcc-fossil-temperature
This story is crap and lies..
I should say that the sun having no affect on global temperature is probably true as the average temp hasn't changed.
The sheep will believe what the sheep are told to believe....
Would any of the pro climate change scientists actually tell the truth if it Kent loosing their jobs ?
Opened the story. Where's the meat? No tables or graphs. How did they get solar data from before 1600 when celestial observations became serious? They don't explain the Medieval Warming Period. Toward the end of that era, the French were considering a duty on English wine. After roughly 1250 CE, they had other concerns, like getting warm. What volcano caused the Little Ice Age that lasted about 600 years and changed diet and drinking patterns? What happened around 1850 to cause things to abruptly get warmer? Yes, volcanoes do matter. Blame Indonesia for all three of them. One of them almost wiped out the human species (genetic bottleneck). Another one caused the Year without a Summer (1816). Krakatoa lead to the Great Blizzard of 1888.
An authority that's published and been proven wrong (also in publication) is far more useful information than a moron who's too lazy or can't collect his thoughts well enough to publish at all. Publication allows us to keep track of the errors and the corrections and is a reliable and consistent means of scientific communication. Crackpot articles and rants on random blogs is not. Publication is how scientists communicate, and if you're not doing it, whatever you are doing isn't science. Get used to it. Observe, hypothesize, experiment, collect data, analyze, and PUBLISH. That's the scientific method, like it or not.
Sorry that direct measurements of sea levels disagree with an "upswing" in the last 100 years. http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html has sea levels at various measuring stations around the world. Some go back more than 100 years. New York's Battery for example goes back to 1856. It's sea level change is quite linear at 2.77 mm/year or 0.91 feet per 100 years.
NON-geek Linux user since 1998
For one to think that the sun is not a significant impact on climate change is like saying geeze, it's a bit cold today, and the sun has not risen in a few days. But of course, there is no correlation. The author of the report forgets that the sun is the ultimate source of climate, not just climate change. They are so wrapped up in the details around green house gasses that they can not see the forest from the tree's. The forest being the sun of course.
So, based on this "research work" ice cubes are not responsible for making drinks colder and the stove has no bearing on the cooking of food. It is well known that the sun's output is not constant, and any freshman party animal can figure out that there would be no warming of any kind on our planet without Mr. Sun. Maybe these "scientists" were drinking too much scotch when they wrote this opinion.