'No Sun link' to climate change

[JI7]

Source: bbc

Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.

The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.

The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity.

But Lancaster University scientists found there has been no significant link between them in the last 20 years.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm

[soothsayer]

1. How about the earth moving into the galactic center? (which is where we're headed

right now?)

[SpiralHawk]

2. "Oh no, not more fact-based stuff. How inconvenient." - Limbaugh & Horde of republicon propagandists

[Nightflyer32]

19. Re: "Oh no, not more fact-based stuff. How inconvenient."

"Oh no, not more fact-based stuff. How inconvenient." - Limbaugh & Horde of republicon propagandists

Hey, facts never bothered them before - why would they start worrying about them now?

[Ganja Ninja]

23. Facts? Oh facts schmacks!

"You can use facts to prove almost anything." - Homer Simpson

[Joe Bacon]

34. Yet another example of Christian Lysenkoism

We have a out of control government run by insane Christian Lysenkoists committed to doing whatever it takes to being Jesus back. If Jesus came back to earth today, these same people would be the first to go after him and demand his execution!

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

3. They are talking about the last 20 years. What about Maunder Minimum?

But the jury is still out on how much sunspots can (or do) affect the Earth's climate. Times of maximum sunspot activity are associated with a very slight increase in the energy output from the sun. Ultraviolet radiation increases dramatically during high sunspot activity, which can have a large effect on the Earth's atmosphere. From the mid 1600s to early 1700s, a period of very low sunspot activity (known as the Maunder Minimum) coincided with a number of long winters and severe cold temperatures in Western Europe, called the Little Ice Age. It is not known whether the two phenomena are linked or if it was just coincidence. The reason it is hard to relate maximum and minimum solar activity (sunspots) to the Earth's climate, is due to the complexity of the Earth's climate itself. For example, how does one sort out whether a long-term weather change was caused by sunspots, or maybe a coinciding El Nino or La Nina? Increased volcanic eruptions can also affect the Earth's climate by cooling the planet. And what about the burning of fossil fuels and clear cutting rain forests? One thing is more certain, sunspot cycles have been correlated in the width of tree ring growth. More study will be conducted in the future on relating sunspot activity and our Earth's climate.
The Little Ice Age from 1645 to 1715?

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/sunspots.php

The Solar Cycle: Sunspots increase and decrease through an average cycle of 11 years. Dating back to 1749, we have experienced 22 full solar cycles where the number of sunspots have gone from a minimum, to a maximum and back to the next minimum, through approximate 11 year cycles. We are now well into the 23rd cycle, with the 24th cycle right around the corner. The number of sunspots in this cycle reached a peak in May, 2000 where the number of sunspots were measured at near 170. A secondary sunspot maximum occurred near the beginning of 2002 where the sunspot number was about 150. The next sunspot minimum is forecast to occur in late 2006 through mid 2007. A chart of cycle 23 is available at the NOAA Space Environment Center.

NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center shows the monthly averaged sunspot numbers based on the International Sunspot Number of all solar cycles dating back to 1750. (Daily observations of sunspots began in 1749 at the Zurich, Switzerland observatory.) This chart from NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center shows the sunspot number prediction for solar cycle 24.

One interesting aspect of solar cycles is that the sun went through a period of sunspot inactivity from about 1645 to 1715. This period of sunspot minima is called the Maunder Minimum. Sunspots were measured during this timeframe, although the more detailed, daily measurements began in 1749. The "Little Ice Age" occurred over parts of Earth during the Maunder Minimum. So the question remains, do solar minimums help to create periods of cooler than normal weather, and do solar maximums help to cause drought over sections of Earth? This question is not easily answered due to the immensely complex interaction between our atmosphere, land and oceans. In addition, there is evidence that some of the major ice ages Earth has experienced were caused by Earth being deviated from its "average" 23.5 degrees tilt on its axis. The Earth has tilted anywhere from near 22 degrees to 24.5 degrees on its axis. The number of sunspots alone do not alter the overall solar emissions much at all. However, the increased/decreased magnetic activity which accompanies sunspot maxima/minima directly influences the amount of ultraviolet radiation which moves through the upper atmosphere.

~head in sand.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

4. My edit will not go thru here.

The Little Ice Age from 1645 to 1715?

Should be at top of text, that was not in article.
Just for clarification.

[jimlup]

16. The problem goes deeper and requires some study to untangle

See for instance:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Based on the data I have seen, the solar variation is not nearly a sufficient explaination for recent climate change. Since I am not a climate scientist, I have not considered all of these arguements in full detail but the propondance of the evidence from the sources I trust suggests the
"sun spot" connection is just one more straw man from the skeptics. Clearly the solar irradience is critical input to climate models but it isn't like the climate scientists have ignored this. I'm convinced that the IPCC is basically correct and requires significant action in the near term.

The solar variation just isn't enough to explain the recent warming.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/

Regardless, the climate models accurately predict the recent climate and they show the link between greenhouse gases CO2, CH4... and global warming.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080402100001.htm

The evidence is convincing and the scientific agreement is significant.

[bhikkhu]

39. The little ice age is usually dated from 1315 to 1830 or so

Lots of variety in beginning and end dates. The beginning, however, seems to be more generally agreed on than the end.

Also, the tilt of the axis of the earth does not effect net energy input from the sun, though it would likely move temperature patterns around.

[greiner3]

5. I both studied global warming;

And attended a lecture from one of the IPCC scientists last year. He stated that the problem is that as CO2 increases, so does the temperature in the Earth's atmosphere. Scientists have evidence of this fact going back 10 million years; not 3 centuries. The problem with the correlation of temperature rise and CO2 increase is just that, a correlation. This is just a theory that has been put forth and improved by many researchers from all over the world. But I am remiss in something. I forgot all the unwashed who only hold that evolution is JUST a theory. Why do so many people hate their children/grandchildren? It is they who will have to deal with global death and destruction from famine and rising sea levels. This is real folks. If you doubt it, take some science classes at your local college or university. Oh, one more plus for improving yourself; you too might attend a lecture where you can meet one of the Nobel Prize winners, the scientist from IPCC.

[Virginia Dare]

11. Life on earth, as we know it, is coming to an end..

that much is a fact. Now we have to figure out how we're going to deal with it, if there's anything that can be done. Meanwhile, the flat-earthers are still in denial, preventing us from having any real and meaningful discussions. I guess we're doomed..:shrug:

[Kolesar]

12. The temps and CO2 match, and we can state a causal relationship

because we do know that CO2 has the property of trapping infrared/long-wave radiation. Good enough for you and me, apparently. What the hell is wrong with the other 85% of the population who are not frantic about this? I just don't know. Maybe they think we are too intellectual for them.

[BadgerKid]

24. Yes, CO2 varies seasonally but overall the trend is up. n/t

[superkia]

26. You sound like you have a good grip on the subject so I figured...

I would throw a question your way. Do you know anything about chemtrails and their possible affect on our temperature fluctuations? I saw and article that talked about German scientists sewing their government for using chemtrails to manipulate the weather and I was curious if our own government using chemtrails could have an affect as well?

[yardwork]

35. Don't forget - there's no real proof that smoking cigarettes causes cancer.

And Einstein proved that the earth doesn't really rotate around the sun, in fact, we're all just reeling around in space, and that proves that evolution is just a theory, and anyway nobody knows for sure how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, especially given the Heisenberg uncertainty principle....

[Warren Stupidity]

6. ooops another bullshit explanation goes crickets nt.

[14thColony]

14. I would hesitate to call it quite that.

It was a hypothesis which also plausibly explained the same observable phenomena as the human-induced global warming hypothesis. However it was tested and found to be wanting. This is the way good science works. Bad science is pre-determining which hypothesis is more pleasing to the observer then bending the evidence to fit it.

[wtmusic]

21. Good science vs. bad

The problem with polarizing science into two categories is that it takes a long time to sort out.

Mankind could afford to wait until Copernicus to decide the sun was the center of the solar system, because it didn't matter. We're at a point now where according to the tenets of the precautionary principle a "lack of certainty regarding the threat should not be used as an excuse to do nothing to avert that threat".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

Floating these alternative hypotheses gives deniers ammunition. The evidence is clear that action is needed to avert catastrophe, so "best science" must be our guide.

[14thColony]

27. I agree with you

That time is of the essence here, and we may even be past the point where our actions can have great effect. But in this case the alternative hypothesis in question wasn't the result of some crazed wingers or oil industry shill scientists. It was a viable hypothesis that was put forward for the sake of the science; it just didn't work and so onto the scrap-heap of science it goes, along with many other well-reasoned but wrong hypotheses. I agree completely that we must let best science be our guide, but we must also be cautious of dogma which suppresses other views. Many long-cherised ideas have later been proven wrong.

There seems to be a view amongst the deniers that goes something like this: "if I can prove Global Warming is not being induced by human activity, THEN GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT HAPPENING." This is obviously a severe logical phallacy, and makes as much sense as saying that "if I can prove I didn't shoot John, then John is not really bleeding to death right in front of me." The point I try to make with that crowd is that I DON'T CARE who shot John. Call 911, get John some help, and argue about it later.

But as you rightly point out, that's great in a rational world with rational leaders, but the reality is it gives too much opportunity for leaders to do nothing as long as the argument continues.

[SteinbachMB]

7. What will happen

when the next Ice Age occurs? Who will be blamed?

[immoderate]

8. When is that scheduled for?

--IMM

[SteinbachMB]

10. Mother Earth

can be very fickle about things like this.

[Kolesar]

13. So what is the point of this little sub-thread? eom

[SteinbachMB]

15. Point?

I'm worried that no one seems at all concerned about the coming doom of the next Ice Age. I guess I wasn't clear enough the first time.

[immoderate]

20. It weems we've already over-corrected. Where were you?

--IMM

[Winterblues]

25. From your emphasis I would say you don't believe man has any responsibility.

No smog created by man or no CO2 emissions emitted within a closed environment. Man has zero impact upon nature...so there is no reason to conserve anything or worry about pollution or de-forestation. The earth just works in cycles no matter what happens upon it, is the gist of what you are trying to make us understand..right?

[SteinbachMB]

29. Nope.

What I'm saying is that I don't buy the fear of DOOM from the climate change DOOMSAYERS, just like I don't buy the fear of, "If we don't fight al-Qaeda in Iraq, we'll have to fight it here."

Meanwhile, I'm all for reducing pollution: Who in their right mind isn't?

[Viking12]

31. Rush, is that you?

There's hyberbolic warnings of 'doom' and there are somber articulations of significant risk. Apparently, you can't tell the differecne.

[Viking12]

30. We need to worry about our ability to adapt over the next few centuries first...

..we can worry about what will happen in 7000-20,000 years a little later.

[hatrack]

32. Oh, please, please please cite "all those scientists back in the 1970s who said we were cooling"!!!!

Please! It's so CUTE when trolls post that! I just love it!

Big smoochy kiss for you if you do, SteinbachMB!! :loveya:

[Viking12]

33. But, but, but Global Warming stopped in 1998.....

.:party:

[Barrett808]

37. "The global cooling mole" at RealClimate:

The global cooling mole
By John Fleck and William Connolley

To veterans of the Climate Wars, the old 1970s global cooling canard - "How can we believe climate scientists about global warming today when back in the 1970s they told us an ice age was imminent?" - must seem like a never-ending game of Whack-a-mole. One of us (WMC) has devoted years to whacking down the mole (see here, here and here, for example), while the other of us (JF) sees the mole pop up anew in his in box every time he quotes contemporary scientific views regarding climate change in his newspaper stories.

The problem is that the argument has played out in competing anecdotes, without any comprehensive and rigorous picture of what was really going on in the scientific literature at the time. But if the argument is to have any relevance beyond talking points aimed at winning a debate, such a comprehensive understanding is needed. If, indeed, climate scientists predicted a coming ice age, it is worthwhile to take the next step and understand why they thought this, and what relevance it might have to today's science-politics-policy discussions about climate change. If, on the other hand, scientists were not really predicting a coming ice age, then the argument needs to be retired.

The two of us, along with Tom Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center, undertook a literature review to try to move beyond the anecdotes and understand what scientists were really saying at the time regarding the various forces shaping climate on time human time scales. The results are currently in press at the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, and Doyle Rice has written a nice summary in USA Today, and an extended version based on a presentation made by Tom at the AMS meeting in January is on line.

During the period we analyzed, climate science was very different from what you see today. There was far less integration among the various sub-disciplines that make up the enterprise. Remote sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling were all in their infancy. But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between 1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details):

7 articles predicting cooling
44 predicting warming
20 that were neutral

In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing. The dominant view, even then, was that increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any changes we might see in climate on human time scales.

We do not expect that this work will stop the mole from popping its head back up in the future. But we do hope that when it does, this analysis will provide a foundation for a more thoughtful discussion about what climate scientists were and were not saying back in the
1970s.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/langswitch_lang/sw

[daleo]

38. Nice find. n/t

[Quantess]

40. I hate it when people have their profile hidden.

Then you can't tell whether they've been TS'd or not.

[petronius]

41. I think even a hidden profile converts to a tombstone when appropriate

Anyone who's been TS'd will be sporting granite in the profile...

[Virginia Dare]

9. Humans will be so busy trying to survive..

I doubt we'll have time to blame anybody.

[freedomnorth]

17. Our children and their children

will be cursing us to deepest hell for causing climate chaos...

[wtmusic]

22. Anthropogenic global warming runs a little deeper than partisan bickering

but requires some thought. It's HARD. Just like being a preznit.

[14thColony]

28. Easy...

Bill Clinton

[yardwork]

36. Well, I guess that proves that we should do absolutely nothing to reduce carbon emissions.

Yes, the mere mention of an ice age negates the thousands of pages of data suggesting that we have a problem. I guess we can all go back to sleep now. Thanks.

[Orsino]

18. Now how about the stars?

Oh, sure, they look dim, but there are quintillions of 'em out there.

[samsingh]

42. fossil fuels must be huge contributors to climate change