Skip to comments.New analysis counters claims that solar activity is linked to global warming
Posted on 07/11/2007 3:40:02 AM PDT by liberallarry
It has been one of the central claims of those who challenge the idea that human activities are to blame for global warming. The planet's climate has long fluctuated, say the climate sceptics, and current warming is just part of that natural cycle - the result of variation in the sun's output and not carbon dioxide emissions.
But a new analysis of data on the sun's output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest. The data shows that even though the sun's activity has been decreasing since 1985, global temperatures have continued to rise at an accelerating rate.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
There's far more to it than modeling. The study under discussion purports to show that certain contentions contradict observed facts.
Have they shown why the minuscule time scale doesn’t matter? Why we should not expect effects with much longer time constants to swamp this stuff out — especially the most new fangled measurements that were not even possible for most of the climatic history that we know? Great as journalism, horrid as science.
I'm sorry, I missed this. Point me to the correct post or repeat your argument. Thanks.
Post the whole study, or quit using it as a basis for a factual discussion.
There's far more to it than modeling.
These "professionals" are claiming that they basically are able to model the global climate with their "data". They're asking us to just say "Ave Maria" and have faith.
No peer review. In fact, the ‘researchers’ seem to be saying that peer review isn’t even necessary. That’s not science, that’s propaganda.
It's the TimesSelect argument:
If you claim that X always increases when Y increases and someone shows you that X decreases when Y increases (during the period of the experiment) then either you're wrong (most likely), the experiment was poorly done (possible), or a miracle occured.
LL’s argument boils down to “Whom Do You Trust” and he’s in the temple of what for all we know are blind guides.
Environmentalists cause global warming.
Black Sunday April 14, 1935. The dust storm that turned day into night. Many believed the world was coming to an end.
Doo doo doo, doo doo doo doo doo doo doo (cue swami music)
Correlation isn’t causation. Coincidental correlations CAN be turned into superstition.
Is that really true? I find it unlikely given that is was the Royal Society which published it. It's not as if it was published in "Astounding Science Fiction".
You seem to have zero understanding of science. Zip. Zilch.
People who study climate seem to be about as trustworthy as Senators who support illegal immigration.
You gents will be interested in this, The Acquittal of CO2, http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html, which fits the CO2 lag in the paleoclimate data to the curve of the solubulity of CO2 in water. There is other discussion on this website of the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere (not what the Consensus says) and on the extent of the contribution of the sun to temperature anomalies.
Bad experimental design is obvious here. Insolation theorists make claims about the trend of the average over many centuries, not about glitches of a few decades. Why worry about the ripples in the pond when the whole pond is draining or filling?
And you seem to have zero understanding of sarcasm, ll. :-)
What I've said is that trust is a big factor for laymen who are unable to follow the intricacies of argument or interpret the results of experiment in real time. Ultimately, however, the truth will out for almost everyone.
While most still cannot follow the arguments of Copernicus, or Einstein, or Heisenberg the consequences of their theories in everyday life have led the public to overwhelmingly accept them.
Don't you have a website with just an abstract and then a main article that you can't actually read, Buckhead? ;-)
The paper was just published. Nobody has had time to challenge it yet.
Possibly, but I think the man was being serious. He doesn't believe that man-made global warming can be verified or disproved by experiment...or at least that anything that's been done to date has any meaning.
But the short time period doesn’t matter, remember. Superstition Of The Week.
Yes, but the Royal Society didn’t publish it without a critical look by peers.
I don’t trust that article in your link. Something about the font doesn’t ring true ... :0)
The “peers” being themselves, for all we can see. We decline to name them the curiate of our Rome, thank you very much.
And the world-famed peer-reviewed Lancet, in the worst piece of medical statistics ever, reported the deaths of 655,000 dead Iraquis. Peer-review isn't quite the infallible safety net you imagine it to be.
Not necessarily. Just the temperature difference between the satellite and the ground station creates a huge amount of error that must be "adjusted" through computer algorithm. (no pun intended) Satellite temperature data isn't as accurate as you might have been lead to believe.
But, NO!!! They let the ignorant commoners actually handle the goods...
Thank you Buckhead: awesome link!
Dear Larry, I am pointing out that even a peer reviewed article *concerning* peer reviewed articles can contain erroneous data and conclusions.
One study, especially one which so strongly refutes practical experience, intuition, and previous research and which covers such a limited time frame, cannot be allowed to stand on its own. (Or two or three, in the case of clones and Korean nationalist interests).
Wait a month or so, watch for corrections, as in the case of the Oreskes article and the buzz in the appropriate professional circles.
The issue is not whether we're professionals, so my bachelor of science in environmental engineering signed by Ronald Reagan plus my decades of work with a US federal meteorology section aren't the problem.
This article says that the cause of recent global temperature increases is manmade CO2 and not fluctuations in solar activity. The journalists did not shown their numbers. We presented measurements refuting the idea.
The proceedings of the Royal Society are primarily intended for working professional scientists...but anyone who wants to pay can gain access. Comparing this publication to Times Select is disingenuous (and I'm being quite generous here). A fairer comparison is to Stratfor, or analytic journals intended for business professionals.
The abstract cannot be ignored. It is serious science.
Several errors in just those two sentences ...
Gee. And the “article puts to rest the whole sun-warming theory”, eh? And article written by, as larrylib so eloquently puts it, “by professionals.” Who are not “in it for the money or idealism” (unlike everybody else in the global warming crowd), but who do charge very high prices for their product. Gee. Who would have thought?
See, I understood that the EARTH’S magnetic field helped shield us from the SUN’S (and other star’s!) cosmic rays, (note that the earth’s magnetic field is reducing and moving as we apparently are swapping north magnetic poles again!), and that the cosmic ray-influence on cloud formation tracks very, very closely with measured temperatures over the past 30 years.
See, what the original sun-level studies measured (what MIGHT be measured in this study- we can’t tell because the greedy scientists won’t tell us!) was solar (visible) radiation, not solar & stellar cosmic ray radiation.
While CO2 levels don’t track (they precede temperature changes) temperatures at all. Even in the short terms trends, CO2 levels don’t track with temperatures: temps for 8 years have declined since 1998’s peak, but CO2 levels have steadily risen as India, Brazil, Indochina, and China continue to pollute.
Note that 1998’s peak matched a solar radiation/cosmic ray peak, but not anything else.
Do we have any graph that continues the plot from 1995 into the 2005-2006 time period?
CO2 has continued to rise, but temps have NOT risen since 1998’s peak.
First thing that came to my mind was that after several studies showed the sun to be a major factor (and human activity only a sidebar) the proponents of carbon offsets and general panic have laid all criticism 'firmly to rest' with one unattributed analysis.
Unfortunately, that's all the true believers need to restore their convictions.
A “scientific” study that took at least 4 months of “fact” finding and conclusion suddenly trumps everything like this study which recently came out:
How does your climate pastor/priest/warlock/shaman/voodoo peddler respond to the hypocritical fact that CO2 rose rapidly for 30 years yet the earth’s temp. went down to the point that these same scientist you worship were scared of an ice age back in the 70’s?
Like some other poster said, Lockwood not a scientist, more like a government paid propagandist/hit man blinding ignoramuses with their degrees.
Tell me, does it take a person with a degree to tell you that the world is round and not flat?
Does it take someone with a degree to tell you that if you jump off the top of the Empire State building you likely will fall to the ground?
Apparently you are a professional. Most posters aren't.
This article says that the cause of recent global temperature increases is manmade CO2 and not fluctuations in solar activity
The article says that...but the research says only that solar activity is a very, very unlikely cause of global warming during the last 20 years.
The journalists did not shown their numbers.
They're journalists are writing for the general public, not scientists.
We presented measurements refuting the idea.
Yes, well...I'm sorry to say this but I question your credentials. You should be presenting your evidence at a scientific conference if you want to test it's validity. Did you look at the references in the abstract? Do you really believe that the authors weren't aware of your data and arguments?
the earth’s distance from the sun is always varying slightly, and that would increase aned decrease the solar input
CO2 does track temperature. Higher temperature forces outgassing of CO2 from the largest volatile resource of CO2 on earth - the oceans. The lag between temp change and CO2 outgassing from the bulk of the ocean is an average of 800 years (see my post 31 for a neat graph of this behaviour).
Its this ~ 800 yr lag which makes the picture so fuzzy. It was hot in 1200 AD, so CO2 from outgassing is peaking now!
But the ocean lag depends on ocean depth, so the CO2 "echo" from high temperatures in 1200 comes back over a range of centuries, not as a clear spike 800 years later. Very confusing and hard to read. And it renders 25 yr "snapshot" experiments more or less useless.
One question for you Larry
Has the earth gone through warming and cooling cycles in the past?
Yes or No?
Heh, heh. Only my broker knows.
Unless the reviewers considered the conclusion so desireable that they didn’t want to waste too much time on it. Reviewers are busy people.
There are better examples in support of your thesis. No evidence current at the time definitively supported Copernicus. Eddington supposedly provided proof of Relativity in 1922. It was later shown that he didn't, that the margin of error overwhelmed his data. And Einstein went to his death dissatisfied with quantum theory which has since been shown to be the best theory humanity's ever come up with (even though it's still not really understood by anyone).
So, yes, the results are provisional.
Peer review involves more than just having some others read your article. It means that others try the same experiment and see if they get similar results.
These guys are saying, “No need to bother with all that. Our research as settled all that, and there’s no need for anyone else to test anything.”
These guys are the only ones who are getting these results. That’s not science.
Bully for you!
Commit a little for me while you're at it willya? I'm retired from commerce now and free from the eeeevil influence of filthy lucre, but a few extra frogskins would sure come in handy at the first of the month now and then.