The Science is Settled !!!!

[Scout26]

or maybe not....

From The Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics,  the money quote:

The millennial variation of Sunspot numbers leads that of Temperature by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and Temperature are neither strong nor stable.

Again, what I have been saying all along.... "It's the Sun, stupid !!!!"


Please do go read, and spread the word.  The sky is not falling (nor warming), so you can go back to trying impose socialism/communism another way.

[charby]

I don't disagree it isn't the sun, but you posted a link to a blogger who blogged about the article.

I went to look for the original article and one needs to pay to view. I will see if I can access it at work.

[charby]

Not a slam dunk if you read the article, I was able to access the article at work.

The last 2 sentences in the article is

However, it is difficult to determine the quantitative role of solar activity on the Earth's climate change at present. More evidences need to be found to better understand the long term impact of solar activity on the climate change of our Earth.

[KD5NRH]

We're polluting so much, we've broken the sun too!

[RevDisk]

I honestly do think humans do impact the climate. I admittedly have no idea how much, and I'm more than a bit leery of people that have an extreme position on either end of the sprectrum. Could be a little, could be a lot. I'd really prefer if the whole thing wasn't as politicized as it now very clearly is.

- There's tainted data. How tainted is a matter of speculation at this point. Substandard weather stations are a thoroughly well documented minimum.
- Lack of consistency in methodology
- Lack of good modeling
- And folks need to remember that we're in an ice age. I'd really like to see some good numbers relating to if we do impact the climate to X degree, how good or bad is that now? In 100 years, in 500 years, et al.  Because sooner or later, we're looking at an ice ball of a planet. That's bad. Likewise, a swamp planet with lethally high CO2 is bad as well.

In short, we need a lot more science. We need to focus more on doing it right and less on sensational headlines. Like nearly everything else, the boring drudgery of getting the little things perfect is more important than sweeping announcements of some glacial change.

[MillCreek]

Very well said, Rev, and this tracks closely to my opinions on the matter.  The only thing I would add is I am unsure as to how much measures designed to lessen the impact of global warming will have on climate, compared to natural processes.  Which is not to say that such measures should not be attempted.

[KD5NRH]

- Lack of consistency in methodology
- Lack of good modeling

What?  You mean that when they're claiming sub-degree shifts based in large part on 200+ year old data from all over the world, there may be inaccuracy on the order of 5-10 standard deviations just because a lot of the data comes from people gawking at poorly calibrated mercury thermometers?  Say it ain't so!

[roo_ster]

The data we have is insufficient to determine existence of global warming in the short term (short term defined as since industrialization).  Sussing out any human component is as valid as consulting chicken entrails.  Pitting human effort against the effects of volcanism, the sun, etc. is a fool's errand and rather arrogant on our part.  Tilting at windmills is a rational endeavor by comparison.

[MechAg94]

Given all that, why wouldn't you be against anyone that claims the science is settled and we need to TAKE ACTION NOW!  The research end is interesting, but the political movement to enact communist principals in the name of something that is completely unproven is what I don't like.  I think the issue is so unproven, I don't even thing the Feds should fund any more research.  Let the believers donate money to study it.

I honestly do think humans do impact the climate. I admittedly have no idea how much, and I'm more than a bit leery of people that have an extreme position on either end of the sprectrum. Could be a little, could be a lot. I'd really prefer if the whole thing wasn't as politicized as it now very clearly is.

- There's tainted data. How tainted is a matter of speculation at this point. Substandard weather stations are a thoroughly well documented minimum.
- Lack of consistency in methodology
- Lack of good modeling
- And folks need to remember that we're in an ice age. I'd really like to see some good numbers relating to if we do impact the climate to X degree, how good or bad is that now? In 100 years, in 500 years, et al.  Because sooner or later, we're looking at an ice ball of a planet. That's bad. Likewise, a swamp planet with lethally high CO2 is bad as well.

In short, we need a lot more science. We need to focus more on doing it right and less on sensational headlines. Like nearly everything else, the boring drudgery of getting the little things perfect is more important than sweeping announcements of some glacial change.

[roo_ster]

Given all that, why wouldn't you be against anyone that claims the science is settled and we need to TAKE ACTION NOW!  The research end is interesting, but the political movement to enact communist principals in the name of something that is completely unproven is what I don't like.  I think the issue is so unproven, I don't even thing the Feds should fund any more research.  Let the believers donate money to study it.

I forgot to add:
Throwing more money at the problem is counterproductive and merely finances the forces of anti-civilization while corrupting what little integrity yet remains in academia.

[MechAg94]

I remember we used to get these Weekly Readers in elementary school in the 80's that I think was meant as a reading comprehension exercise.  They were full of environmental hysteria topics like Save the Whales, Deforrestation (the rain forrests should be gone by now if that stuff was right), pollution, etc.  Included in that was also Global Warming.  This was in the 80's.  So that tells me that this was a long held belief that many environmental "researchers" had.  They had the end result already in mind and are trying to make the research data fit their preconceived theories.  

[Hawkmoon]

I still use Greenland as my yardstick. Erik the Red settled on Greenland in 985, and the climate at that time was warm enough for the colony to support an agrarian lifestyle. The Vikings' settlements on Greenland lasted for 500 years, finally being abandoned between 1450 and 1500 as it grew progressively (but not linearly) colder. That was during what is termed the "Medieval Warm Period." A couple of hundred years later there was the "Little Ice Age." So is the norm an average or mean temperature somewhere between the mean for the Medieval Warm Period and the mean for the Little Ice Age? How do we know which is closer to the "norm" and which is the anomaly?

I found this nifty graph of temperature data from Greenland going all the way back to about 500 A.D. and bringing us up to the late 20th century. If I understand the caption correctly, it's based on ice core analysis, and the curve doesn't represent actual temperature, but rather temperature change Nonetheless, we are currently not up to the peaks in 750 and 850 A.D.

My position remains that I'll begin to worry about global warming when it gets too hot to farm on Greenland.


A graphical description of changes in temperature in Greenland from AD 500 – 1990 based on analysis of the deep ice core from Greenland and some historical events. The annual temperature changes are shown vertical in ˚C. The numbers are to be read horizontal:
1. From AD 700 to 750 people belonging to the Late Dorset Culture move into the area around Smith Sound, Ellesmere Island and Greenland north of Thule.
2. Norse settlement of Iceland starts in the second half of the 9th century.
3. Norse settlement of Greenland starts just before the year 1000.
4. Thule Inuit move into northern Greenland in the 12th century.
5. Late Dorset culture disappears from Greenland in the second half of the 13th century.
6. The Western Settlement disappears in mid 14th century.
7. In 1408 is the Marriage in Hvalsey, the last known written document on the Norse in Greenland.
8. The Eastern Settlement disappears in mid 15th century.
9. John Cabot is the first European in the post-Iceland era to visit Labrador - Newfoundland in 1497.
10. “Little Ice Age” from c. 1600 to mid 18th century.
11. The Norwegian priest Hans Egede arrives in Greenland in 1721.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland

[Scout26]

Not a slam dunk if you read the article, I was able to access the article at work.

The last 2 sentences in the article is

However, it is difficult to determine the quantitative role of solar activity on the Earth's climate change at present. More evidences need to be found to better understand the long term impact of solar activity on the climate change of our Earth.

Which is the standard disclaimer.  I have yet to see a serious scientific paper that did not end with some variation of "....there needs to be more study and research of this issue."  Except for the Globular Woerming/Climate Change proselytizers.   Hence, the title of this thread "The Science is Settled." because any any true scientist will tell you, the science is never settled.    

And to Rev's point about the impact of human activity on the climate.  I have strong doubts that anything we do can have anything but statically insignificant effects on the planet/climate.  And the models can't even come close to replicating all the variables in the atmosphere and surface of the earth.  And as the Rev pointed out.  The data is flawed, the methodologies are flawed.  The models are flawed and most important of all.  We have no idea what the climate of the Earth should be.  It is the height of hubris to say "This is what the temperature of Earth should be."  

Plus the fact that when people talk about "Runaway Greenhouse Effect" they are talking about Venus.  And the one thing that made "Runaway Greenhouse Effect" is that Venus does not have a magnetic field.  Therefore the Solar Wind plays havoc with Venus atmosphere.   Plus Venus atmosphere is much denser then Earth's and is over 96% CO2. (965,000 parts per million) Earth's is .039% or just under 400 ppm.   So I think there is a long way to go before we hit the "Runaway Greenhouse Effect", which would also seem to require Earth to lose it's magnetic fields.

And the Rev is correct, we are currently in what could be termed an Ice Age, or at least a period of reduced solar output, which dramatically effects Earth's climate in was far beyond anything we can do to impact it.

[charby]

Which is the standard disclaimer.  I have yet to see a serious scientific paper that did not end with some variation of "....there needs to be more study and research of this issue."  Except for the Globular Woerming/Climate Change proselytizers.   Hence, the title of this thread "The Science is Settled." because any any true scientist will tell you, the science is never settled.    

...but you probably committed a bigger fallacy by using a person's non-refereed review of a scientific article then actually going to the article.

I've seen many a refereed scientific journal not end as open as this one did.