Sun Not a Significant Driver of Climate Change 552
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."
Without the sun there is no climate change at all. (Score:0, Insightful)
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.
Re:What about the Little Ice Age? (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, changes in solar activity levels may have a delayed impact via ice melt, changes in atmospheric circulation, etc.
May? The sun's effects may have a delay of over 1,000 years?
At what point are you going to stop grasping at straws and accept peer reviewed facts that are in front of you?
Re:Yet tiresome denialism will still reign supreme (Score:3, Insightful)
And what was the driving factor before 1900? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not a conservative reply (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Way to state the obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
false, the Sun and insolation drives climate and climate change, greenhouse gas effects are secondary. First thing one learns in any serious geophysics course.
Re:In related news (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure the OP stopped being rigidly scientific when he started anthropomorphizing the sun, Mr. Buzzkill.
Re:What about the Little Ice Age? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, maybe when the peers stop denying the sole energy source for the planet has any effect.
Re:Way to state the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll note this study does not cover any serious fraction of the Earth's history, a couple thousand years is a sneeze.
Re:Without the sun there is no climate change at a (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:That's not a conservative reply (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly.
The pause in temperature rise has been written off as merely the effect of solar minimum. Now they would like to erase any effect of solar input. Have the cake and eat it too! Maybe the cake is a lie after all.
Re:Cm'on man! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yet tiresome denialism will still reign supreme (Score:4, Insightful)
When those who disagree or are skeptical are funded by self-interested oil companies, or blend their criticism of scientific papers with simple political baggage, then yes, they are ridiculed.
When those who disagree or are skeptical do so in a way that raises a point which has already been addressed and discounted by experts in the field, then yes, they are ridiculed.
On the other hand, you are right to feel that the 'agree' side (for lack of a better word) has a mostly politicized and unthinking membership, too. For me, that problem manifests itself in the (as I see it) idiotic opposition to non-GHG-emitting power sources like fission, fusion, tidal, etc. on environmental grounds.
But you shouldn't let the existence of that mob blind you to the fact that the evidence to date supports the theory that human greenhouse gas emissions are warming the climate, and that a warmer climate will entail significant practical problems, on a human scale at least.
Re:What about the Little Ice Age? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I'm driving on the freeway, holding the gas pedal steady, and suddenly notice the car is speeding up, I don't think "gee, it must be the small fluctuations in the pressure I'm applying to the pedal, since the engine is the primary source of energy". I start looking at other factors, like a downward slope.
Do you understand? Of course not, because that would mean admitting you were wrong about this issue. If all the scientists in the world can't convince, no logic will ever get through.
Re:Way to state the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
false, the Sun and insolation drives climate and climate change, greenhouse gas effects are secondary. First thing one learns in any serious geophysics course.
I made a mistake and read the referenced article. When will I learn...
I think what it says is that the computer models don't show significant change when the solar radiation input is modified. I don't think I'm splitting hairs here. They aren't saying that the climate is not affected by changes in solar radiation.
The computer models are just approximations for the climate. They have been proven to be bad at predicting the future (like the current 10 year lull in warming). Wake me up when the computer models account for the ice ages.
Re:Without the sun there is no climate change at a (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What about the Little Ice Age? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't have mod points right now, so I'll just repost AC's comment:
If I'm driving on the freeway, holding the gas pedal steady, and suddenly notice the car is speeding up, I don't think "gee, it must be the small fluctuations in the pressure I'm applying to the pedal, since the engine is the primary source of energy". I start looking at other factors, like a downward slope.
Do you understand? Of course not, because that would mean admitting you were wrong about this issue. If all the scientists in the world can't convince, no logic will ever get through.
This is the best possible answer to all the "Of course it's the sun, stupid scientists!" posts on this and any related story.
Re:Yet tiresome denialism will still reign supreme (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. Science is now for true believers. The method has been abandoned. Anyone who disagrees or is skeptical is to be ridiculed and destroyed. Yay fascism, boo debate.
Honest skepticism is important to Science: scientific theories are considered reliable not because of the strong arguments in favor of them, but because they survive scientific challenge.
But its equally important to recognize that just because skepticism is important to Science, doesn't make all skeptical commentary equally valid, and more importantly it doesn't make all sides equally valid. Its important for scientists to continue to question General Relativity. But when the rubber meets the road, I'm trusting Relativity over any other skeptical invention intended to overturn it. Relativity has survived a lot of challenges. Upstart competitors haven't.
Climatology is an imperfect Science, and its being refined all the time. But Relativity didn't overthrow Newton: Newton is so well tested and established nothing is going to overturn Newtonian gravity because it explains too much of the world too accurately. Relativity *refines* Newtonian gravity in extreme situations Newton was never checked against. All competitors to Einstein are also competitors to Newton: we all know Newton was close enough in most cases: its extraordinarily unlikely anyone is going to discover a normal situation where Newton just plain fails. Anyone wanting to replace Einstein has to not only do better than Relativity, but also better than Newton. Similarly, Climatology is being refined, but the odds are not high that its going to simply fall apart one day. Thinking that will happen represents a complete misunderstanding of how Science itself works.
Re:Without the sun there is no climate change at a (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Will AGW deniers apologize or disappear? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's exactly what will happen. A while back, a friend of mine described the Five Stages Of Climate Change Denial:
1. It's not happening.
2. If it is happening, humans have nothing to do with it.
3. If it's happening and we're causing it, we can't do anything about it because that would cost too much.
4. It's happening and we're causing it, but that's a good thing.
5. If those damned liberals hadn't interfered with all their regulations, the market would have taken care of this problem!
Mostly we see #1-3 right now, but I've seen #4 too, and I'm sure #5 will be along any time.
Re:What about the Little Ice Age? (Score:4, Insightful)
To further your analogy, what if it is determined the car is indeed traveling downward on a gentle slope. It was traveling 55 mph, but is now going 60 mph. All the passengers in the car produce "scientific" studies that predict the car will keep going faster because of the downward slope.
However, a funny thing happens. Careful observations of the car's speedometer indicate that the speed is not increasing as it was a short time earlier. But, in fact, has paused for some mysterious reason. Preposterous, the passengers, all scream. Our best computers models prove beyond a doubt that when traveling on a downward slope the car must speed up. It's a scientific fact that no one can dispute and we have the "peer reviewed" papers to prove it. Some even go so far as to proclaim the "science is settled". To claim otherwise is to be an anti-science "denialist". They explain, if the car is not increasing it speed it must because the car must have hit a brief level spot or something. That is why the velocity has failed to increase. Unfortunately for the passengers, though, further measurements indicate the slope is actually now steeper than it was previously, but the car is still traveling at the same speed. Even worse, the latest measurements hint that the car may actually be slowing down.
In all their haste to prove their own "scientific" perspective correct and those of the "denialist" wrong, all the passengers failed to observe the driver has lifted her foot off the gas pedal.
Re:Way to state the obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
What is left is the rise in carbon and other GHGs we are filling our thin gas envelope with. I don't need to go into the particle physics side of how much energy the element carbon stores Watch the Exxon commercial about the energy output of petroleum products.
Re:Way to state the obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
actually, even 1000 years ago in the "medieval warm period", the average global temperature may well have been as warm or warmer than the recent 15 years, the errors in estimation of magnitude are quite large.
Re:That's not a conservative reply (Score:4, Insightful)
The pause in temperature rise has been written off as merely the effect of solar minimum. Now they would like to erase any effect of solar input. Have the cake and eat it too!
Of course, since there has never been a case of a periodic variation superimposed on an upward trend.
Re:Grasping at Straws (Score:3, Insightful)
Which of course begs the question of why if its not getting warmer all the world's glaciers are simultaneously receding a a record pace not previously observed in human history. This is the question no climate denier will touch and will always ignore.
Re:In related news (Score:2, Insightful)
It's cold in Canada in the winter? Well butter my buns and call me Shirley!
There's been plenty of warmth in November and into December, including in Canada. Also, please remember the difference between weather and climate. Blurring the two sure is a religion for the denialists.
Re:Grasping at Straws (Score:5, Insightful)
Well when you go looking for evidence, you tend to find it. Both sides in any debate like this will present veritable mountains of evidence in favour of their position, we've seen it time and again. It doesn't make you right.
Citation? Also localized event, also short dips do not contradict long-term trends, also potentially not all that remarkable if it's only the ninth or tenth coldest on record (the statement is pretty non-specific).
Who said that? Someone whose opinion actually matters in this debate or just some newspaper reporter on a slow day?
Well how cold does it usually get in that part of Antarctica? If it gets within a few degrees most years, then that's not news.
As opposed to a typical winter, which sees... how many? Really, this needs to be placed in context.
Who said that? The people who made the report or someone else? If someone else, then I bet they're disagreeing with the people who did make the report. So what is the point of disagreement? What part of the IPCC methodology was flawed? Who reached this conclusion and how did they reach it? There are no details to go on here.
Lies. Lies and deceptions. If it were so 'obvious' there would not be such protracted debate over the issue. Truth of the matter is, most people don't know what to think any more. Both sides seem to have so much evidence that trying to sift through it all is an exercise in futility. We've got to the point where it's a handful of 'true believers' on both sides who are absolutely convinced they are right, and a majority of confused individuals who don't know what side to take if they should even be taking a side at all.
Yep.
Nope. You're very clearly one of the true believers, you're going to find what you want to find and believe that it was just coincidence that all the evidence reinforced what you thought already.
Don't believe me? Look at what you just typed. You are not looking for the truth because you believe you already found it, so what would be the point of looking further?
Re:If the sun ... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think that is a serious question you have absolutely no understanding at all of the issue. Explaining this to you would be like trying to teach calculus to someone that can't even multiply small numbers together. You are woefully unprepared to understand even the basics let alone the real science. The question is why do you go into discussions you don't understand and report talking points you heard on TV? Are you that stupid?
Re:In related news (Score:0, Insightful)
No you won't. You'll move the goal posts.
Re:Grasping at Straws (Score:4, Insightful)
God I love how you guys (both sides) goes totally ballistic about some minor detail of a post. No point in trying to deduce what someone said, if there is the smallest amount of unfactual commentary or the slightest error, they will be bombed back to kingdom come.
Care to explain the climate change of Mars (Score:3, Insightful)
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) ?
Re:Way to state the obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly, that "Climate Sophistry" page is absurd. Never mind that two fifths of the article is a section entitled "Modern Philosophical Analysis", the basic premise of the article displays a basic misunderstanding of fact.
The article claims (in the most obtuse way imaginable) that the way the so-called "greenhouse effect" does not mirror the actual observed behaviour of greenhouses here on Earth.
If the authour had even a basic grounding in science he would know that "the greenhouse effect" is NOT how greenhouses retain heat. The greenhouse effect was so named in 1824 by analogy to the effects observed in a greenhouse, not because the mechanism was the same.
Is "greenhouse effect" therefore a bad name for way radiation is trapped in a planet's atmosphere? Maybe, but in almost any introductory text on the subject you will see phrases like "would have a sort of greenhouse effect" that clearly show the term to be descriptive, not prescriptive.
Regardless, I cannot understand how any reasonable person could make that leap from "bad name" to "ALL CLIMATE SCIENCE IS LIEZ OMG".
Re:Way to state the obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Since postscripts seem to be popular in this thread, I will add one here containing direct quotes from that article.
(I will not get into the maths here to keep this article readable for non-math people.)
Judging by the contents of the article, I would suggest that the exclusion of the maths was also to keep the article writable for non-math people.
The climate science version of the greenhouse effect, [is an] example of the creation of a simulacrum [...] And just like the Matrix, only a few people are able to see through it.
Re:What about the Little Ice Age? (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, I don't think the problem is that people don't really know this and are arguing against the human effect of carbon emissions on our planet's environment. The problem is our modern society at its foundation is completely based on carbon based fuel and combustion engines. A group of brilliant scientists, no matter how intelligent or correct they are, is not going to convince the entire modern world to stop what it's doing, shut down society and restructure it for the long term health of the planet.
Two things to note about this: 1) That would have a devastating impact because of the chaos it would create and 2) There's not enough motivation because it's not going to affect anyone currently here in their lifetime. By the time it's a problem, it will be a future generation and it will be too late.
Now I know this is a bitter bill for geeks to swallow but you'll have to negotiate the win/win, not just use pure logic. Fortunately, you're the smart group and what you should use your intelligence for is to find an economically equivalent or better, cleaner, environment friendly source of energy and propulsion. Get to work! We're depending on you to solve the problem.
Re:What about the Little Ice Age? (Score:2, Insightful)
People suggested it, so they checked a millennium's worth of proxy data
Whoops. They are using proxy data not actual temperature data. That means heavy, subjective processing of the data right there. Just because these particular scientists see phenomena that they want and are paid to see, doesn't mean it actually exists.
Re:110,000 year major glaciation Sun cycle (Score:4, Insightful)
You wrote (emphasis mine):
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.
From the /. summary (emphasis mine):
They have concluded that the driving factor since 1900 has been greenhouse gases.
From the U of Edinburgh press release (emphasis mine):
Research examining the causes of climate change in the northern hemisphere over the past 1000 years has shown that until the year 1800, the key driver of periodic changes in climate was volcanic eruptions.
These tend to prevent sunlight reaching the Earth, causing cool, drier weather. Since 1900, greenhouse gases have been the primary cause of climate change.
Now let me tie it all together for you. Let's say we assume:
(1) Over the course of hundreds of thousands of years, variations in solar radiation are the strongest determinants of global temperature.
(2) Over the course of the last thousand years, volcano eruptions have been the strongest determinants of global temperature.
(3) Over the last hundred years, anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are the strongest determinants of global temperature.
Here's the important point: you can believe ALL THREE of these things without the least contradiction. Denialist arguments seem to assume that any dominant factor must be dominant in every past period and over every timescale. This is why people scratch their heads at the denialists' "gotchas!", e.g. "Gotcha! There were no SUVs in the medieval warm period." So what? It's a straw argument. Nobody ever claimed that *all* past climate variation was due to greenhouse gasses, much less *anthropogenic* greenhouse gasses.
Re:In related news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And what was the driving factor before 1900? (Score:4, Insightful)
How did the world warm up and cool down before then? Perhaps that is relevant?
The trick is that you can have the Sun as the major driver of climate before 1900 and have something else as the major driver of climate since 1900, with the Sun still as a driver of climate since 1900, just not the major driver of climate.
With that said, the current climate trend started c. 1840. This is evident from seabed deposits (see Scrips Institute reserach) - we can be really confident in how we measure those - we're good at that and physical, measured evidence is the best kind.
Either the research at hand does not discuss the period 1840-1900 or their metaanalysis is contradictory with physical evidence. Somebody here will have read the paper and can comment.