Solar activity not a key cause of climate change, study shows

Dec 22, 2013
Image of sun courtesy of NASA.

Climate change has not been strongly influenced by variations in heat from the sun, a new scientific study shows.

The findings overturn a widely held scientific view that lengthy periods of warm and cold weather in the past might have been caused by periodic fluctuations in solar activity.

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 . These tend to prevent sunlight reaching the Earth, causing cool, drier weather. Since 1900, greenhouse gases have been the primary cause of .

The findings show that periods of low sun activity should not be expected to have a large impact on temperatures on Earth, and are expected to improve scientists' understanding and help climate forecasting.

Scientists at the University of Edinburgh carried out the study using records of past temperatures constructed with data from tree rings and other historical sources. They compared this data record with computer-based models of past climate, featuring both significant and minor changes in the sun.

They found that their model of weak changes in the sun gave the best correlation with temperature records, indicating that has had a minimal impact on temperature in the past millennium.

The study, published in Nature Geoscience, was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council.

Dr Andrew Schurer, of the University of Edinburgh's School of GeoSciences, said: "Until now, the influence of the sun on past has been poorly understood. We hope that our new discoveries will help improve our understanding of how temperatures have changed over the past few centuries, and improve predictions for how they might develop in future. Links between the and anomalously cold winters in the UK are still being explored."

Explore further: El Nino is becoming more active

More information: Small influence of solar variability on climate over the past millennium, DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2040

Related Stories

El Nino is becoming more active

Oct 28, 2013

A new approach to analyzing paleo-climate reconstructions of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon resolves disagreements and reveals that ENSO activity during the 20th century has been unusually ...

Climate change increased the number of deaths

Oct 22, 2013

The increased temperatures caused by ongoing climate change in Stockholm, Sweden between 1980 and 2009 caused 300 more premature deaths than if the temperature increase did not take place. In Sweden as a whole, it would mean ...

Recommended for you

Symbiotic survival

57 minutes ago

One of the most diverse families in the ocean today—marine bivalve mollusks known as Lucinidae (or lucinids)—originated more than 400 million years ago in the Silurian period, with adaptations and life ...

User comments : 83

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tom_Andersen
2.5 / 5 (27) Dec 22, 2013
"Since 1900, greenhouse gases have been the primary cause of climate change."

So from 1900 to 1950 there was a wee bit of CO2 emitted, and this was the 'primary' cause of climate change during this time. There was also a 0.4 C rise in global temps.

Now take the amount of CO2 emitted 1950 - 2000 and scale the resulting predicted temperature increase. It quickly becomes obvious why global temperatures are up over 10C from 1950 to today. (or perhaps they are not?)

How can this be science, and published in Nature?
mememine69
1.8 / 5 (26) Dec 22, 2013
How many "remaining" climate blame believers does it take to change a light bulb?
None, because they CHOOSE to remain in the dark about science's consensus of nothing beyond "could be" a crisis and NEVER "will be" a crisis as you doomers threaten your own children with.
As much as you panic lovers WANT this misery to have been real, you can only tell our kids it only "could be" a crisis.
Not unless you can find us one IPCC warning that agrees beyond "could be" and says "inevitable" like they love to say comet hits are.
Respect the word of science and their consensus of "maybe" not "will be".
mememine69
1.5 / 5 (24) Dec 22, 2013
Sorry Tom but it's just you believing a crisis WILL happen and find us one single IPCC warning that says what you say; that a crisis is certain.
Science never agreed beyond "could be" so you cannot say it will be a crisis.
Prove us former believers wrong and prove to us that science believes as much as you do that this crisis is inevitable or "will" happen.
marcush
3.7 / 5 (19) Dec 22, 2013
@Mememine69 if you had the slightest clue about science at all, you would know that it's impossible to prove the Sun will rise tomorrow. However please go ahead and bet against it. I will gladly take the money of such an imbecile.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (22) Dec 22, 2013
@mememine69
It seems you don't understand Science is probabilistic.

Wanting determinism with your comment
..that a crisis is certain.
you totally ignore this fundamental. You instead set up a straw man type argument, Eg:-
http://en.wikiped...traw_man

I am sympathetic to your plight however mememine69, as it seems from your rant you have not been exposed to real Science at a high level but, instead been manipulated & influenced by mere dumb redneck propaganda with only illusion of logic which has no basis in connectedness in terms of probabilistic issues - did u not study probability & Science in high school or favoured the arts instead ?

Given:-
- climate is an essentially closed system
- heat inputs are sun & planet (internal & biological heat)
- CO2 thermal properties are well known & dead easy to confirm
- World ~230,000 L petrol burned/sec; releasing CO2 & H2O, how much total is that ?

WHY would there *not* be any global warming given above is known ?
gregor1
2.4 / 5 (20) Dec 22, 2013
@Mike. There most likely is some but until we know all the sources of natural variation and all the feedbacks we won't know how much. What. for instance, caused the holocene climate optimum, the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods- warm periods that occur roughly every 900 years putting the present one right on queue? What too caused the present warming to stop 17 years ago despite the continuing rise in C02? These are valid questions that still require answers.
marcush
3.6 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2013
Gregor1, can you cite a peer reviewed paper on this 900 year cycle?
HannesAlfven
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 22, 2013
Re: "Given … climate is an essentially closed system"

While I tremendously applaud your going out of the way to actually state your assumptions (an incredibly rare, yet much-needed step towards resolving complex controversies), how much thought have the climate scientists put into actually investigating this assumption? It seems to me that this question rests at the edge of conventional science -- and may even be more cosmological in nature -- which means that looking into it with a fair mind involves digging into territory which is traditionally associated with the fringes.

After all, if you tune a radio telescope to 21-cm, as radio astronomers tend to do, you will oftentimes run into very long stringy structures of hydrogen. So, the premise we're oftentimes asked to just take for granted here is that those spaghetti structures hold together, oftentimes over millions of miles, but yet do not involve any transfers of ions or electrons.

Shouldn't we question the closed assumption?
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (18) Dec 22, 2013
gregor1 said
What too caused the present warming to stop 17 years ago despite the continuing rise in C02?
Who told you "..present warming to stop." ?

It's baad choice of language - which is just what propagandists do - they use imprecise language mixed with narrow logic.

The present warming is just that - it is going on now in the present, it is not as fast as expected but is still warming, its confirmed.

Just how long is the warming supposed to have stopped ~17 years ago, this is news to me & I have been looking critically at the data for well over 25 years, there are lulls, pauses & chaotic periods but no definitive halting at all.

You have to look at a great deal of complex issues,

We are now ~5 million Kms closer to the sun than 6months ago, but are titled & wobble too. Also bear in mind distribution of heat is not linear as is sea level, the earth is just too big to approach sea level equilibrium, also a moon !

Where is the huge CO2 insulation going if not to warmth ?
gregor1
2.1 / 5 (19) Dec 22, 2013
I don't think it's news to you at all Mike. All the data sets show that it has stopped although you may call it a pause or haitus depending on your inclination. Here are the trends vs CO2 rise for all the data sets.http://www.woodfo...set:0.34
Your question "Where is the huge CO2 insulation going if not to warmth ?" is a good one. In science it is standard practice, and it is even considered part of the scientific method, to apply Occam" razor. The simplest explanation is the best one and that is that the climate's sensitivity to CO2 is small until we have the data to prove otherwise.

la7dfa
3.7 / 5 (18) Dec 22, 2013
gregor1: You are cherrypicking data like all deniers do.

http://www.realcl...by-half/
davidivad
3.6 / 5 (14) Dec 22, 2013
regardless of where the heat is from, the average temp of the earth is slowly rising-on average. according to the article, the sun is most likely not a major contributor in this situation.

the fact remains that we are living on borrowed time when it comes to the use of fossil fuels. we have nothing reasonable to replace it yet. what will we do?
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (16) Dec 22, 2013
@gregor1
Occam's razor is by no means as simple as your paradigm suggests, details:-
http://en.wikiped...ms_razor
Please read the whole thing & appreciate the issue of linguistics & desire for simplicity (unfortunately mostly by simpletons) which definitely is not the way physics, chemical properties & complexity in Eg. climate systems operate.

@gregor1
You have significant bias when you claim:
All the data sets show that it has stopped...
That sort of language stunt does you no credit at *all*, not a hint of skepticism, therefore a mere idle redneck propagandist dogmatic position not supported Eg. as la7dfa offers.

gregor1 it is completely wrong to narrow the data set, the mature & proper approach is to widen the data set & be congisant of Provenance, measurement method etc

ie. All good scientists should inspect details.

Suitable philosophy:-

"Details matter, because the truth often hides there"...

Integrity gregor1, or you are not seen as trustworthy.
gregor1
2.2 / 5 (20) Dec 22, 2013
@la7dfa If the hypothesis "That CO2 is the main driver of global temperature" is to have scientific validity it must be falsifiable. CO2 levels have continued to rise while temperatures have stayed put so, for 15- 17 yrs anyway, the hypothesis is false. The job now is to find out why this is. Realclimate is not a reliable source. It was quite clearly set up to disseminate false information as divulged in the climategate emails though I'm sure you know this. What I've stated is merely fact. It is not cherrypicking. Cherrypicking is when you report that a year, month or day is the warmest on record as though that's evidence of some sort of causal mechanism. This is a propaganda technique.
davidivad
2.2 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2013
i prefer to use microsoft office to do such plotting. that however may somehow signify my dependance on oil. that makes it so much easier to find trends and so forth in the data and compare things in a more automated way. i bet the tree guy really put some effort into this data set.
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (19) Dec 23, 2013
Who told you "..present warming to stop." ?

...The present warming is just that - it is going on now in the present, it is not as fast as expected but is still warming, its confirmed.

Just how long is the warming supposed to have stopped ~17 years ago, this is news to me & I have been looking critically at the data for well over 25 years, there are lulls, pauses & chaotic periods but no definitive halting at all.
Apparently then, you've been looking at the wrong data.

CO2 continues to rise:

http://www.woodfo....9/trend

...tempertures flat the last 16+ years:

http://www.woodfo....9/trend

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 23, 2013
i prefer to use microsoft office to do such plotting. that however may somehow signify my dependance on oil. that makes it so much easier to find trends and so forth in the data and compare things in a more automated way. i bet the tree guy really put some effort into this data set.
If you bothered to do any research at all, you'd find the woodfortrees.org data comes directly from the reporting agencies.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 23, 2013
@gregor1
You have significant bias when you claim:
All the data sets show that it has stopped...
That sort of language stunt does you no credit at *all*, not a hint of skepticism, therefore a mere idle redneck propagandist dogmatic position not supported Eg.
Pure hypocrisy. You give him not a hint of a benefit of a doubt.

Maggnus
4 / 5 (12) Dec 23, 2013
Apparently then, you've been looking at the wrong data.

CO2 continues to rise:

http://www.woodfo....9/trend

Whack-a-mole.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (18) Dec 23, 2013
If you bothered to do any research at all, you'd find the woodfortrees.org data comes directly from the reporting agencies.

And if you did any at all, you'd understand what you've been shown over, and over, and over again. Cherry-picked data is worse than no data at all, because it is a misrepresentation of the truth**.

**That mean's it's a lie Ubamoron.
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (17) Dec 23, 2013
@gregor1
Considered your 'stopped' doesnt factor in latent heat of fusion & liquid distribution?
For ice to water is 75 times more than water alone. Given the substantive Fact CO2 is well known & proven greenhouse gas with demonstrable thermal properties then given a known insolation vs known emissions (to space) we *are* trapping more heat - simple !

If you want to claim this won't result in any warming then there must be an opposing effect to cool - what is it please ?
If unknown then go Occam's Razor !

Also
ubavontuba missed
http://www.woodfo...rg/notes
& twitched dangerously
Pure hypocrisy. You give him not a hint of a benefit of a doubt
Which doubt is safer for us ?

A. Continue increase GHG emissions knowing thermal properties, ignore them.
or
B. Innovate & reduce GHG emissions knowing thermal properties, work with them.

Choose A & you are wrong, you risk thermal runaway.
Choose B & you are wrong, you return Earth to CO2 levels to past.

Which scenario do you want ?
runrig
3.9 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2013
@Mike. There most likely is some but until we know all the sources of natural variation and all the feedbacks we won't know how much. What. for instance, caused the holocene climate optimum, the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods- warm periods that occur roughly every 900 years putting the present one right on queue? What too caused the present warming to stop 17 years ago despite the continuing rise in C02? These are valid questions that still require answers.


Greggy: I have explained the science to you/others countless times on here (and elsewhere). And it has done not a jot of good. You cannot or will not understand the basic principles.
Climate cycles cannot alter the long-term trend of the basic thermodynamic fundamental of Solar energy absorbed MUST match LW emitted. All a climate cycle does is move heat around the system - IT STILL HAS TO EXIT - to space. What can alter long-term climate is changes in albedo (reflection of SW) or aerosol/GHG's (absorption of IR).
runrig
3.9 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2013
Cont

The HCO was caused by the Earth's orbital characteristics (look up Milanvovitch – like you should have done a long time ago and realised it's THE absolute fundamental driver (normally)) – it afforded the NH ~8% more summer insolation at 65N.
The others are not proved to be global in extent and must still meet the above criteria. The ONLY place energy can come from if not the Sun is the ocean (stored longest) – so that magically all possible currents become warm, which is impossible, as what comes up must go down. That's what cycles do cycle - over 30 years max.
Correlation is not causation – give us a physical causation please.
Also the warming hasn't stopped as the ocean holds >90% of it and they are warming whilst the –ve PDO/ENSO cycle has absorbed more of it and not exported it to the atmosphere.
Oh, and 2005 was the warmest year ever on GISS – err – that would be 8 years.
Lets not get science or facts get in the way of good denialist psychology eh?
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2013
the fact remains that we are living on borrowed time when it comes to the use of fossil fuels. we have nothing reasonable to replace it yet. what will we do?

I dunno. i have been following this site (and the changeover some countries are actively pursuing) for a few years now. There seem to be plenty of reasonable alternatives.

However, there is also a lot of inertia as there are some people who have gotten rich (and powerful) on the old ways. And they are fighting tooth, claw and nai lto make it seem like there are no alternatives.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2013
Greggy your science free bias makes you believe that "warmth" from increasing CO2 MUST march on monotonously with never the merest pause. In a complex system that NEVER happens.
Try an experiment. Take the water temp & temp/atmos pressure of your kitchen. Place an exact amount of water in a pan and put it on your stove at the highest setting (assuming a constant heat output). Now, time how long it takes to reach boiling. The thing about this is that it is repeatable – the time taken (given same initial conditions will be the SAME). However you think it will be different! Because the water currents/turbulence in the pan will alter it!
We have the data in abundance - from experiment/theory/mathematics since ~150 years ago. And we have proxy data that reveals it's effect stretching back 1000's years (in following orbital changes and reinforcing). GCM's cant forecast an individual "pause" but they model the trend, as they have done in simulation of past climate.
ForFreeMinds
1.8 / 5 (19) Dec 23, 2013
"Since 1900, greenhouse gases have been the primary cause of climate change."

This statement seems quite presumptuous considering that the climate has been changing over history, and changing far more than has occurred in the last century. According to http://environmen...-gas.htm volcanos emit less than 0.1% of the CO2 man releases into the atmosphere.

What are we to conclude since the computer models don't work? That increased CO2 leads to global cooling considering this year's record low temperatures?
davidivad
4.3 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2013
antialias;

you are right. we have several new technologies developing. the goal of my thread was to get people to realise that it wasn't really so much about carbon dioxide or solar flares. the real question here is how are we going to support our civilization's energy requirements in the future. yes, we can probably find more oil for a little while, but eventually we will need a complete replacement. right now, we have green energy to fill some of the gap, nuclear reactors that create long term waste and risk factors, and alternative fuels. there are promises of fusion technology but i am concerned that we may never get the input output ratio to an acceptable level. i even considered antimatter but creation if it is a sparse process. to keep our current level of developement, we will need something that will not only replace it but exceed it.
ahaveland
4.4 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2013
What are we to conclude since the computer models don't work? That increased CO2 leads to global cooling considering this year's record low temperatures?

If you put more energy into a system, you get bigger waves.
The atmosphere is a huge ocean of air sloshing around. You heat it, put more moisture into it, it sloshes around more, reaching further into the poles, warming them up, and can bring that cold air down to lower latitudes.
Only US was below average, Siberia is breaking records and still above freezing in December.
http://siberianti...hortage/

U.S. Sets Benchmark, Siberia off the scale.
http://www.climat...rd-16842

Climate change the state of the science
http://www.youtub...OrZQ3L-c

TEDxNASA - Bruce Wielicki - Climate Change: Fact And Fiction
http://youtu.be/_YNfA7mDri4
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2013
dunno... There seem to be plenty of reasonable alternatives.

However, there is also a lot of inertia as there are some people who have gotten rich (and powerful) on the old ways
I dunno why dont you try convincing all those nasty rich people to invest their gazillions of $$$ into totally reconfiguring the infrastructure to manufacture electric cars and batteries, pay all the parts manufacturers to abandon fossil fuel-related parts, set up charging stations in sufficient numbers, build additional (gas) power plants to handle the increased capacity and (by the way) replace all the coal and oil-fueled plants out there which are only part of the problem, and dismantle all the refineries, pipelines, drilling platforms which couldnt be left abandoned now could they?

Do you think all those stinky rich people would go for this? Or maybe we should just get govts to pay for this forced conversion because well thats what theyre there for isnt it?
no fate
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2013
dunno... There seem to be plenty of reasonable alternatives.

However, there is also a lot of inertia as there are some people who have gotten rich (and powerful) on the old ways
I dunno why dont you try convincing all those nasty rich people to invest their gazillions of $$$ into totally reconfiguring the infrastructure to manufacture electric cars and batteries, pay all the parts manufacturers to abandon fossil fuel-related parts, set up charging stations in sufficient numbers, build additional (gas) power plants to handle the increased capacity and (by the way) replace all the coal and oil-fueled plants out there which are only part of the problem, and dismantle all the refineries, pipelines, drilling platforms which couldnt be left abandoned now could they?

Do you think all those stinky rich people would go for this?


Clearly our goal should be to make the problem as big as we can....then address it. That approach hasn't failed any civilizations of the past...
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (17) Dec 23, 2013
If you bothered to do any research at all, you'd find the woodfortrees.org data comes directly from the reporting agencies.

And if you did any at all, you'd understand what you've been shown over, and over, and over again. Cherry-picked data is worse than no data at all, because it is a misrepresentation of the truth**.

**That mean's it's a lie Ubamoron.
So stop cherry picking data.

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (19) Dec 23, 2013
@gregor1
Considered your 'stopped' doesnt factor in latent heat of fusion & liquid distribution?
For ice to water is 75 times more than water alone. Given the substantive Fact CO2 is well known & proven greenhouse gas with demonstrable thermal properties then given a known insolation vs known emissions (to space) we *are* trapping more heat - simple !
False. Ice volume is increasing:

http://phys.org/n...ice.html

And globally, sea ice area has risen above the mean:

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg

A. Continue increase GHG emissions knowing thermal properties, ignore them.
or
B. Innovate & reduce GHG emissions knowing thermal properties, work with them.

Choose A & you are wrong, you risk thermal runaway.
Choose B & you are wrong, you return Earth to CO2 levels to past.

Which scenario do you want?
Black and white thinking is what drives Chicken Little alamism.
Cocoa
3.8 / 5 (13) Dec 23, 2013
davidivad: "the real question here is how are we going to support our civilization's energy requirements in the future."

I think that the bigger question is 'what is the time line'. There is clearly no shortage of cost competitive alternatives. Here is one of numerous studies that indicate that we have way more power in the wind than we need to run our whole world (400 Terrawatts from just near surface winds).

http://carnegiesc...y_demand

That is before we consider solar, hydro, geothermal, tidal, wave, ocean current, otec, biofuel etc.

Global oil output has been pretty flat for a while now - and gas has been going up recently. There does not seem to be to big a rush to convert everything over in the next couple of years. The big question mark is global warming. If the scientists are right - we will need to ramp up the transition - not because we are running out of fossils. Interesting times....
Cocoa
3.8 / 5 (14) Dec 23, 2013
"False. Ice volume is increasing:"

From the article referenced - "The increase in volume is welcome, but does not reflect a reversal in the long-term decline, the scientists said"

It is colder today in my town that it was yesterday - I have just disproved global warming.....
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2013
Clearly our goal should be to make the problem as big as we can....then address it. That approach hasn't failed any civilizations of the past...
-Or like some people:
There seem to be plenty of reasonable alternatives
-we could trivialize it or even pretend it doesnt exist at all. Spending a trillion $$ isnt a 'reasonable alternative'.
davidivad
3 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2013
cocoa;

I see the idea of wind power as a good alternative in some geographical areas. the truth of the matter is that green energy is not prepared to take over our current system no matter what they say. consider biodiesel. look at what happened to old willie nelson. these are newly birthed technologies without the benefit of time and money. they are not mature yet.

i built a windmill a few years back. they most certainly will not power an entire house and nor will solar cells. ever had to dig for water? try digging for geothermal- its too expensive to justify unless you are geographically lucky. green energy is a stop-gap or complimentary measure and always depends on your location. I've found biodiesel tough to run in the cold and found ethanol to be less than as advertised. these green concepts will always have a place in my heart and partly in my home, but they do not have the capacity to offer what oil does as a whole. we need a better solution.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (17) Dec 23, 2013
False. Ice volume is increasing
Whack-a-mole. Ice volume this year is higher than it's lowest ever volume from last year, but still 70% less than the yearly norm, and the 6th lowest ever recorded. Ubamoron is a common liar.
Black and white thinking is what drives Chicken Little alamism.
Stupidity and gullibility is what drives denialism.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (17) Dec 24, 2013
False. Ice volume is increasing
Whack-a-mole. Ice volume this year is higher than it's lowest ever volume from last year, but still 70% less than the yearly norm,
Provide a reference.

and the 6th lowest ever recorded.
Which means it's way higher than the lowest ever.

Black and white thinking is what drives Chicken Little alamism.
Stupidity and gullibility is what drives denialism.
It seems you have made an erroneous association. Stupidity and gullibility is believing what you're told to believe. These are AGWite traits.

AGW critics, on the other hand, figure it out for themselves. By definition, they are critical thinkers.

cantdrive85
2 / 5 (19) Dec 24, 2013
Solar activity not a key cause of climate change, study shows

And that study is based on a long line of incorrect and erroneous assumptions of the sun-earth connection, so in essence GIGO. For example, just recently a paper was released ( http://prl.aps.or.../e235002 ) that discovered electric double layers in the outer radiation belt. Such a discovery requires a complete rewrite of how the earth interacts with the energy in the sun's plasma environment. It's already been shown ad nauseum by myself the connections in the earth's electrical environment, telluric, atmospheric, ionospheric, and Van Allen(eric) currents are intimately connected, these electric DL's suggest the earth shares the same connection with the sun's plasma. Therefore, any model that doesn't properly represent this larger circuit is worthless and without merit. Should we stop polluting and poisoning planet? Absolutely, but this militant AGWite nonsense borders on religious fanaticism.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (17) Dec 24, 2013
AGW critics, on the other hand, figure it out for themselves. By definition, they are critical thinkers.

How much is such 'critical' thinking worth if it is based on a complete absence of knowledge?

For example: There have been milennia worth of Theologians (read: 'critical thinkers') on theological issues in all religions. But they have produced exactly zero insight into...anything.
Critical thinking is only worth anything when you understand the subject.

The AGW critics have amply demonstrated that they don't have that. Their 'ideas' are way too simplistic and don't hold up with what reality is really like (much like the theologians, actually)
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (17) Dec 24, 2013
How much is such 'critical' thinking worth if it is based on a complete absence of knowledge?

For example: There have been milennia worth of Theologians (read: 'critical thinkers') on theological issues in all religions. But they have produced exactly zero insight into...anything.
Critical thinking is only worth anything when you understand the subject.

The AGW critics have amply demonstrated that they don't have that. Their 'ideas' are way too simplistic and don't hold up with what reality is really like (much like the theologians, actually)
It seems strange that an AGWite zealot would try to pass a comparison of theology onto an AGW argument. AGWites, like theoligians, provide little to no empirical evidence, just philosphy. AGW critics, on the other hand, provide empirical evidence in abundance.

Perhaps you don't understand the concept which is "critical thinking?"

http://en.wikiped...Thinking

davidivad
3.3 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2013
ok guys.

i think it is time to educate everyone on the difference between reading the latest articles and using material that has been accepted by that field of expertise. but guess what. this is a new field so we do not get to have an answer yet. so all the thinking in the world will only serve opinion.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Dec 24, 2013
One of the key data points is solar radiance and earth's irradiance and radiance. Unfortunately there is limited calibrated data which is to be remedied by CLARREO and TRUTHS.
Cocoa
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 24, 2013
davidivad: "i built a windmill a few years back. they most certainly will not power an entire house and nor will solar cells."

Sorry to be blunt david - but you are just flat wrong. I do agree that renewables are a nascent set of technologies compared to fossil fuels - and we have a long way to go before they will be ready to fully take over our energy supply. Things are changing fast - and we have not yet hit grid parity in most of the world. Solar panels most certainly will run a house - of course you need either battery storage, or to be grid tied. I have friends who are totally off grid - running their entire home on solar panels - with ancient lead acid batteries for backup. Better/cheaper batteries are very close.

Here is one good article on calculating the size of panel you will need to run your home.

http://budgeting....726.html
davidivad
3.9 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2013
i have already been through the green process. you sound like you are more financially sound than i am. even so, i would like to bring up the bold words at the top of your article "budgeting money." i must admit that subsidies will soak up a lot of the cost. however, solar cells are still a hat trick for people with money to spare. what will you do when it snows and stays cold for a month or two? i am guessing you live in a prime location for solar power. i am definitely not going to climb on the roof to clean off all the dust, bird poop, and snow. i would probably pull half of them down trying not to fall off.

as a measure of your loyalty, how much money have you invested into green energy?
Cocoa
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 24, 2013
davidivad "however, solar cells are still a hat trick for people with money to spare."

Still true in many markets, but not in others. The landscape is changing fast. Look at this article - http://cleantechn...ruction/

A home that produces 100% of it's power - at little additional expense to the home buyer - and at 20% below market. Still at this point - as you say - for people with money.

Take a read of this article - http://blogs.scie...r-cells/

Can you see how we are heading to a new world in terms of energy production?

I am currently in a very cheap electric market. Solar panels would not be cost effective if I paid a contractor to install them - the soft costs are too high here in the U.S. There are also too many trees on adjacent properties. For about 10% extra - I source all my power from wind farms. Solar will come.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 24, 2013
".. GH gases have been the primary cause of climate change."
This statement seems quite presumptuous considering that the climate has been changing over history, and changing far more than has occurred in the last century…..
What are we to conclude since the computer models don't work? That increased CO2 leads to global cooling considering this year's record low temperatures?


Past CC has a well know cause. Look up Milankovitch cycles. And think critically how colder north latitude summers might allow winter snows to melt less with the decades and slowly build to permanent glacier/snowfield. + the opposite.
Models are correct. They can do no more than predict a trend. Any pauses would be random and therefore misleading. Ensemble members smooth and give error bounds.
How about finding out what the rest of the hemisphere is doing eh?
http://www.meteoc...rchive=0
Chart of NH temps at ~5000ft ( rough approx to surface temps).
davidivad
4.8 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2013
cocoa;

you are a good haggler. you make your point without abandoning your audience. you even give a reference for each of your views. and, most of all, you do not magically turn into a mad scientist before my very eyes. your sincerity has convinced me to keep an eye on green energy once again.
Cocoa
4.4 / 5 (10) Dec 25, 2013
david: Smile - keep your eyes on the future - it is really fun. Don't listen to the haters - there is plenty for all.

ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Dec 25, 2013
david: Smile - keep your eyes on the future - it is really fun. Don't listen to the haters - there is plenty for all.


Who are the haters?
Cocoa
4.7 / 5 (12) Dec 25, 2013
"Who are the haters?"

There seems to be many of them. Small minded little shits - who want to take every piece of scientific progress - and turn it into a political pissing match.

You will know them when you see them. Definitely a bad idea to engage them - feeding the beast is always counter productive.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 25, 2013
Small minded little shits -

Hate the 'haters' do we?
who want to take every piece of scientific progress- and turn it into a political pissing match.

That is a bit vague.
Do you mean socialists/regulators that want to limit competition?
Cocoa
3.8 / 5 (11) Dec 25, 2013
"Do you mean socialists/regulators that want to limit competition?"

No - I mean individuals who seem unable to understand constructs like progress, and intelligence.

Here is an example.

https://www.googl...24%3B682

The cost of solar is a steady slope down. So smart minds understand that solar has a great future - as does the human race. The haters are not able to understand this - and do everything in their power to spread misinformation.
Cocoa
4 / 5 (11) Dec 25, 2013
"Hate the 'haters' do we?"

Well it makes sense to me to be angry about the people who want to obstruct the human race from making the progress we are going to make - despite their negativism.
Shootist
2 / 5 (12) Dec 25, 2013
"The polar bears are drowning" - algore, democrat, liberal, inventor of the Internet.

"The polar bears will be fine" - Freeman "Frickin" Dyson, 'nuff said.

Who do you trust with the sciences, maths, statistics and models? algore? You're an idiot.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 25, 2013
So smart minds understand that solar has a great future -

If solar is better and cheaper, who can stop it?
Sounds like who coco hates are those opposed to having their wealth plundered to make his solar cheaper.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 25, 2013
Here is the site for you Coco:
"To bring a better balance about the real state of mankind, the Cato Institute has created a new website: HumanProgress.org, under the direction of Marian Tupy. The website is a tool for understanding what institutions, policies and forces have caused, or are impediments, to human progress. It will be no surprise when you look at what has been happening that most of the advances were made by private institutions and individuals, and most of the problems have been caused by governments."

Read more: http://www.washin...oXZuviGR
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Cocoa
3.9 / 5 (14) Dec 26, 2013
Rygg - my interest is in science and technology. You insist on politicizing every article on this board. I don't understand why there is no moderation to ban trolls like you - but it is their board - and I love the articles. I am interested in sometimes talking with others about the technology (that does not include you). I am very much an optimist - and excited about the future. Solar panels are standing on their own in some parts of the world. The technology is very exciting. Perhaps something better will come along - maybe even fusion. I will be very excited. The politics of energy is way more complex than could be discussed in this forum. So many different sources, so many subsidies, so many taxes, so many issues. I am excited about the future of the species - saddened that we have to be held up by the haters - definitely not interested in any protracted waste of time with an internet troll such as yourself - go look some place else.
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2013
"The polar bears are drowning" - algore, democrat, liberal, inventor of the Internet.

"The polar bears will be fine" - Freeman "Frickin" Dyson, 'nuff said.

Who do you trust with the sciences, maths, statistics and models? algore? You're an idiot.


Hey Shooty --

Have you bothered to look in on just how the Polar Bears are faring these days?

I thought not.

You and Feeble Dipstick are the idiots, as it turns out.

Caliban
3.7 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2013
Clearly our goal should be to make the problem as big as we can....then address it. That approach hasn't failed any civilizations of the past...
-Or like some people:
There seem to be plenty of reasonable alternatives
-we could trivialize it or even pretend it doesnt exist at all. Spending a trillion $$ isnt a 'reasonable alternative'.


Otto,

That's true enough, as far it goes, but the reality is that Big carbon will continue to rake in massive profits --at the expense of every living thing on the face of this planet-- and wait while alternatives are developed and financed by others --to the tune of that trillion $$$,incrementally, over time-- and once those alternatives are established, Big Carbon and allied interests will buy them all up at their instantaneous market Capitalization, thereby avoiding spending all that Trillion $$$ of development cost. Instant profitability.

Simple as that.

Meet the New Boss --Same as the Old Boss.
SteveS
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 26, 2013
"The polar bears are drowning" - algore, democrat, liberal, inventor of the Internet.

"The polar bears will be fine" - Freeman "Frickin" Dyson, 'nuff said.

Who do you trust with the sciences, maths, statistics and models? algore? You're an idiot.


"It's always possible Hansen could turn out to be right, if what he says were obviously wrong, he wouldn't have achieved what he has."
Freeman Dyson

Who do you trust with the sciences, maths, statistics and models? Shootist?

ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 26, 2013
@ coco:
my interest is in science and technology.

But you are quick to apply your values to the 'haters'.
The politics of energy is way more complex than could be discussed in this forum. So many different sources, so many subsidies, so many taxes, so many issues.

But you don't mind the waste of resources when the govt picks winners and losers with their subsidies, regulations and tax policies just as long as your favorite benefits?
Cocoa
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 26, 2013
"But you don't mind the waste of resources when the govt picks winners and losers with their subsidies, regulations and tax policies just as long as your favorite benefits?"

Yes I do. Nothing I have said would imply that I don't mind the waste of resources. You would not know that - because you are just a troll - who wants to politicize every discussion. But the real point is that this is not about me or you. This is about science and technology. But you would not know that - because you want to politicize every discussion - and I am not interested in your need to troll the internet and start endless fights.

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2013
you want to politicize every discussion

No, I don't.
The govt DOES as its tentacles are everywhere in science and technology: Solyndra, Fisker, IPCC, FDA, DOT, NASA, NOAA, DoE, DoA,......
Refusing to acknowledge or address how socialist policies impact science and technology is a disservice to science and technology.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2013
If politics makes so many AGWites uncomfortable, why did they choose the political path (IPCC) to force their views on the world?
davidivad
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2013
ryggs;

its not the world per say, it is only a few people based on cellphone records and internet activity. we see you and there is nothing you can do. keep it up and you will be disbanded from all public bathrooms.
Modernmystic
2.6 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2013
Ok, without reading the article I get how someone could come to the conclusion that the sun isn't responsible for whatever changes have taken place in the weather cycle over the past three decades....

But to say that "solar activity is not a key cause of climate change" is the absolute height of idiocy. The sun is the main driver of climate over the long term on this or any other planet that orbits a star and has weather. It might sound like I'm quibbling over words, but it's exactly this kind of blithe parsing that gives the "other side" just enough mud to keep slinging it out.

It's like finding a faulty spark plug in an engine that's missing firing a cylinder and saying "gas isn't the key cause of this engine running"....

*rolls eyes*
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2013
my interest is in science and technology. You insist on politicizing every article on this board. I don't understand why there is no moderation to ban trolls like you - but it is their board - and I love the articles. I am interested in sometimes talking with others about the technology (that does not include you). I am very much an optimist - and excited about the future. Solar panels are standing on their own in some parts of the world. The technology is very exciting. Perhaps something better will come along - maybe even fusion. I will be very excited. The politics of energy is way more complex than could be discussed in this forum. So many different sources, so many subsidies, so many taxes, so many issues. I am excited about the future of the species - saddened that we have to be held up by the haters - definitely not interested in any protracted waste of time with an internet troll such as yourself - go look some place else.


And there is NO politics in that?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2013
Modernmystic totally missed the point as has so very often
"solar activity is not a key cause of climate change" is the absolute height of idiocy.
Right ! Thats your problem you have just admitted - you don't or can't read (English) - FFS !

You are impotent in trying to make a straw man by most of your approaches, shame !

The sun is responsible for Climate ie as a Cause of Climate, clearly obvious.

That is *not* what the article asserts.

The title uses the word 'Change' (duh)

In context with changes, given the sun causes Climate (overall), the (relatively) recent change
is not due to the sun - it *must* be linguistically obvious to those with (at least) average intelligence that although insolation output has paused or marginally diminished the sun is *not* the cause of climate change *because* the climate *still* shows evidence of warming despite reduced insolation - do you understand that rather key point Modernmystic ?

Can u see "Change" is not "Cause" re time etc ?
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2013
But the sun as the cause is also responsible for change as well. If YOU can't see that then I have no framework with which to respond to you, and given your adolescent tone I really don't care to anyway....
Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2013
"And there is NO politics in that?"

What politics do you see in what I said? I fully acknowledge that politics plays a huge role in energy, science and technology. I am just stating that Rygg is a troll - who does not discuss the science and technology - but turns every article political - and I am telling Rygg that I am not interested in being sucked into that black hole.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2013
What politics do you see in what I said?


Solar panels are standing on their own in some parts of the world. The technology is very exciting. Perhaps something better will come along - maybe even fusion.


What about fission? We don't need to re-invent the wheel.

Now do you see that wherever there are people there is politics or at the least philosophy and values? It's very difficult to have a discussion without them. I laud your effort, and I agree ryg is highly political but it's on a sliding scale. He's on an end, but don't pretend you're not on the same scale as the rest of us.

Cocoa
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
"Refusing to acknowledge or address how socialist policies impact science and technology is a disservice to science and technology."

I am very aware of the influence of politics on the process of science and technology. I feel that is far to complex a subject to deal with on a 1,000 character comments section. I am telling you that I see you as a troll - who wants to hijack every science article, and turn it into your own political pulpit. It is for Physorg to allow that behavior - or censor it if they want - it is their site. I am asking you to not hijack comments I make. In my view - you are a troll - you contradict yourself all over the place - you politicize a great science board - I have no interest in wasting time getting tied up in knots with you politics.
Cocoa
4 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2013
What about fission? We don't need to re-invent the wheel.

I agree - and I look forward to the development of modular fission plants, and also LFTR's LFTR's are being developed in China and other countries - but not the U.S. or Europe - because of politics. Developing them is taking large amounts of government money. Rygg is arguing against the use of government money for such projects - that is called 'picking winners and losers'.

There is a difference between discussing the merits of government funding for science and technology projects - and being all hyper political like Rygg - and throwing around terms like socialist, and plunder etc.
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2013
Modermmystic confuses drive with (recent change)
But the sun as the cause is also responsible for change as well. If YOU can't see that then I have no framework with which to respond to you, and given your adolescent tone I really don't care to anyway...


Again, you p...k you MISS the point, Sun drives the climate but when insolation goes down & climate change and temps continue to go UP - then how is the sun responsible for that direction of movement - OBVIOUSLY sun is not the cause (doh) !!!!!!.

Therefore, basic logic mate, how does the Sun drive THAT change then ?

Wake up, wash teeth, splash face with cold water, think man think, don't just react out of mechanical knee jerk response you j..k.

Where is your framework, understand direction & level of change, where is your capacity are you arbitrarily impotent to articulate commensurate with the degree you are challenged, why are you so damn transparent and easy to predict, wakey wakey young boy, get up early ;-)
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2013
LFTR's are being developed in China and other countries - but not the U.S. or Europe - because of politics. Developing them is taking large amounts of government money. Rygg is arguing against the use of government money for such projects -


Eliminate the politics and LFTRs will not need govt funding.

This is a private company in AL: (http://flibe-energy.com/).

It's interesting that the Th reactions are quite well known but were not used by Rickover for Navy reactors because they did not create the Pu needed for weapons.
The DoE controls all things nuclear and is subject to much lobbying by enviros to block nuclear energy.
By law, the US govt was required to create a high level waste repository, but that law was violated by BHO for politics.
Since the world doesn't seem to care who can create weapons grade U235, privatize the nuclear energy sector, but do NOT grant any company immunity from liability.
Modernmystic
2.2 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
Therefore, basic logic mate, how does the Sun drive THAT change then ?


I doesn't and if you'd actually read what I wrote...

Ok, without reading the article I get how someone could come to the conclusion that the sun isn't responsible for whatever changes have taken place in the weather cycle over the past three decades


instead of acting out of a "mechanical knee jerk response" you'd have saved us this little drama...

(on edit) and after reading the last paragraph of your last response I'm done talking to you. I can't believe some people actually function as adults with the kind of mentality and abysmal lack of maturity they display.
davidivad
4.6 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
ok, its time for a filibuster...
goracle
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2013
"Do you mean socialists/regulators that want to limit competition?"

No - I mean individuals who seem unable to understand constructs like progress, and intelligence.

Here is an example.

...

The cost of solar is a steady slope down. So smart minds understand that solar has a great future - as does the human race. The haters are not able to understand this - and do everything in their power to spread misinformation.

Non-profit bringing solar power to low income home owners: http://www.huffin...nology#!
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (6) Dec 28, 2013
The problem with solar is going to be the relatively high cost of maintenance for the owner and the if there are no batteries, the cost of alternate power.
Until solar is turn key, plug, play and forget, solar at the house level will be for hobbyists.
Drjsa_oba
1.3 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2013
I am concerned about the climate changed caused by windfarms. People keep stating the amount o energy in the wind in the strange belief that we could or should harvest it. Just imagine what damage would be caused globally by stopping all the wind!

I little bit of harvesting may not make much difference but where is the tipping point? Look at all the worlds worst deserts -- located in wind blocking shadows behind natural mountains. If we willy nilly harvest wind then we better damn well make sure we work out what damage that could cause.

I would not suggest wholesale deserts would result but even a small drop in the moisture transport system (the wind) will have dramatic effects on climate.
runrig
5 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2013
The problem with solar is going to be the relatively high cost of maintenance for the owner and the if there are no batteries, the cost of alternate power.
Until solar is turn key, plug, play and forget, solar at the house level will be for hobbyists.


Ryygy: I've had a 4KWp Solar PV system on my roof for 2 years now. Haven't touched it.

Also:

http://thinkprogr...2013-2/#
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2013
Haven't touched it.

Do you have:
Batteries?
Backup power?
Do you monitor its performance?