Corrected sunspot history suggests climate change not due to natural solar trends

August 7, 2015, International Astronomical Union
A drawing of the Sun made by Galileo Galilei on 23 June 1613 showing the positions and sizes of a number of sunspots. Galileo was one of the first to observe and document sunspots. Credit: The Galileo Project/M. Kornmesser

The Sunspot Number is a crucial tool used to study the solar dynamo, space weather and climate change. It has now been recalibrated and shows a consistent history of solar activity over the past few centuries. The new record has no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700, as was previously indicated. This suggests that rising global temperatures since the industrial revolution cannot be attributed to increased solar activity.

The analysis, its results and its implications for climate research were made public today at a press briefing at the International Astronomical Union (IAU) XXIX General Assembly, currently taking place in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

The Maunder Minimum, between 1645 and 1715, when sunspots were scarce and the winters harsh, strongly suggests a link between solar activity and climate change. Until now there was a general consensus that solar activity has been trending upwards over the past 300 years (since the end of the Maunder Minimum), peaking in the late 20th century—called the Modern Grand Maximum by some.

This trend has led some to conclude that the Sun has played a significant role in modern climate change. However, a discrepancy between two parallel series of sunspot number counts has been a contentious issue among scientists for some time.

The two methods of counting the sunspot number—the Wolf Sunspot Number and the Group Sunspot Number—indicated significantly different levels of solar activity before about 1885 and also around 1945. With these discrepancies now eliminated, there is no longer any substantial difference between the two historical records.

The new correction of the sunspot number, called the Sunspot Number Version 2.0, led by Frédéric Clette (Director of the World Data Centre [WDC]-SILSO), Ed Cliver (National Solar Observatory) and Leif Svalgaard (Stanford University, California, USA), nullifies the claim that there has been a Modern Grand Maximum.

The top graph shows the level of disagreement between the old Wolf Sunspot Number (blue) and the old Group Sunspot Number (red). The lower graph demonstrates the increase in similarity between the two after being recalibrated. Credit: WDC-SILSO

The results, presented at the IAU XXIX General Assembly in Honolulu, Hawai`i, today, make it difficult to explain the observed changes in the climate that started in the 18th century and extended through the industrial revolution to the 20th century as being significantly influenced by natural solar trends.

The sunspot number is the only direct record of the evolution of the solar cycle over multiple centuries and is the longest scientific experiment still ongoing.

The apparent upward trend of solar activity between the 18th century and the late 20th century has now been identified as a major calibration error in the Group Sunspot Number. Now that this error has been corrected, solar activity appears to have remained relatively stable since the 1700s.

A graph showing the sunspot Group Number as measured over the past 400 years after to the new calibration. The Maunder Minimum, between 1645 and 1715, when sunspots were scarce and the winters harsh is clearly visible. The modulations of the 11-year solar cycle is clearly seen, as well as the 70–100-year Gleissberg cycle. Credit: WDC-SILSO

The newly corrected sunspot numbers now provide a homogenous record of solar activity dating back some 400 years. Existing climate evolution models will need to be reevaluated given this entirely new picture of the long-term evolution of . This work will stimulate new studies both in solar physics (solar cycle modelling and predictions) and climatology, and can be used to unlock tens of millennia of solar records encoded in cosmogenic nuclides found in ice cores and tree rings. This could reveal more clearly the role the Sun plays in over much longer timescales.

The new data series and the associated information are distributed from WDC-SILSO.

Explore further: Sun's activity in 18th century was similar to that now

Related Stories

Sun's activity in 18th century was similar to that now

February 9, 2015

Counting sunspots over time helps in knowing the activity of our star but the two indices used by scientists disagree on dates prior to 1885. Now an international team of researchers has tried to standardise the historical ...

Irregular heartbeat of the Sun driven by double dynamo

July 9, 2015

A new model of the Sun's solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun's 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface ...

Quiet Interlude in Solar Max

March 8, 2013

(Phys.org) —Something unexpected is happening on the Sun. 2013 was supposed to be the year of "solar maximum," the peak of the 11-year sunspot cycle. Yet 2013 has arrived and solar activity is relatively low. Sunspot numbers ...

No, we aren't heading into a 'mini ice age'

July 27, 2015

Wouldn't it be great if scientists could make their minds up? One minute they're telling us our planet is warming up due to human activity and we run the risk of potentially devastating environmental change. Next, they're ...

Solar cycle update: Twin peaks?

March 4, 2013

Something unexpected is happening on the sun. 2013 is supposed to be the year of Solar Max, the peak of the 11-year sunspot cycle. Yet 2013 has arrived and solar activity is relatively low. Sunspot numbers are well below ...

Why is the sun going quiet?

January 22, 2014

The sun is our nearest star and the source of all our light and heat on Earth but recent reports have highlighted an ongoing steep decline in solar activity.

Recommended for you

Superflares from young red dwarf stars imperil planets

October 18, 2018

The word "HAZMAT" describes substances that pose a risk to the environment, or even to life itself. Imagine the term being applied to entire planets, where violent flares from the host star may make worlds uninhabitable by ...

Blazar's brightness cycle confirmed by NASA's Fermi mission

October 18, 2018

A two-year cycle in the gamma-ray brightness of a blazar, a galaxy powered by a supermassive black hole, has been confirmed by 10 years of observations from NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. The findings were announced ...

Astronomers catch red dwarf star in a superflare outburst

October 18, 2018

New observations by two Arizona State University astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope have caught a red dwarf star in a violent outburst, or superflare. The blast of radiation was more powerful than any such outburst ...

Magnetic fields may be the key to black hole activity

October 17, 2018

Collimated jets provide astronomers with some of the most powerful evidence that a supermassive black hole lurks in the heart of most galaxies. Some of these black holes appear to be active, gobbling up material from their ...

128 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

geokstr
2.2 / 5 (21) Aug 07, 2015
"Corrected" meaning reprogrammed and retrofitted - again - so the decline can be hidden - again.
MnemonicMike
2.2 / 5 (24) Aug 07, 2015
I dunno ... too many of the phys.org posts seem to fall into the AGW believers' camp. That makes me question the objectivity of the whole forum. All it takes is one topic matter to taint the rest of the asserted objectivity. At least half of the scientists questioned in the latest survey think there are two sides to the story. But not phys.org.
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (18) Aug 07, 2015
@jim-xanara

I've contacted the site administrators (mere reporting seldom works) about your shameful comments. Cranks are tolerated here but scum like you have no place at PO.

It's my hope others will use the "contact" button at the bottom of the page to demand you be banned.
snoosebaum
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 07, 2015
oh oh, so sunspot activity ' was' a factor in GW , first i've heard that , sump'n smells ,,,
ruthreid
2.4 / 5 (14) Aug 07, 2015
"The new record has no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700, as was previously indicated."

Incorrect. Put the data through a low pass filter with a time constant of several decades, and it is still quite obvious that the low frequency content has been trending steadily upwards.

And, what is the Earth, if not a thermal mass with time constant of at least several decades, if not more?
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (21) Aug 08, 2015
The fix is in.

"I would like to mention a Jewish Russian-speaking writer from Leningrad, M.Kheyfets" were the first words out of Frédéric Clette's mouth at a fundraiser promoting the AGW hoax. The "World Data Center" is funded by the Rockefeller's eugenics foundations.

This was a contentious point in the data and no one should be surprised that admitted devotees of the One World Jewish Kleptocracy have cleared it up. Let the pogromme roll on!

You know, when you wake up, it's going to be way too late.
Racist, conspiracist, denialist loon. Waste of skin.
docile
Aug 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
marcush
4.1 / 5 (20) Aug 08, 2015
I dunno ... too many of the phys.org posts seem to fall into the AGW believers' camp. That makes me question the objectivity of the whole forum. All it takes is one topic matter to taint the rest of the asserted objectivity. At least half of the scientists questioned in the latest survey think there are two sides to the story. But not phys.org.


Its not about surveys, it's about published scientific papers you quack. THIS is the reason most at phys.org think AGW is real. Why don't you try aligning your beliefs with the evidence as well?
viko_mx
1.6 / 5 (19) Aug 08, 2015
Author of this article claim that the activity of the sun does not affect the Earth's climate which is very strange to me. In the Bible nearly 2000 years ago is said clear what will be the signs of the last times of the world before the second caming of the Savior. So the climate will became more unstable, will significantly increase the earthquakes, drought or floods in different parts of the world. Mass media is trying to avoid making the connection to biblical prophecies but it is clear what lies ahead in the human near human history.
Returners
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2015
viko:

All those things have been happening for as long as the Earth has been here anyway.
viko_mx
1.4 / 5 (18) Aug 08, 2015
Look at the statistics for last decades and the Bible prephesies which must be fulfilled. The can be met only this last days of the world.
docile
Aug 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JustAnotherGuy
4 / 5 (12) Aug 08, 2015
Returners, watch out! .. you may have accidentally posted a potentially 5 star comment...
docile
Aug 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JustAnotherGuy
4.7 / 5 (14) Aug 08, 2015
Just curious, viko .. how many earthquakes, droughts and floods are needed for a prophecy to be considered 'fulfilled'?
Likely Earth will remain still no matter how many of them. Likely life will do so. "Last days of the world" seems to be a meaningless expression there.
As for human life, here are a couple prophecies any may consider:
-you can die the next time you drive your car
-you can die the next time you cross a street
Those are fulfilled a lot. Didn't you looked for statistics?
Zzzzzzzz
4.6 / 5 (19) Aug 08, 2015
It is the climate change deniers who require a belief system. The rest of us follow the science. The need for belief systems indicates the presence of self delusion, which requires some level of psychosis. The tendency to actively persue self delusion has been found in some studies to have survival value for humans, so most of us are flawed by this - some more than others.
denglish
2.5 / 5 (20) Aug 08, 2015
Still no warming for 18 years 7 months.

Humans may have jumped the anthropogenic shark when saying that we are more powerful than the sun.

denglish
1.9 / 5 (17) Aug 08, 2015
The apparent upward trend of solar activity between the 18th century and the late 20th century has now been identified as a major calibration error in the Group Sunspot Number. Now that this error has been corrected, solar activity appears to have remained relatively stable since the 1700s.


Existing climate evolution models will need to be reevaluated given this entirely new picture of the long-term evolution of solar activity.


So, earlier climate models were wrong. No surprise, we saw that in the observations.

And now, with this "new understanding" mankind will be held even more guilty for the Earth's normal cycles.

forumid001
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 08, 2015
By observing this decades long 'debate', I now am in such a position that the more 'new' data or 'corrected' old data pour in, the less respect I have to those 'climate scientists'.

On the other hand, if the variation of solar activity (leading to changes of its radiation energy, particles, magnetic field..which in turn lead to change of heat input to earth, clouds, ocean circulation, plate motion, volcano ...) is eventually proven not to be the major driving force of 'climate change' of any sigficance, I'll donate 50% of my saving to an environment protection organization.
denglish
2.1 / 5 (13) Aug 08, 2015
The formation and radiative effect of clouds is one of the major uncertainties in climate modeling (Houghton et al., 1995). Due to the large radiative effect of clouds, any insufficiency in the parameterization of clouds will introduce major uncertainties in the results of the climate models. Recent results have indicated strong correlations between the total cloud cover and the cosmic ray flux, indicating that this could be the missing link between solar activity variations and climate changes. If this relationship can be confirmed and understood, a major obstacle in our understanding of natural climate variations may be removed and our chances of a credible estimate of the effects of manmade greenhouse gases could be significantly improved.

http://www-ssc.ig...ASTP/43/
denglish
2 / 5 (14) Aug 08, 2015
https://www.youtu...Xd0TpZa8

"The more we learn, the more we realize we don't know."
gkam
3.6 / 5 (17) Aug 08, 2015
denglish, we are ALL glad you are finding that out.
HannesAlfven
2.5 / 5 (16) Aug 08, 2015
The Venus Pioneer data was corrected as well when IT was discovered to refuse to conform to AGW theory. The exact quote was ...

"The magnitudes of the corrections for both instruments are determined by forcing agreement with a range of calculated net fluxes at one altitude in the atmosphere, where the net flux must be small because of the large density of CO2."

(from Net Thermal Radiation in the Atmosphere of Venus, Icarus 61, 521-538 (1985))

The commentary on Venus' refusal to conform to AGW was really intriguing at the time when they observed that Venus was not in thermal equilibrium ...

"... most planetary scientists are obviously expecting -- and hoping -- that the embarrassing extra heat will disappear on further investigation."

(from "The Mystery of Venus' internal heat", Nov. 13 1980 issue of New Scientist)

Eventually, all of our theories will be redesigned to accommodate AGW.
HannesAlfven
2.1 / 5 (16) Aug 08, 2015
For more juicy quotes, with a bit of history and explanation on the thermal equilibrium requirement for AGW, see explanatory graphic here ...

https://plus.goog...43226480
HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (15) Aug 08, 2015
For those wishing to dig into this issue a bit more, here is another resource which I suspect provides a less politicized view, one way or another, on the issue ...

A BRIEF HISTORY ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE SUNSPOT COUNT

http://www.landsc...=node/50
(scroll some way down for start ...)

"... The depth of the Dalton Minimum is beyond question ..."
ab3a
4.7 / 5 (13) Aug 08, 2015
Looking at the web site and at the Wolf Sunspot Number measuring system, it is clear to me that there several things going on here:

1. Sunspot numbers are interesting from a Helio-Physics perspective.
2. The number of sunspots, versus the total size of all the sunspot surface area as a percentage of the solar disk are two different things.
3. Others have taken this data and attempted some correlation with our climate and realized that it doesn't correlate as well.

From a climate analysis perspective, sunspot size, rather than quantity would be a better indicator of what is going on. Larger sunspots and groups would tend to create vastly more solar wind than a higher number of smaller sunspots.

I suspect that the study done by WDC-SILSO may not be as useful to weather models as the older method (biased toward sunspot size) was.
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (12) Aug 08, 2015
Re: "Others have taken this data and attempted some correlation with our climate and realized that it doesn't correlate as well."

This paper here ...

http://sait.oat.t.../969.pdf

... seems to suggest that temperature does indeed track quite well with solar magnetic index, but only when the coronal hole solar wind is taken into account. They appear to point out that the Sun switches between two different "modes" -- one that is sunspot-dominated (closed magnetic field lines), and a second that is coronal hole-dominated (open magnetic field lines).

That's an intriguing point within the context of Kristian Birkeland's old terrella experiments. See images at the top of this page ...

https://social-sc...laims/10

Birkeland was able to switch between these two terrella modes by applying an external electric current.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 08, 2015
denglish, we are ALL glad you are finding that out.
George again summons the collective powers of his multiple personalities.

No matter how many schisms you have you only get one vote in america, sybil.
denglish
2.2 / 5 (13) Aug 08, 2015
denglish, we are ALL glad you are finding that out.
George again summons the collective powers of his multiple personalities.

No matter how many schisms you have you only get one vote in america, sybil.

What struck me the most is that this person doesn't understand that knowing you don't know is a hallmark of education.

I suppose this basic level of ignorance on that person's part is a result of saying they're educated without finishing their studies.
TechnoCreed
3.9 / 5 (12) Aug 08, 2015
@denglish
Read this and endorse it: http://www.cornwa...warming/
denglish
2.5 / 5 (12) Aug 08, 2015
@denglish
Read this and endorse it: http://www.cornwa...warming/

Thanks for offering, but no. I am not religious.

Good luck in your studies; I have no ill will towards your choice to practice your religious faith.
TechnoCreed
4.1 / 5 (16) Aug 08, 2015
@denglish
I knew it and FYI I am not religious either. I just wanted to bring to light that Dr Spencer is a signatory of this declaration. IOW he believes that nothing bad is going to happen because God will not allow that. How much credibility can you give to such a man? https://en.wikipe...Alliance
syndicate_51
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 08, 2015
Still no warming for 18 years 7 months.

Humans may have jumped the anthropogenic shark when saying that we are more powerful than the sun.



It is impossible for man to be even comparable to the sun in power at this point in time.
denglish
2.1 / 5 (13) Aug 08, 2015
@denglish
I knew it and FYI I am not religious either. I just wanted to bring to light that Dr Spencer is a signatory of this declaration. IOW he believes that nothing bad is going to happen because God will not allow that. How much credibility can you give to such a man? https://en.wikipe...Alliance

First, I don't care about your religion or his.

Second, even if he is a signatory, he has not ruled out humanity's ability to affect the climate. His position is that man may affect it, but not to the extent that ruinous social policies and corrupted science is justified.

So, your assertion that he is blinded by his faith is false.

You guys have a VERY hard time staying on topic. I'll never understand it.
syndicate_51
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 08, 2015
First off the sun has far greater impact on Earth's atmosphere than any amount of human activity over time to date. The energy levels are just in entirely different leagues as far as output goes.

This doesn't mean man isn't having an impact.

This lead me to a conjecture that, lets say a Maunder Minimum occurs (or begins to Occur) in the next 30 years. As temperature declines the call for alarm due to mans contribution to global warming gets weaker and weaker. After the minimum has begun to reverse (and assuming man has continued greenhouse gas emissions at current or even greater rates) wouldn't there be a risk of a much more drastic rate of increase after the minimum had concluded due to the additional contribution that man had made over the minimum?

It seems to be human nature to forget problems that don't make themselves readily apparent. Just a thought really.
syndicate_51
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 08, 2015
Still no warming for 18 years 7 months.

Humans may have jumped the anthropogenic shark when saying that we are more powerful than the sun.



It is impossible for man to be even comparable to the sun in power at this point in time.


Didn't like that? Here's a simple question. How much output does the sun have? Then compare that with the output mankind has. If you think the larger number means less then you need to consider refreshing your application of math.

Fact is man can't even hold a candle to the sun.
TechnoCreed
4.9 / 5 (18) Aug 08, 2015
@denglish
You guys have a VERY hard time staying on topic. I'll never understand it.
And what was your purpose to bring faith (Roy Spencer) in a scientific question?

So, your assertion that he is blinded by his faith is false.
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory."

He sighed this; that is pretty convincing.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (19) Aug 08, 2015
IMO the 11-year cycle is affected with barycenter of Jupiter - only massive downvotes follow
Or how to spot a taboo in contemporary science...;-) The proponents of AGW paradigm avoid every cosmological evidence of climatic cycles instinctively. Too many job places are at stake..;-)

Bullcrap! It us a fantastical lunacy that gets less than the full derision it deserves. It is no different than Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision, except there is less science behind it.

Your take on the conspiracy has even less basis in fact than most. You are a laughing stock because you make laughingly childish errors.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (16) Aug 08, 2015
By observing this decades long 'debate', I now am in such a position that the more 'new' data or 'corrected' old data pour in, the less respect I have to those 'climate scientists'.

On the other hand, if the variation of solar activity (leading to changes of its radiation energy, particles, magnetic field..which in turn lead to change of heat input to earth, clouds, ocean circulation, plate motion, volcano ...) is eventually proven not to be the major driving force of 'climate change' of any sigficance, I'll donate 50% of my saving to an environment protection organization.


Wonder how far he'll move the goal posts. Define "sigficance (sic)" (I assume you meant "significance" but I hate to suppose given the propensity of those like you to squirm)
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (17) Aug 08, 2015
The Venus Pioneer data was corrected as well when IT was discovered to refuse to conform to AGW theory. The exact quote was ...

"The magnitudes of the corrections for both instruments are determined by forcing agreement with a range of calculated net fluxes at one altitude in the atmosphere, where the net flux must be small because of the large density of CO2."

(from Net Thermal Radiation in the Atmosphere of Venus, Icarus 61, 521-538 (1985))

The commentary on Venus' refusal to conform to AGW was really intriguing at the time when they observed that Venus was not in thermal equilibrium ...

"... most planetary scientists are obviously expecting -- and hoping -- that the embarrassing extra heat will disappear on further investigation."

(from "The Mystery of Venus' internal heat", Nov. 13 1980 issue of New Scientist)

Eventually, all of our theories will be redesigned to accommodate AGW.

"Venus Pioneer"? Your wit is not shiney.
denglish
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 08, 2015
He sighed this; that is pretty convincing.

Your emotion is leading you around by the nose.
docile
Aug 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
geokstr
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 08, 2015
He sighed this; that is pretty convincing.


Your emotion is leading you around by the nose.


It's a hallmark attribute of leftlings.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (15) Aug 08, 2015
I would like to point out a statement in the article:
The new record has no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since....


I don't think that this is the point. The points are that at the Maunder Minimum of low solar activity there were harsh winters, and that the sun plays, by far, the most significant part in earthly weather than anything else, combined. I think everyone can agree to these points.



The harsh winters started before the Maunder Minimum and lasted past the end of the Maunder Minimum.
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (16) Aug 08, 2015
Bullcrap! It us a fantastical lunacy that gets less than the full derision it deserves
OK, try to propose a better explanation, why the coincidence of solar cycles with orbital periods of large planets http://link.sprin...2270851?
It for the same reason that gnomes party in my backyard every third Tuesday of the month.

Or why unicorns were late for the ark.

Or why Saturn was once the center of the solar system.
docile
Aug 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (16) Aug 08, 2015
So that the eleven years of solar period and orbital period of Jupiter planet are just a coincidence? What else the mainstream astronomers are prepared to hide before publics, if they ignore this straightforward connection, which everyone can verify himself?
Then i guess it's not hidden, is it?

That's a pretty weak conspiracy theory you got going there, you should go back into the basement and rethink it a little.
philstacy9
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2015
Political science studies political reality.
docile
Aug 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
PeakSpecies
4.7 / 5 (15) Aug 09, 2015
This is another blow to the recent sensational claim that we will soon experience a mini-ice age, proposed by a long-time denial scientist. That claim ignored another factor which was that the noted minor cool-down occurred before humans began dumping massive quantities of fossil fuel carbon into the Earth's atmosphere. That stored energy source involved tens-of-millions of years of sunlight falling on plants many millions of years in the past. Ingenious engineers and geologists believed that that stored energy was needed to up here to support the exponentially expanding human population. What took tens-of-millions of years to form was dumped into the Earth's atmosphere in the last 250-years.

Of course the deniers will now look for other excuses since their bottom-line is the protection of their existing traditional world views, not a concern about the kind of future our children will inherit.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (14) Aug 09, 2015
So that the eleven years of solar period and orbital period of Jupiter planet are just a coincidence? What else the mainstream astronomers are prepared to hide before publics, if they ignore this straightforward connection, which everyone can verify himself?

This is very easy to debunk. I looked for Jupiter's perihelion using JPL's Horizon tool. http://ssd.jpl.na...zons.cgi This is what I found: July 25th 1892, June 2nd 1904, April 17th 1916, March 15th 1928, January 24th 1940, November 21st 1951, September 26th 1963, August 12th 1975, July 10th 1987, may 20th 1999, March 18 2011. That is 10 Jupiter complete orbits. If you count the number of solar cycles in the same period (1890-2010) http://cdn.phys.o...dsun.jpg you get 11 solar cycles. Conclusion there is no link between Jupiter's orbital period and solar cycles
JustAnotherGuy
5 / 5 (12) Aug 09, 2015
docile
It works like this: "we'll downvote ...etc...."

Actually you have exemplified a conspiracy theory, pretty well indeed. https://en.wikipe...y_theory
Intentionally or not, arguments from some on your comment make a conspiracy theory of them. About coincidences, seems to be that you mark these with this symbol: ;-)
Well... maybe its just another coincidence... no big deal
Bob Weber
1 / 5 (11) Aug 09, 2015
There WAS a modern maximum in solar activity. The authors are obfuscating by bringing up a "grand" maximum as though that word means much of anything scientifically.

With v2 yearly SILSO SSN data:

The modern maximum in solar activity occurred from 1935.5 to 2004.5, a 70-year period, when v2 yearly SSNs averaged 108.5, as compared to a 65.8 per year average for the previous 70 years between 1865.5 and 1934.5, a 65% 70-year increase in sunspot activity.

The Sun caused global warming, it caused the 'pause', and it's about to cause global cooling.

NOTHING Svalgaard does or says will change any of that. Nothing Dr. Svalgaard et al did changes the FACT that solar activity was responsible for "global warming".

The statement that solar "trends" didn't cause climate change is wrong and misleading. It is not difficult to make this assessment like the article says.

65% more sunspot activity for 70 years right through 2004! Think about it.
docile
Aug 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Egleton
5 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2015
Oh, I say chaps. Do I detect an improvement in our ability to remain on topic? Well done all.

I do hope that we are in for for several rather brutal winters. That will do us Neanderthal types very well indeed. (By the way. The correct term is not Neanderthal, it is Jötun. Do try and remember.)
There seems to be an awful lot of cold water between America and Europe. The Gulf stream just sort of peters out in a dispirited way.
All rather encouraging for us Jötun.
http://earth.null...0.87,633
docile
Aug 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Egleton
4.9 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2015
Docile, you have defeated my powers of comprehension.
I lack the fortitude to extract the salient points from your unpunctuated masterpiece.
Perhaps it was an attempt at free verse?
docile
Aug 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Egleton
4.6 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2015
Thanks Docile. You may have opened a door for me, which is always rewarding.
docile
Aug 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Tom_Andersen
1 / 5 (10) Aug 09, 2015
The article states quite clearly that solar activity is correlated to temperature. The Mauder minimum and the little ice age.

Now we have solar activity slipping again. It may be that the only thing holding temps steady is the current el Nino.
docile
Aug 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 09, 2015
That's a pretty weak conspiracy theory you got going there
Conspiracy is your theory, I don't use the conspiracy word, but pluralistic ignorance. It works like this: "we'll downvote / dismiss every notion of finding/idea - but we will pretend at public, we aren't doing it, because we are indeed humble scientists and we even have no motivation for it, after all".. As the result, every proponents of mainstream science fights against "crackpots" as a single man all the time - despite he claims, or maybe even believes, none of scientists actually does it...;-)


Another of the "I don't use the word "conspiracy" when describing the conspiracy, therefore it's not really a conspiracy" types. You lunacy is based on duplicity and ignorance. Ever heard the adage 'correlation does not imply causation"?

Your pedantic claims of persecution combined with your simplistic understanding of physics makes you prone to self delusion.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (14) Aug 09, 2015
*snip*
The modern maximum in solar activity occurred from 1935.5 to 2004.5, a 70-year period, when v2 yearly SSNs averaged 108.5, as compared to a 65.8 per year average for the previous 70 years between 1865.5 and 1934.5, a 65% 70-year increase in sunspot activity.

The Sun caused global warming, it caused the 'pause', and it's about to cause global cooling.

NOTHING Svalgaard does or says will change any of that. Nothing Dr. Svalgaard et al did changes the FACT that solar activity was responsible for "global warming".

The statement that solar "trends" didn't cause climate change is wrong and misleading. It is not difficult to make this assessment like the article says.

65% more sunspot activity for 70 years right through 2004! Think about it.


Then there is, of course, the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. Think about that instead.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (14) Aug 09, 2015
The article states quite clearly that solar activity is correlated to temperature. The Mauder minimum and the little ice age.

Now we have solar activity slipping again. It may be that the only thing holding temps steady is the current el Nino.


Or **gasp* human induced, CO2 driven, warming of the atmosphere!!
denglish
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 09, 2015
Or **gasp* human induced, CO2 driven, warming of the atmosphere!!

Except that:

C02 levels follow warming.

Climate models supposedly show the 20th century warming to have been caused by CO2, but key elements in the models are themselves based on the implicit assumption that the warming was caused by CO2.

Climate models have far too low a value for water cycle increase.

From IPCC AR4:

TS.6.4.2 – Large uncertainties remain about how clouds might respond to global climate change.
7.5.2 – Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates...

IPCC:
...parametrizations are still used to represent unresolved physical processes such as the formation of clouds and precipitation [..] Uncertainty in parametrizations is the primary reason why climate projections differ between different [climate models].

There is still far to much un-understood to call CO2 the culprit of Earth's cyclic changes.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (14) Aug 09, 2015
C02 levels follow warming.
No, they both follow and lead.
Climate models supposedly show the 20th century warming to have been caused by CO2, but key elements in the models are themselves based on the implicit assumption that the warming was caused by CO2.
Your misunderstanding is obvious.
Climate models have far too low a value for water cycle increase.
No, they don't.
From IPCC AR4:
Just because we don't understand everything does not mean we understand nothing.
There is still far to much un-understood to call CO2 the culprit of Earth's cyclic changes.
There is enough understood, and demonstrated, to put lie to your words. Just because you don;t understand it does not mean it is not understood by others.
denglish
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 09, 2015
Your misunderstanding is obvious.

How so?

There is enough understood, and demonstrated, to put lie to your words. Just because you don;t understand it does not mean it is not understood by others.

The quotes came from the IPCC.

Let's see how their models worked from a predictive standpoint. the same predictions that have everyone so scared:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

Just because we don't understand everything does not mean we understand nothing.

The science isn't even close to exact enough to justify ruinous economic policies and morally corrupt scientific practices.

Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 09, 2015
How so?
Def. Obvious: Adj; easily perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent.
Is English not your first language?
Let's see how their models worked from a predictive standpoint
Really, Roy again? Are you stupid? How many times has it been pointed out to you already dumbass?
The science isn't even close to exact enough to justify ruinous economic policies and morally corrupt scientific practices.
Ah, the real reason you pretend you can't understand. You incorrectly think that everything is about others taking your money. Socialism run amok or some such stupid garbage.

Well, at least you admit it.
denglish
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 09, 2015
Is English not your first language?

Hmm, interesting response. I guess it wasn't so obvious after all.

Really, Roy again? Are you stupid? How many times has it been pointed out to you already dumbass?

Those that resort to insult have no facts.

I don't need to use Dr. Spencer's graph, there are plenty of others. Would you like to see the work of others that have come to the same conclusion?

Can you show where the CMIP5 predictions (especially the predictions being used to terrify plebs) are borne out by observation?

Ah, the real reason you pretend you can't understand.

I didn't say I can't/don't understand. The IPCC did.

You incorrectly think that everything is about others taking your money.

Wrong. I'll spell it out for you: in the real world, leaders that make policy decisions on flawed foundations are unemployed. There's good reason for this; it is poor judgement.

I'll gladly pay for a clean earth; I already do.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 09, 2015
I guess it wasn't so obvious after all.
That you pretend you don't see it brings up another obvious observation.
Those that resort to insult have no facts.
Hilarious. Those that start out with no facts but pretend otherwise are liars.
I didn't say I can't/don't understand.
You don't have to, it's already obvious.
here are plenty of others. Would you like to see the work of others
Yes.
Can you show where the CMIP5 predictions (especially the predictions being used to terrify plebs) are borne out by observation?
Yes.
Wrong. I'll spell it out for you: in the real world, leaders that make policy decisions on flawed foundations are unemployed. There's good reason for this; it is poor judgement.
blah blah socialism bad blah blah conspiracy blah blah stealing freedom blah blah...
denglish
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 09, 2015
That you pretend you don't see it

That you can't present proof in support of your allegation is worse.

Those that start out with no facts

Yes.

Fact, and ok:
https://cbdakota....web1.gif

You don't have to, it's already obvious.

It's in the IPCC report. Its very obvious.

Yes.

(you didn't)

blah blah socialism bad blah blah conspiracy blah blah stealing freedom blah blah...

You run out sooner than the average one. Well played.

Bob Weber
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 09, 2015
Quoting Maggnus:

"Those that start out with no facts but pretend otherwise are liars."

and your response to my first fact-based comment here:

"Then there is, of course, the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. Think about that instead."

I presented facts and analysis easily reproducible by anyone that should take no more than 15 minutes to verify with WDC-SILSO data.

You and several others are nothing but warmist abusers w/o any facts to substantially refute what I said. Using your own logic against you, you must be therefore be a liar since you were unable to counter my argument with any facts. My statement stands. Yours doesn't.

With v2 yearly SILSO SSN data:

The modern maximum in solar activity occurred from 1935.5 to 2004.5, a 70-year period, when v2 yearly SSNs averaged 108.5, as compared to a 65.8 per year average for the previous 70 years between 1865.5 and 1934.5, a 65% 70-year increase in sunspot activity.

Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 09, 2015
and your response to my first fact-based comment here:
Your comment was bereft of facts.


I presented facts and analysis easily reproducible by anyone that should take no more than 15 minutes to verify with WDC-SILSO data.
It HAS been verified. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

You and several others are nothing but warmist abusers w/o any facts to substantially refute what I said. Using your own logic against you, you must be therefore be a liar since you were unable to counter my argument with any facts. My statement stands. Yours doesn't.
blah blah blah.
With v2 yearly SILSO SSN data:

The modern maximum in solar activity occurred from 1935.5 to 2004.5, a 70-year period, when v2 yearly SSNs averaged 108.5, as compared to a 65.8 per year average for the previous 70 years between 1865.5 and 1934.5, a 65% 70-year increase in sunspot activity.

So? Read the article genius, you don't know what you're talking about.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 09, 2015
That you can't present proof in support of your allegation is worse.
Hahah laughable! Read that definition again dumbass.

Fact, and ok:
https://cbdakota....web1.gif
A different researcher you fool. Not a Spencer clone. Made up bullcrap.

It's in the IPCC report. Its very obvious.
. True. You should try reading it. Well, that and looking up the big words so you can understand what it says.

Yes.

What, you too stupid to google? Thousands of examples encompassing something like 97% of the research.

You run out sooner than the average one. Well played.
It's a conspiracy!!!
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (11) Aug 09, 2015
@denglish
Do you consider HadCRUT4 to be a reliable source of data?
denglish
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 09, 2015
Hahah laughable! Read that definition again dumbass.

You made an assertion and can't follow it. Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.

A different researcher you fool.

You are intellectually dishonest. The evidence is the same no matter who compiles it.

You should try reading it.

I did, and gave you some excerpts that show the IPCC do not consider their work complete. Hence, their conclusions are not reliable; as borne out by the observation.

What, you too stupid to google?

Your opportunity to present your own case has passed. Well played.

It's a conspiracy!!!

Let them eat insects. Know who said that?

Do you consider HadCRUT4 to be a reliable source of data?

Do you? If no, what do you use?

TechnoCreed
4.7 / 5 (13) Aug 09, 2015
@denglish
Do you consider HadCRUT4 to be a reliable source of data?

Do you? If no, what do you use?
HadCRUT4 is the standard of reference. Did you look at it lately? http://www.cru.ue...RUT4.png
denglish
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 09, 2015
@denglish
Do you consider HadCRUT4 to be a reliable source of data?

Do you? If no, what do you use?
HadCRUT4 is the standard of reference. Did you look at it lately? http://www.cru.ue...RUT4.png

What is your point?

What is the median value of the three?

From what I can tell, using hadCRUT4, the median falls exactly as advertised; on the low side of CMIP5 predictions, and no-where near enough Armageddon to justify ruinous economic policies and morally corrupt scientific practices.

A level-headed person may even say, that given the other inputs that are evidence of earthly cycles, that nothing out of the ordinary, naturally speaking, is happening. If one can't agree to that, then a level headed person may also say that the science is not well enough known to place the blame on any one thing, thus making the institution of destroying economies unwise at best.
Bob Weber
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 09, 2015
Mr/Ms Maggnus,

The numbers I gave are facts, they are basic averaging calculations of data taken straight out of the WDC-SILSO yearly data files, which you can download from their site anytime.

If you know how to import the data into a spreadsheet like Excel and select the year ranges I gave, you will see what the average is over each of the 70-year periods. It's that easy. Those are the facts. Are you disputing those facts? Those facts won't change no matter who accesses them.

Your method of abusing people isn't working for you. Snark and attitude doesn't cut it.

Maybe instead of repeating your mantras about who knows what they're talking about or not, perhaps you could get real, and explain what it is about the facts I presented that you have a problem with, as that is the only real possibility that you possibly have here at being persuasive.
leetennant
4.7 / 5 (14) Aug 09, 2015
I dunno ... too many of the phys.org posts seem to fall into the AGW believers' camp. That makes me question the objectivity of the whole forum. All it takes is one topic matter to taint the rest of the asserted objectivity. At least half of the scientists questioned in the latest survey think there are two sides to the story. But not phys.org.


Actual comment: Science articles on science website too often represent science. It's about time they devoted half their time to "stuff I just made up in my own head" and "things I read on blogs sponsored by the Koch brothers".

There aren't "two sides" to science. Can I wake up and get back to the real world now?
howhot2
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 09, 2015
@leetennant, I could not agree more. The author of that post is clearly a looser with no concept of science. Look at the
denglish
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 09, 2015
The real world is that the models (and the science guiding those models) being used to justify economic and moral chaos have been falsified. The subject of climate change is far and away too much of a mystery, and far too large, for humans to realistically believe that they understand them well enough to incriminate humanity, and to think that they can control it.

A firm belief in anthropocentrism may make a person resent this statement. Resentment is the first step in acceptance.
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (14) Aug 09, 2015
@Bob

Someone else has plotted the data with contray results.

https://en.wikipe...-co2.svg
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (16) Aug 09, 2015
@Bob

Point out the "70 year cycle" in this graph from SILSO.

http://www.sidc.b...yssnplot
howhot2
4.5 / 5 (16) Aug 09, 2015
That is Funny @Vietvet, I don't see any that looks like a 70 year cycle in your data. How can that be? I wonder if @Bob is just full of it?
howhot2
4.2 / 5 (20) Aug 09, 2015
The real world is that the models (and the science guiding those models) being used to justify economic and moral chaos have been falsified. The subject of climate change is far and away too much of a mystery, and far too large, for humans to realistically believe that they understand them well enough to incriminate humanity, and to think that they can control it.

A firm belief in anthropocentrism may make a person resent this statement. Resentment is the first step in acceptance.

It sounds like you have some kind of weird conspiracy theory in you mind. Is that how you deniers explain things? With weird conspiracy theories? Deniers probably do.
leetennant
4.3 / 5 (18) Aug 09, 2015
They have to.

We have a mechanism. We have models that map that mechanism to a system. Observational data supports the predictions of those models. The only explanation for a denier is that there's been massive global fraud. Otherwise, climate change is real and man made and they've already decided that's not true.

Oddly enough, science doesn't care if it contradicts their prejudices or ideologies.

Climate change - a conspiracy so insidious even the Arctic is in on it.
docile
Aug 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Aug 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Aug 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bob Weber
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 09, 2015
vietvet and howhot2, there is no special graphic necessary to illustrate the difference in the two 70 year periods. Its a calculation based on continuous numbers starting in 1865, going through to 2004, without leaving any years out in that time. There is a 65% difference between the periods. That is the result of the calculation. It's not that hard!

Notice I didn't say there was a specific 70-year cycle that you can see repeat over and over again. That's not what I meant.

We can also divide 27 cycles into three 9 cycle sections, and find that during the modern period, using whole cycles, that from 1914 to 2009, SSN activity was 22.4% higher than the 1810-1913 period, and 18.4% higher than the 1712-1809 period.

So the modern period was more active no matter how you slice it. The modern 'maximum' maximizes the annual sunspot number average in that 70-year period. Then I used an equal time period of 70 years going back continuously from 1935 to 1865 for comparison.
Bob Weber
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 10, 2015
Let me use an analogy to illustrate.

If you worked for 70 hours for cash money at a rate of $108.50 per hour, versus the previous 70 hour workweek at $65.70 an hour, you'd have made 65% more money in the same amount of time at the higher rate. That's easily understood.

Sunspot activity correlates very well with several solar energetic processes, so it is a great proxy. The amount of extra solar energy during the 70-year higher sunspot activity time is definitely higher, but not 65% higher. There is so much more to this whole subject of solar warming, but the inability to provide links or graphics here is limiting. Solar energy accumulates in the ocean and releases over time.

It's ironic that low solar conditions during the Maunder and Dalton minimums are recognized as causing colder temperatures, but there is a mental block preventing many from seeing the opposite effect, ie higher solar activity causing higher temperatures.

History can teach the willing great lessons.
leetennant
4.7 / 5 (15) Aug 10, 2015
@bob weber "It's ironic that low solar conditions during the Maunder and Dalton minimums are recognized as causing colder temperatures, but there is a mental block preventing many from seeing the opposite effect, ie higher solar activity causing higher temperatures."

The above statement is not true. The last Maunder Minimum, for example, only caused low temperatures REGIONALLY due to other conditions such as volcano eruptions. The next should shave a whopping 0.1 degree off the 2 degree increase we'll have by about 2030.

So since your premise is incorrect, your conclusion is as well. It's clear current temperature increases are consistent with increases in GHG emissions not solar trend. Which, frankly, is what the article is actually about.
docile
Aug 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
leetennant
4.7 / 5 (15) Aug 10, 2015
Well, if our best-representation of a system we don't entirely understand is not 100% accurate but is, in fact, broadly correct then clearly the science is wrong #headdesk
Vietvet
4.8 / 5 (18) Aug 10, 2015
"Despite these
uncertainties in solar radiative forcing, they are nevertheless
much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to
anthropogenic changes, and the predicted SC‐related surface
temperature change is small relative to anthropogenic
changes."

http://solar-cent...0282.pdf

@Bob

Who am I going to listen to, you or a 53 page peer reviewed paper published by the American Geophysical Union?
JustAnotherGuy
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 10, 2015
docile
the common pluralistic ignorance is well enough

Nope. Not in the way you explain it. If you read through in the link you gave ...
https://en.wikipe...gnorance
... you shall notice this behavior is related to 'fears' that leads to hide thoughts/feelings to others. Instead, you explain this as stupidity, inability or some negligent act. But you alter it further, by adding the 'interest' factor which switch it to conspiracy as a result.
Note I'm not arguing in favor of one side or another. Just pointing out that people may easily interpret your comments as attribution bias.
https://en.wikipe...ion_bias
Vietvet
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 10, 2015
After the cranks, now the mafia is invading phys.org.
Conclusion: phys.org needs moderation.


I've contacted admin, lets see how long it takes for the crook to disappear.
EnricM
not rated yet Aug 10, 2015


History can teach the willing great lessons.


Indeed: http://www.gso.ur...upt.html
;)
john_mathon
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2015
This is unfortunately a rather weak study. The real problem of sunspots is the lack of causal and physical model for how sunspots could impact earth climate. Clearly the sheer number of sunspots is not causally related to earths temperature. As has been pointed out the sunspots are indicative of solar activity of a certain type. How correlated the sunspots are with that type of solar activity and other effects we might see on the earth may enable us to make sense of the two types of counts and what they mean. The variation in solar impact on the earth cannot explain the magnitude of climate change especially when counting CO2 as well since CO2 hardly varied during the maunder minimum. The suns effect clearly is magnified by something as seen during the LIA, MWP and in all ice ages. It has been firmly established that less than 10% of ice age change can be explained by solar and maybe another 10% by CO2. 80% is missing. This article contributes 0% to understanding anything.
zz5555
4.7 / 5 (14) Aug 10, 2015
It has been firmly established that less than 10% of ice age change can be explained by solar and maybe another 10% by CO2. 80% is missing.

Do you have any links to any references that can confirm this 20% figure? In the past, you've said that you prefer making things up and hand waving to using known data and physics, so it would be good to check. Does your 20% figure include the feedback of changes to albedo and ocean circulation? I would really be interested in any links to actual papers confirming this as I've never heard this 20% figure and it seems to disagree with other things I've read. Thanks!
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2015
This article contributes 0% to understanding anything.

That's because it's intent was to contribute 100% to the AGW lie and with their targeted audience of Chicken Littles, who lack the ability to understand anything, it's...well...science. In a single swoop they have overturned well established, peer-reviewed, studies just to propagate their AGW dogma.
Bob Weber
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2015
John Mathon - Sunspots themselves are not the phenomenon that drives higher temps, its the network of higher flux activity surrounding the active regions (sunspots). F10.7cm solar flux is measured from those bright areas surrounding sunspots, and it correlates well with both SSN and TSI. When sunspots appear and get larger, both F10.7cm flux and TSI go up, and temps follow. Conversely, for example during solar minimums, with little to sunspot activity, both F10.7cm flux and TSI bottom out to background levels, and the energy we receive drops, and temps drop. This can be seen in SST data.

Leetennant - during the Dalton minimum, temps dropped precipitously as solar activity tanked - before the volcanic eruptions took place. Berkeley Earth (BEST) yearly data show that very well.
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2015
It sounds like you have some kind of weird conspiracy theory in you mind. Is that how you deniers explain things? With weird conspiracy theories? Deniers probably do.

No, a thorough review of the facts, primarily the predictions of climate change being falsified, is good enough. Coupled with all the other facts, especially the truth about CO2 and the non-understanding of other factors (as admitted in IPCC reports), makes it quite easy to have a belief that lies outside of conspiracy theory.

There is plenty of reason to believe that the climate is not well enough understood to incriminate humanity, impose ruinous economic policies, and engage in morally corrupt group-think.

The chagrin of the AGW side, the reliance of insult and obfuscation instead of a discussion with facts, strengthens the belief that skepticism is a better path.
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2015
Climate change - a conspiracy so insidious even the Arctic is in on it.


Yes! Look how it goes up and down depending on the season!

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

Here's more info:
https://nsidc.org...nce.html

Show a pleb the summer trend per se, and suddenly they think the world is ending. To be fair, and concerned person would. Here is the big picture. Notice the cyclic changes. It is wholly normal.

Drop the anthropocentrism. It did wonders for astronomy, and will do wonders for climatology too.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 10, 2015
Interesting broadcast on climate change on fox news over the weekend.
http://www.breitb...n-a-day/
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2015
OK so policies are based on science, models and predictions. That is how it should be.

Yes! Should policies be based on falsified science?

By the way, what "economic and moral chaos" do you have in mind?

Economic: Limiting the amount of industrial production. the very same industry that will ultimately lead us to cleaner energy alternatives.
Moral: Climategate. Climategate 2.0

It is not about incrimination, where did you get that idea, but about limiting risk.

Incrimination is exactly what has happened. Current energy sources are vilified as producers of the world's demise.

Also, waiting until the science is 100% certified is procrastination and hindsight 20/20 vision. We must act long before to limit the risk.

What if the prevailing science has been falsified?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (11) Aug 11, 2015
Interesting broadcast on climate change on fox news over the weekend.
http://www.breitb...n-a-day/
So let me get this straight... I post a link to an anti-AGW article, without personal comment for or against, and you AGW guys down rate it?

That's pretty smelly.

I have no opinion on the subject either way but I do appreciate the value of knowing arguments from both sides of a topic, even if only to 'know thine enemy'.

I do not appreciate suppressing info.

No wonder you are so willing to encourage mewling, fawning yes-men like gkam. Even fabricated facts and rah rah posts are good if they support your cause.
denglish
1.6 / 5 (9) Aug 11, 2015
So let me get this straight... I post a link to an anti-AGW article, without personal comment for or against, and you AGW guys down rate it?

Populism. You aren't popular, so you must be wrong! Actually, i see it as a very revealing sign. If their only legitimate response is a down-vote, then they are devoid of intellect capable of dialogue.

Speaking of more economic chaos, California SB 350 is a doozy!

SB 350:
"To meet the mandate, the state air resources board will be able to ration gas, place mobility restrictions on state residents, place surcharges on family mini-vans, trucks and SUVs, and even monitor individuals' fuel consumption records."
gkam
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 11, 2015
Where did you get that verbiage? When I look up SB 350, I see a bill on lane-splitting by motorcycles.
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2015
http://www.dailyr...ong-way/

http://www.presst...t-nguyen

SB 32 is getting a new grill too:

http://www.legtra...0160SB32

Oh yeah, and all based on falsified science. One wonders who will be left in CA after the producers are driven out and the workers can't get to their jobs.
gkam
3.3 / 5 (12) Aug 11, 2015
denglish, show me the verbiage from a government website, not a letter to the editor.

Did you actually look up the bill and read it?
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 11, 2015
Where did you get that verbiage? When I look up SB 350, I see a bill on lane-splitting by motorcycles.


That's because you read things that say one thing and think they say something else. Like your proofs you claim we lie about when we tell exactly what they say.

@ Everybody, this is the bill that glam-Skippy says is about motorcycle lane splitting.

http://leginfo.le...160SB350

He either reads really bad. Or lies really bad. Or does both really bad.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 11, 2015
Did you actually look up the bill and read it?


Well I don't agree with his take on him either. But he at least got that it was a bill on energy stuffs. When you read him all you got was some thing about motorcycles lane splitting.
gkam
3 / 5 (10) Aug 11, 2015
google California SB 350 and see what you get.

Meanwhile, look up section three of the leginfo site. All of it is subject to proof of efficacy and economy.
denglish
2 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2015
Did you actually look up the bill and read it?


Yes:
"The state board shall adopt and implement motor vehicle emission standards, in-use performance standards, and motor vehicle fuel specifications for the control of air contaminants and sources of air pollution which the state board has found to be necessary, cost effective, and technologically feasible, to carry out the purposes of this division and in furtherance of achieving a reduction in petroleum use in motor vehicles by 50 percent by January 1, 2030, unless preempted by federal law."

Get it? Do I have to parse it out?

You are welcome to come up with your own interpretation of the effects this will have. Be sure to factor in the illegals invasion and CARB politics/incompetence.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 11, 2015
google California SB 350 and see what you get.

Meanwhile, look up section three of the leginfo site. All of it is subject to proof of efficacy and economy.


How do you think I got that other link? I Google-Skippyed exactly that "California SB 350". Google-Skippy put him at the top of list.

Here I will do him again with "California SB 350" again.

http://leginfo.le...160SB350

Hooyeei, guess what? Google-Skippy put him right up on the top again. Google-Skippy doesn't say any thing about splitting lanes with the motorcycles.

Don't wish physorg would let you take your "quick on the draw" silly postum about the nothing but motorcycles splitting lanes? There is a reason they make them stay after 4 or 3 minutes, it's so idiots who think they are smarter than they are can not come back and take down the evidence of how stupid they really are while they are pretending to be smart.
gkam
3 / 5 (10) Aug 11, 2015
Lane-splitting was the previous SB 350.

Did you look into Section Three? It mandates proof of efficacy and efficiency and practicality. Ask your wife what that means.
denglish
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2015
Did you look into Section Three? It mandates proof of efficacy and efficiency and practicality.

Yep, I trust CARB to make the right decisions. /sarcasm

Anyway, this has nothing to do with sunspots, and I'm not about to argue CA legislation with a liberal.
jljenkins
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2015
So, how's that new asshole feeling vietvet? ROFLMAO
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 12, 2015
Vietvet
@jim-xanara

I've contacted the site administrators (mere reporting seldom works) about your shameful comments. Cranks are tolerated here but scum like you have no place at PO.


Oh, goody for goody two-shoes. You're a liar. You not only tolerate cranks you indulge them. That's all PO is. A place where cranks argue with liberals. Why discriminate against me?


There is a difference between refuting pseudoscience and science deniers and tolerating disgusting comments about Jews and Asians..

Criticizing Israeli policy isn't a problem (though of topic) but your deleted comments crossed the line. As does your avatar. https://sciencex...._xanara/
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2015
So, how's that new asshole feeling vietvet? ROFLMAO


@jeff

So you endorse ethnic hatred?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2015
So much for the denier claim that solar activity is responsible for global warming.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2015
The article states quite clearly that solar activity is correlated to temperature. The Mauder minimum and the little ice age.
These were regional phenomena. Maybe you missed the actual science on them. Maybe you should go read it. Just sayin'.

Now we have solar activity slipping again. It may be that the only thing holding temps steady is the current el Nino.
Actually there hasn't been an El Nino for a while now. It looks like it's just about to ramp up and SSTs are about to start increasing again. You should read the actual science on that, too, including science published on this site.

Duuhhh ummm.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2015
Didn't like that? Here's a simple question. How much output does the sun have?
You forgot to figure out how much of that output the Earth intercepts. This is duh.

Then compare that with the output mankind has.
It's not about comparing man's output with the incident solar radiation. It's about the Earth's heat budget. This also is duh.

If you think the larger number means less then you need to consider refreshing your application of math.
But it doesn't have anything to do with human heat dissipation vs. solar influx. It has to do with how much of the solar influx gets trapped, increasing the heat budget. And this again is duh.

Fact is man can't even hold a candle to the sun.
Which is precisely the point: a small fraction of the Sun's energy retained is far more than anything man can produce, but still only a small fraction-- trapped by human-released CO₂. It's not about how much heat humans produce, it's about how much CO₂ they produce. Duh.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2015
@formuid

By observing this decades long 'debate', I now am in such a position that the more 'new' data or 'corrected' old data pour in, the less respect I have to those 'climate scientists'.
Because more data just proves... duhhh umm, what?

The fact you reject new data proves how dumb you are, not that someone is faking it.
leetennant
5 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2015
Improving confidence intervals are the first sign of the NWO @Da Schneib

Didn't you know?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.