Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 25 Apr '14 13:50
    Velasco Herrera described as erroneous the predictions of the IPCC. The models and forecasts of the IPCC “is incorrect because only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity,” said the specialist also in image processing and signs and prevention of natural disasters.

    http://climatechaos2020.blogspot.com/2008/10/60-years-cooling-victor-manuel-velasco.html

    Is the IPCC omitting an important factor by ignoring solar activity?

    Here in North America it is colder than normal and we had the coldest winter I can remember. Some call it the polar vortex. Is this a first sign of global cooling as Velasco Herrera and others predicted or is this simply temporary like past warm spells?
  2. 25 Apr '14 17:44
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html#.U1qei1cv2Xk

    ".... Sun's activity rules out link to global warming

    10:44 11 July 2007 by Catherine Brahic
    For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide

    Direct satellite measurements of solar activity show it has been declining since the mid-1980s and cannot account for recent rises in global temperatures, according to new research.

    The findings debunk an explanation for climate change that is often cited by people who are not convinced that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are causing the Earth's climate to warm.

    "If you change the output of the Sun you will undoubtedly change the climate it's just a matter of how much," says Mike Lockwood, of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, part of the Science and Technology Facilities Council in the UK.

    Sceptics commonly point to climate research's reliance on computer models as a reason for doubting the link between global warming and human greenhouse gas emissions.

    "We decided to do a simple and direct analysis of the potential role of the Sun in recent climate change without using any model output," says Lockwood.

    Lockwood and colleague Claus Fröhlich, at the World Radiation Center in Switzerland, used direct measurements only for their study. As Lockwood puts it: "This is just what the spacecraft have seen."
    U-turn

    Looking at data from the past 40 years, the two researchers noticed that solar activity did what Lockwood describes as a "U-turn in every possible way" in the mid-1980s.

    "The upshot is that somewhere between 1985 and 1987 all the solar factors that could have affected climate have been going in the wrong direction. If they were really a big factor we would have cooling by now," Lockwood told New Scientist. He adds that he wishes he knew why the Sun's activity had changed in this way.

    The number of sunspots peaked twice during the 20th century, once in 1960 and then again in 1985 (see graphs, right), but have been dropping since.

    Sunspots are used as indicators of solar activity, and people have tried to link the growing number of sunspots during the 20th century with rising global temperatures (see Global warming: Will the Sun come to our rescue?).

    Others have suggested that cosmic rays help generate clouds, which would cool the atmosphere. But Lockwood and Fröhlich's results show that cosmic rays reached a minimum around 1985 and have risen since.

    Correspondingly, the magnetic field that shields Earth from cosmic rays also reached a maximum at about the same time, in 1987.
    Negligible role

    Measurements of the Sun's brightness - which indicates of the amount of energy coming from the sun - only began in 1977. Yet here too the data suggests solar activity is playing a negligible role in current global warming: irradiance rose between 1977 and 1985, but has been dropping since.

    Lookwood says the only way of reconciling the data with the idea that solar activity is causing global warming is to propose that there is a time lag between the Sun's activity changing and those changes affecting the Earth's climate. But even with a lag, climatologists would have noticed a slow-down in the rate at which temperatures are rising around the globe, says Lockwood.

    "We have had 20 years of the cosmic rays and the irradiance going in the wrong direction, and yet we've not yet seen any effect on temperatures," says Lockwood. "It would have to be an extremely long lag - at least 50 years - which would invalidate a lot of the previous sun-climate proposals."

    Lockwood and Fröhlich's results suggest that even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has overestimated the Sun's influence on the Earth's climate. In February, the IPCC published a report stating that the Sun had roughly 10% of the warming effect of human activities.
    ..."
  3. 25 Apr '14 17:49 / 2 edits
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

    http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/cosmic-rays-again-ruled-out-cause-global-warming-f8C11565156

    "...Cosmic rays again ruled out as cause of global warming

    By now, it's pretty clear that carbon dioxide, released by burning fossil fuels, is responsible for most of the warming seen throughout the world in recent decades.

    As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in September, it is "extremely likely" that human activities have caused most of the warming of the planet's surface since the 1950s.

    But theories to the contrary linger. One of the more persistent is that global warming is caused by cosmic rays and changes in levels of solar radiation. As the theory goes, cosmic rays — which are thought to emanate from supernovas, explosions of distant stars — can increase the number of clouds in Earth's atmosphere by filling the atmosphere with charged particles, upon which water vapor condenses. The clouds, in turn, reflect some sun and cool the globe.

    However, during times of increased solar radiation, fewer cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, as they are deflected by charged particles spit out from the sun. When this happens, the globe warms, as the thinking goes, both because there is more solar radiation to heat up the atmosphere and because there are fewer cosmic rays and thus fewer clouds to reflect incoming light.

    A new study published Thursday in the journal Environmental Research Letters looked for evidence to support that theory. It found almost none.

    "We couldn't find anything to corroborate this theory," said Terry Sloan, a retired particle physicist at Lancaster University in England who now studies the climate. [The Reality of Climate Change: 10 Myths Busted]

    In the study, Sloan and his co-author, Arnold Wolfendale, looked for evidence that cloud cover can expand with an increase in charged particles, which can be caused by cosmic rays as well as nuclear bombs, Sloan told LiveScience. After looking to see if there were more clouds observed after events that created tons of charge particles, such as atmospheric nuclear tests and the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the scientists didn't find any increase in cloud cover, Sloan said.

    The scientists also looked at historical records of global temperature and incoming levels of solar radiation. In several instances, they found a weak link between global surface temperatures and incoming cosmic rays, although this warming occurred one to two years prior to the increase in cosmic rays, Sloan said.

    All in all, the scientists concluded that variations in solar radiation and cosmic rays couldn't have caused more than 10 percent of the warming observed in the 20th century. Thus the phenomenon is not a "significant underestimated contributor to the global warming," as some have claimed, the scientists wrote in the study.

    Another study published in the same journal in September found scant evidence that cosmic rays play any role in global warming. "I found little evidence of the cosmic rays having a discernible effect on a range of common meteorological elements: temperature, the barometric pressure or precipitation," study author Rasmus Benestad of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute told Physics World.

    A 2010 report by the National Academy of Sciences likewise found that "a plausible physical mechanism (for cosmic rays effecting global warming) has not been demonstrated" and that "cosmic rays are not regarded as an important climate forcing."

    "The conclusions come as no surprise," said Raymond Bradley, a researcher at the University of Massachusetts who wasn't involved in the study. "Numerous studies have concluded that solar forcing cannot explain recent warming."

    ..."



    this solar activity warming theory has been repeatedly debunked by science again and again but the global warming deniers just keep bringing it back anyway. They must be desperate to do that.


    Sorry for totally trashing what little credibility your thread may have had -but it badly needed trashing.
  4. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    25 Apr '14 18:03
    Originally posted by humy
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

    http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/cosmic-rays-again-ruled-out-cause-global-warming-f8C11565156

    "...Cosmic rays [b]again
    ruled out as cause of global warming

    By now, it's pretty clear that carbon dioxide, released by burning fossil fuels, is responsible for most of the wa ...[text shortened]... totally trashing what little credibility your thread may have had -but it badly needed trashing.[/b]
    Probably a large number of them are also creationists. Same mind set.
  5. 25 Apr '14 18:10
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Probably a large number of them are also creationists. Same mind set.
    yes, I think you are right.
  6. 25 Apr '14 21:48
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Velasco Herrera described as erroneous the predictions of the IPCC. The models and forecasts of the IPCC “is incorrect because only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity,” said the specialist also in image processing and signs and prevention of natural disasters.

    http://cl ...[text shortened]... oling as Velasco Herrera and others predicted or is this simply temporary like past warm spells?
    You can't tell the difference between weather and climate.

    You also seem to think that the world consists only of the USA.

    This guy claims glaciers are growing all over the world...

    They are shrinking, massively. This isn't something you can fudge, you can
    look at photos and literally see them retreat, kilometres in some cases.
    The guys a paid goon of the heartland inst.
  7. 26 Apr '14 12:26
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    You can't tell the difference between weather and climate.

    You also seem to think that the world consists only of the USA.

    This guy claims glaciers are growing all over the world...

    They are shrinking, massively. This isn't something you can fudge, you can
    look at photos and literally see them retreat, kilometres in some cases.
    The guys a paid goon of the heartland inst.
    This is about solar effect on climate change. Solar is a factor. The maunder minimum is an example. It may be a short term example, but no records of sun activity exist from the ice age or warming periods of the past.

    Glaciers are growing in the southern hemisphere. Antarctica is different than the arctic. I have no idea what the guy said though. You didn't provide a link or any quote that I noticed.
  8. 26 Apr '14 12:45
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Probably a large number of them are also creationists. Same mind set.
    Not all skeptics are like you think. Here is an excerpt from the link below:

    "Dyson may be an Obama-loving, Bush-loathing liberal who has spent his life opposing American wars and fighting for the protection of natural resources, but he brooks no ideology and has a withering aversion to scientific consensus. The Nobel physics laureate Steven Weinberg admires Dyson’s physics — he says he thinks the Nobel committee fleeced him by not awarding his work on quantum electrodynamics with the prize — but Weinberg parts ways with his sensibility: “I have the sense that when consensus is forming like ice hardening on a lake, Dyson will do his best to chip at the ice.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?sq=Freeman&_r=1&

    Even though Freeman Dyson hates Bush and appears to be a leftist, he adheres to the science rather than political party opinion.
    Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winner in physics has said that "climate change orthodoxy has become a "new religion" for scientists, and that the data isn't nearly as compelling as it should be to get this kind of conformity."

    It could be that you are just too much of a conformist. Consensus is not a good way to judge science. Facts are the basis of science.
  9. 26 Apr '14 15:11
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Not all skeptics are like you think. Here is an excerpt from the link below:

    "Dyson may be an Obama-loving, Bush-loathing liberal who has spent his life opposing American wars and fighting for the protection of natural resources, but he brooks no ideology and has a withering aversion to scientific consensus. The Nobel physics laureate Steven Weinberg ...[text shortened]... h of a conformist. Consensus is not a good way to judge science. Facts are the basis of science.
    Facts are indeed the basis of science.

    And the reason that 97% of scientists and science papers on the topic agree
    that the world is warming, and that we are the cause via greenhouse gas
    emissions is that the facts support this.

    There are many many strands of evidence, but one that is frequently overlooked
    and is to me one of the most compelling is this.

    We have satellites in orbit that can and do measure the amount of energy that
    the Earth is receiving from the Sun, and the amount of energy the Earth is radiating
    back into space. For the Earth's climate to be stable, for temperatures to be stable
    the amount of energy the Earth radiates should equal the amount it absorbs.
    If the amount it receives is less than that it radiates then it is loosing energy
    and cooling. If the amount it receives is greater than that it radiates then it is
    gaining energy and warming.

    And the measurements we get indicate that on average the Earth is absorbing a
    few watts per square meter extra energy over what it is radiating back out.

    Which totals up to something in the region of 12 Hiroshima bombs worth of energy gain
    per second over the entire planet. The vast majority of which goes into warming the oceans.


    This is consistent with our measurements of energy gain by measuring the temperature of
    the oceans and atmosphere. As well as the energy required to melt the glaciers and
    ice-sheets that are melting the world over. [And Antarctica is net loosing ice, not gaining it]


    And what is more the satellites tell us WHAT is making the world warm up.
    By measuring the spectrum of Earth's radiation at the surface and from space we can see
    which molecules in the atmosphere are absorbing the energy and retaining the heat.

    This coupled with the fact that observations match up with theoretical predictions and that
    climate models and predictions that produce global warming are vastly more accurate than
    the predictions and models of deniers, means that the consensus is overwhelmingly likely
    to be right.

    The world is warming, We are responsible, And the results of warming will be bad from both
    an economic and humanitarian as well as environmental standpoint.
  10. 26 Apr '14 17:17 / 8 edits
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    This is about solar effect on climate change. Solar is a factor. The maunder minimum is an example. It may be a short term example, but no records of sun activity exist from the ice age or warming periods of the past.

    Glaciers are growing in the southern hemisphere. Antarctica is different than the arctic. I have no idea what the guy said though. You didn't provide a link or any quote that I noticed.
    This is about solar effect on climate change. Solar is a factor.

    But, just like my two big posts in this thread have proved beyond any doubt, not a factor that can explain most of the recent warming. ( http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html#.U1qei1cv2Xk

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

    http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/cosmic-rays-again-ruled-out-cause-global-warming-f8C11565156
    )
    in fact, the evidence shows this "solar effect" must be tiny assuming it exists in detectable amounts at all.
    Thus your claim has already been totally debunked. You have also completely failed to say/show any counterargue to any of this massive and comprehensive debunk.

    You are idiotically arguing against physicists here about physics when you obviously are not a physicists yourself and don't understand the relevant basic physics like I and other here and thus you obviously simply don't know what you are talking about. I learned a good deal of physics and chemistry at university. Basic physics tells us that CO2 in the atmosphere should cause warming regardless of whether that CO2 is man made or not. What are YOUR personal physics credentials? please give this impressive list so we can take you seriously...
  11. 26 Apr '14 20:19
    Originally posted by humy
    This is about solar effect on climate change. Solar is a factor.

    But, just like my two big posts in this thread have proved beyond any doubt, not a factor that can explain most of the recent warming. ( http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html#.U1qei1cv2Xk

    https://www.skepticalscie ...[text shortened]... personal physics credentials? please give this impressive list so we can take you seriously...
    So you are saying the maunder minimum happened during the little ice age and it is merely a coincidence and not the cause? Is that what you are saying?

    What caused the little ice age if not the sun?
  12. 26 Apr '14 23:00
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    So you are saying the maunder minimum happened during the little ice age and it is merely a coincidence and not the cause? Is that what you are saying?

    What caused the little ice age if not the sun?
    The so called 'little ice age' was a local European phenomenon and not a world wide one.

    The best current hypothesis was that during the maunder minimum the solar wind
    [and UV output I think] was weaker and this had an effect on the strength of the
    northern latitude Jet Stream.

    When the Jet stream gets weaker it starts to meander and big bows of cold come
    down from the Arctic behind these meanders... And correspondingly big bows of warmth
    head north.

    A similar effect caused the cold winter in North America this year, while giving Europe
    and the UK in particular an extremely mild [albeit very wet and windy] winter.

    There was no significant overall world wide climate effect, only local changes.

    During the Maunder minimum their was a large number of exceptionally cold winters
    due to the above phenomena... However not every winter was cold, and the cold
    snaps from these meanders in the jet stream didn't last all winter. There would
    typically be a number of cold snaps over a winter, again much like the winter the US
    just experienced.


    Nobody is saying that the Sun can't influence the climate. However the Sun is currently
    slightly lowering its output [although nothing really significant] whereas what we see
    is temperatures on Earth rising.

    Their are all kinds of things that can effect the Earth's climate and have done in the past.

    That says nothing at all about what is CURRENTLY altering the climate, which is overwhelmingly
    us.
  13. 27 Apr '14 00:34
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    The so called 'little ice age' was a local European phenomenon and not a world wide one.

    The best current hypothesis was that during the maunder minimum the solar wind
    [and UV output I think] was weaker and this had an effect on the strength of the
    northern latitude Jet Stream.

    When the Jet stream gets weaker it starts to meander and big bows o ...[text shortened]... says nothing at all about what is CURRENTLY altering the climate, which is overwhelmingly
    us.
    "The best current hypothesis was that during the maunder minimum the solar wind [and UV output I think] was weaker and this had an effect on the strength of the northern latitude Jet Stream."

    So you admit that solar changes triggered the mini ice age? That is big.

    If changes in the sun caused the mini ice age it means that the IPCC should not omit solar activity in their tests. I also think further solar studies should be done before concluding anything for sure.
  14. 27 Apr '14 01:16
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    "The best current hypothesis was that during the maunder minimum the solar wind [and UV output I think] was weaker and this had an effect on the strength of the northern latitude Jet Stream."

    So you admit that solar changes triggered the mini ice age? That is big.

    If changes in the sun caused the mini ice age it means that the IPCC should not omit ...[text shortened]... ir tests. I also think further solar studies should be done before concluding anything for sure.
    Oh good grief.

    First the IPCC doesn't 'test' anything. The actual IPCC as a very small group of
    people who coordinate the gathering together of the work of thousands of scientists
    [and others] from around the world to produce a report on our current knowledge
    about climate change and it's effects and how and what action can and should be
    taken to avoid the worst of those effects.

    Climate research is done by thousands of scientists working for hundreds of institutions
    around the world. Institutions like NASA, The Met Office, ESA, many universities, ect ect.

    Secondly, Solar activity is ABSOLUTELY included in the analysis and models of the climate.
    You couldn't possibly create a climate model that didn't include the Suns output.
    The Sun IS the energy source for the climate system. No model of the climate ever made
    has omitted the Sun.

    And every charge denialists have made has been tested and refuted. From that standpoint
    they have made the science better, in their relentless attempts to find any possible cause
    other than climate change, and to sow doubt. They have proposed alternatives which have
    had to have been tested and checked out, and they have uncovered weaknesses in research
    that have had to be checked out and corrected.

    Here is an article describing the debunking of a recent attempt by denialists to come up with
    some natural explanation of climate change

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/apr/24/global-warming-human-caused-not-stadium-wave

    And again, the 'Mini Ice Age' is very misleading, because the effects were entirely regional and
    not global. Unlike a real Ice Age where the entire planet cools, this was simply a period where
    Europe experienced a protracted period with a large number of very cold winters.

    The reason it featured so prominently in our climate history records is that Europe was one of
    the few places at the time where anyone was keeping decent temperature records.

    In more recent times having gained access to the records kept from places like China and Japan
    as well as data from a wide range of temperature proxies from around the globe we have realised
    that the 'Mini Ice Age' was an event that largely effected Europe and not the entire planet as was
    previously thought.
  15. 27 Apr '14 07:00
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    "The best current hypothesis was that during the maunder minimum the solar wind [and UV output I think] was weaker and this had an effect on the strength of the northern latitude Jet Stream."

    So you admit that solar changes triggered the mini ice age? That is big.

    If changes in the sun caused the mini ice age it means that the IPCC should not omit ...[text shortened]... ir tests. I also think further solar studies should be done before concluding anything for sure.
    So you admit that solar changes triggered the mini ice age? That is big.

    he just said “The so called 'little ice age' was a local European phenomenon and not a world wide one. “
    You really like to make stew men by cherry picking some quotes out of context while conveniently ignoring those you don't like, don't you. I have noticed that you just keep doing that with nearly every post.