Solar effect on climate change

Originally posted by humy

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.

You guys can insert "so called" all you want. The fact is that solar factors caused the mini ice age. You can try to downplay the mini ice age as insignificant, but it is not.
If the temps went in the other direction you would be pouncing on it as evidence of out of control global warming and using it as your evidence that action must be taken. Of course you wont specify what action, but that is just because you have no effective solution so you avoid being specific.
renewables either need help or they don't. Which is it?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You guys can insert "so called" all you want. The fact is that solar factors caused the mini ice age. You can try to downplay the mini ice age as insignificant, but it is not.
If the temps went in the other direction you would be pouncing on it as evidence of out of control global warming and using it as your evidence that action must be taken. Of cour ...[text shortened]... e solution so you avoid being specific.
renewables either need help or they don't. Which is it?

If the temps went in the other direction you would be pouncing on it as evidence of out of control global warming and using it as your evidence that action must be taken.

You mean, if average global temperatures continually and persistently went down, we would say that this is evidence of global warming? Obviously, that is false, for we would not, because that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Of course you wont specify what action, but that is just because you have no effective solution so you avoid being specific.

I and we have already specified the action and the solution; replace fossil fuels with renewables and possibly with some nuclear power ( which I have no objection to in principle ) plus possibly just some total carbon sequestration from burning some fossil fuels in the cases ( which I assume would be probably relatively rare ) where that can be made cost-effective. But going renewable is still by far the main solution we propose. How exactly is that NOT specifying the proposed action/solution? Please explain...

renewables either need help or they don't. Which is it?

Your question is highly ambiguous; what kind of “help” are you referring to here and exactly what for? The answer just depends on that.
I personally don't particularly support tax breaks for renewable energy companies nor think they are needed, if that is what you mean? As for subsidies for renewables, it depends where and when they would encourage renewables to take over fossil fuels significantly faster. Where and when subsidies for renewables don't speed up that takeover, I personally would not support such subsidies. Even where they do, I would support such subsidies for renewables only as a temporary policy until they take over and then I would say, as soon as they have done there job, they should be immediately stopped. As for any “need” for such subsidies that depends on what you mean by “need” in this context. Do you mean, for example, they need it to economically compete with fossil fuels? If so, then, in the short run, that depends on where and when and which renewable and how you compare, but, in the very long run, the answer is a definite NO for renewables will economically beat fossil fuel power in the very long run hands down because, especially with solar, it is getting cheaper and more efficient all the time. If that is not what you mean by “need” here, then please say exactly what you do mean. Please be specific and clear with your questions -remember, I am not a mind reader.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You guys can insert "so called" all you want. The fact is that solar factors caused the mini ice age. You can try to downplay the mini ice age as insignificant, but it is not.
If the temps went in the other direction you would be pouncing on it as evidence of out of control global warming and using it as your evidence that action must be taken. Of cour ...[text shortened]... e solution so you avoid being specific.
renewables either need help or they don't. Which is it?

In the past the climate has varied enormously and for entirely natural reasons.

Because of course there were no humans around with their technology to provide
unnatural causes.

This fact however says nothing about what is causing climate change now.

The Sun is currently looking like it might be heading into another grand minimum,
the same conditions that caused the local effect called the Mini Ice Age from
the maunder minimum.

So the current fluctuations of the Sun will be/are having a cooling effect if they
are having any significant effect on the climate.


The world however is warming up.

This on it's own rules out the Sun as the major driver of current climate change.

Originally posted by humy

If the temps went in the other direction you would be pouncing on it as evidence of out of control global warming and using it as your evidence that action must be taken.

You mean, if average global temperatures continually and persistently went down, we would say that this is evidence of global warming? Obviously, that is false, for we w ...[text shortened]... you do mean. Please be specific and clear with your questions -remember, I am not a mind reader.

"You mean, if average global temperatures continually and persistently went down, we would say that this is evidence of global warming? Obviously, that is false, for we would not, because that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever."

That is not what I said, although some people probably would do that. Heck, there was a movie made on that very premise.

According to you solar is doing fine, so I am simply asking you if it will do well enough that there is no reason to tax carbon. You don't think there is a conspiracy to suppress renewables, right?

Originally posted by googlefudge
In the past the climate has varied enormously and for entirely natural reasons.

Because of course there were no humans around with their technology to provide
unnatural causes.

This fact however says nothing about what is causing climate change now.

The Sun is currently looking like it might be heading into another grand minimum,
the same co ...[text shortened]... warming up.

This on it's own rules out the Sun as the major driver of current climate change.

"The world however is warming up."

Not lately. That is why we should be patient and study it more. Any rush would be foolish. There are too many factors to conclude anything for certain. The IPCC omits solar from their models and it is stupid. Solar is not a negligible factor. The maunder minimum has proven that despite your denial it is so.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"The world however is warming up."

Not lately. That is why we should be patient and study it more. Any rush would be foolish. There are too many factors to conclude anything for certain. The IPCC omits solar from their models and it is stupid. Solar is not a negligible factor. The maunder minimum has proven that despite your denial it is so.

Not lately.

If that is true, and whether that is true would depend on what period of time you mean by lately ( the last two days? The last two weeks? ) that doesn't contradict the long term trend for greater global warming. If it is spring and there is a temporary cold snap for a few days, do you conclude that summer warming will not come?
You appear to confuse weather with climate.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"You mean, if average global temperatures continually and persistently went down, we would say that this is evidence of global warming? Obviously, that is false, for we would not, because that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever."

That is not what I said, although some people probably would do that. Heck, there was a movie made on that very premise. ...[text shortened]... is no reason to tax carbon. You don't think there is a conspiracy to suppress renewables, right?

According to you solar is doing fine, so I am simply asking you if it will do well enough that there is no reason to tax carbon.

The main reason for taxing carbon is not to directly encourage more solar energy, although it does indirectly do that so that could sometimes be a partial reason for doing it, but to encourage less wasteful use of carbon-sourced energy and thus reduce CO2 emissions. There is thus no “need”, as you said, to tax carbon for solar, because that isn't the important reason for that tax and solar will exist just fine without it although encouragement of greater use of solar power is a possible unessential side benefit from such a tax.

You don't think there is a conspiracy to suppress renewables, right?

Conspiracy by who? By people like you? -if so, possibly yes -although it isn't a well-organised 'conspiracy' but mainly a decentralized mess of individuals independently doing what they can to discourage it and in a disorganized way so the word 'conspiracy' may be a totally wrong word for it. By big oil companies that are only interested in their profits? -probably. By governments in general? -I think probably not although at least some are really dragging their heals on renewable and many ( but not all or not even most ( I think ) ) politicians are, like you, against renewables.