20 new science papers find climate driven by solar changes

I have been putting this type of thought out there for years on ATS. Here is a chance to learn for yourselves about true science doing research you can read for yourself and get the 'skinny' on what is driving our climate, really.


principia-scientific.org...


None of these 20 stories dwell very dramatically on the magnetic pole shift I also think is working but one or two of them do discuss the affect on the Earth from the Sun's magnetic field and it's cycles.

Here is a NOAA article to get you going on that so you will have a source you might consider if you feel these 20 papers are total BS.

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

I know some of you are going to flame me but we have 20 papers, that were published and have the weight of research that IMHO is very credible. The data has been obvious to me for about 20 years about the Solar cycles and things like the Medieval Warming Period where the grapes of wine grade were producing wine for the British Isle's.


I look forward to being challenged by the deniers of reality who think people/Scientists like me who believe that AGW is not significant are off base. AGW may be happening but we are not that important compared to the cycle of Solar and Earth magnetic pole shifts. The people reporting that AGW is very significant are sell outs like Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye (both of whom I have admired but challenge on AGW).

I know of a car that runs on Hydrogen that Al Gore ignored while teaching at the University it was designed 25 + years ago for those who think we have to live off Carbon or should dump it because Al "proves" it to be dangerous to climate. He is a greedy person IMHO.

www.youtube.com...

I make my living as an Environmental Scientist and work with atmospheric pollution data and wrote to him several times with not one word of response. I have been emailing Dr. Spencer about the magnetic field and he feels he is not the one to go in that direction but any of you Physicists among us here should do so if you haven't already.

It's my thought, since climate changes have existed beyond the past 50 years and weren't political issues. Propaganda is thick these days. Disagreeing with somebody that carbon is the cause of global warming just gets a "you have no idea what you're talking about, you're not a scientist" reply, even though the "evidence" that it is carbon caused is weak at best.

And no, I'm not a climate change denier, I'm just not sold that carbon is the culprit.

originally posted by: garbageface
It's my thought, since climate changes have existed beyond the past 50 years and weren't political issues. Propaganda is thick these days. Disagreeing with somebody that carbon is the cause of global warming just gets a "you have no idea what you're talking about, you're not a scientist" replies, even though the "evidence" that it is carbon caused is weak at best.

And no, I'm not a climate change denier, I'm just not sold that carbon is the culprit.

Carbon Dioxide simply can't be a pollutant, we can show way more carbon that we have now was in the atmosphere and the plants thrived and so did animal life. The most diverse time of animals was when CO2 was perhaps 10 times or more what it is today.

a reply to: Justoneman

The other point to make is that many papers on climate change actually ignore the output variations of the Sun.

The big heater in the sky, is simply ignored. That is just plain wrong.

The Sun drives the solar system, it is that simple.

P

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Justoneman

The other point to make is that many papers on climate change actually ignore the output variations of the Sun.

The big heater in the sky, is simply ignored. That is just plain wrong.

The Sun drives the solar system, it is that simple.

P

I think that is addressed in these papers. You might enjoy being right.

a reply to: Justoneman



Watch here as Bill Nye dismisses nearly 4.5 billion years of data based on hypothetical variables, (impossible to measure, so it doesn't count!), focuses on the past 100 years where there is a varied relationship between heat/carbon, some would call coincidence, he calls it hard evidence.. And then dismisses his opponent's argument because he started the timeline when it was during El Nino.

So what does Bill Nye do? He makes a bet that 2016 will be the warmest year on record... Wait for it... during El Nino.

He's playing it both ways. Dismissing one argument because it's during El Nino, arguing his argument during El Nino.

a reply to: Justoneman
I am a scientist and I was completely sold on the CO2 debate until about 8 years ago when I had a fascinating conversation with a professor of astrophysics, I suddenly realised how narrow our understanding of climate was and what the broader implications of space weather could be.

Accepting you may have been wrong in your beliefs is not easy for dogmatic scientists, we tend to think we are at the cutting edge of research when we are often only looking at specific details and missing a whole heap more.

Science has become a bit embarrassing for me since folk like Dawkins and Cox became the voice of popular science. The single most important thing science demands is an open mind no matter what you believe. Science is theory, we test hypothesis and we don't even do that properly anymore.

a reply to: Justoneman

Poppycock ! The Sun has Nothing to do with Climate Change ! Ah , wait a Minute , it was what I was Told by someone I can't Recall at the moment.....

Anyone who says the climate is not primarily driven by our star is a Snake Oil salesman.

originally posted by: Charlyboy
a reply to: Justoneman
I am a scientist and I was completely sold on the CO2 debate until about 8 years ago when I had a fascinating conversation with a professor of astrophysics, I suddenly realised how narrow our understanding of climate was and what the broader implications of space weather could be.

Accepting you may have been wrong in your beliefs is not easy for dogmatic scientists, we tend to think we are at the cutting edge of research when we are often only looking at specific details and missing a whole heap more.

Science has become a bit embarrassing for me since folk like Dawkins and Cox became the voice of popular science. The single most important thing science demands is an open mind no matter what you believe. Science is theory, we test hypothesis and we don't even do that properly anymore.

I am a huge fan of Dr. Feynman before all this but his explanation of the Scientific Method will probably be etched in stone for ever, or as long as this civilization exists. That method is the very thing I see the sell out type deliberately avoiding in debate, or changing the subject kind of like the old joke "hey I see a squirrel".

ETA
io9.gizmodo.com...

"Anyone who says the climate is not primarily driven by our star is a Snake Oil salesman."

Or cra cra......

a reply to: garbageface

Nye was a mechanical engineer and host of children science tv. His input into any science debate is no more or less pertinent than the rest of the popular science crowd. I still am yet to see a public debate with renowned specialists who have opposing views on climate. All I hear is the CO2 argument, I watched Brian Cox throw a meaningless graph on a piece of paper at a politician who was trying to have a conversation regarding opposing views. The audience just lapped it up, but any critical thinker would be asking questions.

Asking questions about science should be embraced not shunned, science feels like its direction is becoming more and more controlled and funnelled in a particular direction. Organisations and governments now control where funding goes. Science is no longer done for the sake of science in our country it is done for the sake of funding. Very sad and very dangerous.

You know some senior scientists at the organisation where I worked (in their 60's) would actually have their paper written before they even started the experiment, I saw them "massage" data so it fit their preconceived ideas. When I questioned them on this practice they would laugh and say they are removing outliers or smoothing the curve.... The thing is it completely changed the final statistical analysis, so raw data showed no significant effects but low and behold, a little massaging and voila statistical significance....

a reply to: pheonix358

The other point to make is that many papers on climate change actually ignore the output variations of the Sun.

False. Solar output is critical to radiative forcing calculations and is closely studied.

Of course changes in climate would be driven by changes in solar output. That doesn't mean that changes in solar output are the only thing that affect climate (which a number of the articles cited in the OP make clear). The thing is, solar output has not changed much in the past 50 years (actually declining a bit) while global temperatures continue to rise.
lasp.colorado.edu...


Yes, the Sun affects climate. Of course. So, what has changed about the Sun to account for the warming trend we are seeing?

a reply to: garbageface
Who is Bill Nye and why the Hades should I care ?

A book by Michael Crichton, State of Fear, that book hit the nail on the head regarding climate change.

Also, his panels over climate change and science were enlightening as well. It's over 10 years old, but it's very relevant to this thread.

originally posted by: Charlyboy
a reply to: garbageface

Nye was a mechanical engineer and host of children science tv. His input into any science debate is no more or less pertinent than the rest of the popular science crowd. I still am yet to see a public debate with renowned specialists who have opposing views on climate. All I hear is the CO2 argument, I watched Brian Cox throw a meaningless graph on a piece of paper at a politician who was trying to have a conversation regarding opposing views. The audience just lapped it up, but any critical thinker would be asking questions.

Asking questions about science should be embraced not shunned, science feels like its direction is becoming more and more controlled and funnelled in a particular direction. Organisations and governments now control where funding goes. Science is no longer done for the sake of science in our country it is done for the sake of funding. Very sad and very dangerous.

You know some senior scientists at the organisation where I worked (in their 60's) would actually have their paper written before they even started the experiment, I saw them "massage" data so it fit their preconceived ideas. When I questioned them on this practice they would laugh and say they are removing outliers or smoothing the curve.... The thing is it completely changed the final statistical analysis, so raw data showed no significant effects but low and behold, a little massaging and voila statistical significance....

I like to think I am a critical thinker. The EPA has a few people who duck out if i am in because i have successfully called their BS out for what it is when they were wanting to explain a lame position. I believe in preserving the environment with common sense as my foundation. I WANT people to help me preserve it so I am trying the approach of using sound data and practical thinking approach. We DO want clean water and air and if those in the field abuse our trust as Neil and Bill do, we will lose the public.

a reply to: Gothmog

Because this guy (Bill Nye) is the mouthpiece for millions of uneducated people that take his word as gospel and don't even question it. That's why you should care.

If you point out a flaw in his ridiculous logic/argument, you're ridiculed.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pheonix358

The other point to make is that many papers on climate change actually ignore the output variations of the Sun.

False. Solar output is critical to radiative forcing calculations and is closely studied.

Of course changes in climate would be driven by changes in solar output. That doesn't mean that changes in solar output are the only thing that affect climate (which a number of the articles cited in the OP make clear). The thing is, solar output has not changed much in the past 50 years (actually declining a bit) while global temperatures continue to rise.

lasp.colorado.edu...

Wouldn't be much compared to the Sun? I respect you Phage but you have been behind the 8 ball on this one bro. This is a slam dunk, the Solar Cycles are running the whole solar system. I have some proof here for you. I agree there will be studies but your team has been ignoring Dr Feynman IMHO. I know you are very smart and once you wrap your mind around this you will likely be joining the Scientific Method crowd I am sure. I have been sharing some of this with you in particular in debates on ATS for years. You have to know I am spot on about that H2 car they keep holding back.

ETA

Phage you know it is the Sun that is changing. Also we are 'awake' so to speak when this mag pole shift is happening.

a reply to: Justoneman

Word salad.

What about the Sun has changed in the past 50 years to account for the warming trend we are seeing?

More sunspots? Nope.
More radiation? Nope.

What is it. How is the Sun causing the warming?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

Word salad.

What about the Sun has changed in the past 50 years to account for the warming trend we are seeing?

More sunspots? Nope?
More radiation? Nope?

What is it. How is the Sun causing the warming?

Head in the sand syndrome is not going to work. I KNOW you are smarter than this Phage. Read the reports I am sure there will be a "AH HA Moment" if you will be fair to the authors.