20 new science papers find climate driven by solar changes

a reply to: Justoneman

I have been reading them. Some of them correlate reconstructed changes in solar activity to reconstructed changes in climate. They also correlate volcanic activity to changes in climate (cooling).

None of them seem to say that the current warming trend is caused by changes in the Sun, or that increased CO2 levels will not cause warming and the resultant changes in climate.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

I have been reading them. Some of them correlate reconstructed changes in solar activity to reconstructed changes in climate. They also correlate volcanic activity to changes in climate (cooling).

None of them seem to say that the current warming trend is caused by changes in the Sun.

Yea, and none of what you have stated has convinced me in the whole time we have discussed this. I think of you like that Life Cereal commercial from my childhood. If "Mikey likes it, it must be good". I realize you DON"T like it but I have the weight of years of research and a new paradigm of liars in the media and a magnetic pole shift where the weak magnetic field of water is following the NEW Pole positions.... That one fact is why I know now with certainty my theory will one day be observed as one of the "Laws of the Solar System". Not going to be my law but the "law"...... It is undeniable the solar cycles are driving geological affects on Earth and the other planets.

a reply to: Phage

And conversely it does not mean that CO2 is causing "climate change", its a discussion that needs to continue, rather than the embargo on opposing views which is what we are subjected to in the media.

There is no doubt that CO2 (and many other gasses) are responsible for climatic conditions but climate is incredibly complicated. The AMO (Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation) is rarely discussed along with oceans temperatures and the effect that has on its CO2 carrying capacity.

Here is an interesting paper that discusses Solar forcing and CO2. It suggests the effects of CO2 may negate the effects of decreasing solar activity. We are however in unknown territory, as the paper suggests we may be entering a deep solar low comparable to the Dalton or Maunder Minimum. I just hope their theory about CO2 is correct or Europe and North America are gonna experience some wild times...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

originally posted by: garbageface
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.

I thought he was a star (sic) of a children's science show
I.E. An ACTOR. Still having to read off the script , I see

a reply to: Justoneman

Well if you and Phage are alive in 30 years time you will be able to have a good discussion about this with some good data showing the effects of a solar minimum (if we indeed enter one).

I can mediate if you like

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

I have been reading them. Some of them correlate reconstructed changes in solar activity to reconstructed changes in climate. They also correlate volcanic activity to changes in climate (cooling).

None of them seem to say that the current warming trend is caused by changes in the Sun, or that increased CO2 levels will not cause warming and the resultant changes in climate.

The biggest factor in man-made climate change, via warming trend, is the heat island effect from urbanization. This variable is factored out, to what degree of accuracy I don't know, when attempting to pin supposed warming trends on CO2.

originally posted by: Charlyboy
a reply to: Justoneman

Well if you and Phage are alive in 30 years time you will be able to have a good discussion about this with some good data showing the effects of a solar minimum (if we indeed enter one).

I can mediate if you like

I am afraid the real deal is gonna be major Ice age. and that is a SWAG, scientific wild ass guess but it seems to be likely based on these reports, I am inclined to think it is not so wild after all.

ETA

I would probably like to let Phage play or even trounce me in a good game of Chess... LOL

a reply to: Charlyboy

The AMO (Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation) is rarely discussed along with oceans temperatures and the effect that has on its CO2 carrying capacity.

If you are implying that increasing CO2 levels are the result of warming oceans I would have to point out that there is much evidence to the contrary. But like ENSO, the AMO is an internal phenomenon whereby the oceans periodically retain heat from and release heat to the atmosphere. Both represent spikes and dips set against the warming trend.

Here is an interesting paper that discusses Solar forcing and CO2.

Actually, it doesn't discuss forcing. What it does is cast doubt on a relationship between solar activity and the current warming trend.

Although the solar activity during the last two solar cycle has a deep minimum there is a global warming, the variations in solar activity do not seem to play a major role in determining present-day observed climatic change. Prevalent global warming, caused by building-up of green-house gases in the atmosphere, seems to escalate and hence mask this solar effect.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Here's an interesting article in phys.org:

phys.org...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Charlyboy

The AMO (Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation) is rarely discussed along with oceans temperatures and the effect that has on its CO2 carrying capacity.

If you are implying that increasing CO2 levels are the result of warming oceans I would have to point out that there is much evidence to the contrary. But like ENSO, the AMO is an internal phenomenon whereby the oceans periodically retain heat from and release heat to the atmosphere. Both represent spikes and dips set against the warming trend.

Here is an interesting paper that discusses Solar forcing and CO2.

Actually, it doesn't discuss forcing. What it does is cast doubt on a relationship between solar activity and the current warming trend.

Although the solar activity during the last two solar cycle has a deep minimum there is a global warming, the variations in solar activity do not seem to play a major role in determining present-day observed climatic change. Prevalent global warming, caused by building-up of green-house gases in the atmosphere, seems to escalate and hence mask this solar effect.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Good one to bring to the discussion. But they didn't have the magnetic field change in their thinking and now we do see a major change in the Earth's field and some ancient history on the Sun that suggest something very interesting is going on at bare minimum. I will grant you there is some merit to that paper.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Here's an interesting article in phys.org:

phys.org...

Now that is worthy of consideration too. That has a big chance to do harm and I vote we move away from them.

It is good to remember the ice ages and warming periods precede man by quite a few million years.

Maybe al gore will propose a solar tax.....ha!

a reply to: dfnj2015

Here's another.
www.climatesciencewatch.org...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dfnj2015

Here's another.
www.climatesciencewatch.org...

I am not sure on that one yet. However, i am going all in on the magnetic field situation being a major, major player. Gaseous atoms have weak magnetic fields , we can agree on that. Water in clouds is in gaseous form...... You can read my mind on the rest I suspect Phage.

a reply to: Phage

This is a good discussion on oceans and temperature; theconversation.com...

Discussed further by Prof Judith Curry here;

judithcurry.com...

Warming and cooling seem to be driven by a dynamic and multi-faceted system that we just don't understand. It's ok to say we don't understand guys....

One more important point. I look at data certainty like Coefficient of Variation for instance. And the data for temps in the big picture is well within the margin of error IMHO. Meaning the error is more than the certainty....
ETA

www.investopedia.com...

a reply to: Charlyboy

Warming and cooling seem to be driven by a dynamic and multi-faceted system that we just don't understand.

Correct. But internal processes do not change the physics of radiative forcing. The heat retained due to increased forcing gets hidden in the oceans for a time (through processes we don't fully understand) then is released to the atmosphere. But it doesn't go anywhere because forcing keeps it here. AMO and ENSO present as spikes and dips in the warming trend.

Regarding Curry's question from 2015? Apparently it hadn't.
stateoftheocean.osmc.noaa.gov...

I don't see you making an opinion on the Magnetic pole, weak magnetic field of gaseous water molecules. Have you studied Chemistry Phage? If not please review what I am sharing. Physical Chemistry I recall was really neat discussing how to measure slight changes in the environment from various energy insertions.

a reply to: Justoneman

I don't think geomagnetic drift has much influence on global temperatures or climate.

Are you saying that air molecules are affected by magnetism?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

I don't think geomagnetic drift has much influence on global temperatures or climate.

Are you saying that air molecules are affected by magnetism?

Well, water for sure with its weak magnetic field. To say air with all it's components is something different but water is certainly in the air. If the poles move the water patterns follow it. A physicist i work with thinks the temps are actually balancing out in other places where it is warmer here it is colder there theory.