20 new science papers find climate driven by solar changes

originally posted by: Justoneman

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.

This is something i have wondered.

On the one hand, there is correlation in the past between higher atmospheric carbon and larger plants (and animals). It would seem that a method for "fixing" atmospheric carbon is via plant/animal life cycles. However, its been shown in the past that removal of vast amounts of carbon was made possible through plate subduction, with carbon not being very soluble and thus being locked away in the magma during some of the larger Continental Rift events that happened >1mil years ago.

What we are calling "oil" is massive plankton deposits that represent a large amount of carbon being returned into circulation. In West Texas, we are talking Permian Era, so literally ancient carbons.

Nonetheless, as the Earth warms animals shrink:

www.livescience.com...

As global temperatures rise this century, the result of human-caused climate change, many living things will shrink, thanks to a host of changes in the environment, as well as the direct effects of warming, two researchers write.

If everything were to shrink at the same rate, this wouldn't be a problem. Smaller plants would feed smaller fish that would feed smaller sharks, for example. However, it appears that organisms don't all react at the same rate, so change is likely to throw ecosystems out of whack, putting some species at risk of extinction, according to Jennifer Sheridan and David Bickford of the National University of Singapore.

This isn't a new phenomenon; during past periods of natural global warming, beetles, bees, spiders, algae called diatoms, pocket gophers and woodrats have shrunk, according to fossil evidence. For example, the burrows dug by invertebrates, including beetles, bees and spiders, during a warm spell about 56 million years ago, show the creatures shrank by 50 to 75 percent, the researchers write in a study published on Oct. 16 issue of the journal Nature Climate Change

Which wouldn't really be a problem (besides faster growth food sources having lower nutrition amounts), except for:

Plants were expected to thrive on the excess carbon dioxide humans have expelled into the atmosphere, because they use it to create sugars by photosynthesis. However, things have not played out this way over the past century. Plant growth is highly dependent on water, and while climate models predict that some areas will get wetter and others drier over the coming decades, many places are expected to experience higher variability in rainfall. This means longer dry periods even in wetter regions, which will ultimately reduce growth, according to the authors.

But i've been hearing something similar from meteorologists I know, who are quietly claiming we are in for a cooling phase. I've seen some online writings on this as well, and now you.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
The (10 year old) article about Mars was based on three years of observations of Mars' polar caps. Three years of a single datum does not indicate a warming trend.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

What evidence is there of such an increase?

The outer planets (including Pluto) have very long "years". This means that they have very long "seasons". We have not been able to observe them in detail for very long, certainly not long enough to determine whether the changes which have been observed are related to planetary warming or solar changes, as opposed to "seasonal" changes. On Earth we have direct (and historical proxy) measurements of solar radiation as well as temperatures. We know solar radiation has not changed significantly.

a reply to: Phage

Pluto is undergoing global warming, as evidenced by a three-fold increase in the planet's atmospheric pressure during the past 14 years

14 years. I have read numerous studies showing the effects of greenhouse gasses is not as great as once thought.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Pluto is undergoing global warming, as evidenced by a three-fold increase in the planet's atmospheric pressure during the past 14 years

I asked for evidence of an increase in total solar irradiance.

In regard to Pluto, as I said, very long seasons and a short period of detailed observation.
airandspace.si.edu...

a reply to: Phage

I said there are other possible explanations beyond solar irradiance. And as far as short period of detailed observations, welcome to planet Earth.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I said there are other possible explanations beyond solar irradiance.

Something other than solar irradiance is causing the supposed global warming on other planets as well as Earth? The same something, or different somethings? We know solar changes are not causing the warming on Earth.

And as far as short period of detailed observations, welcome to planet Earth.

We have direct, and proxy temperature measurements. We have direct, and proxy CO2 measurements. Going back decades, hundreds, and thousands of years.

I don't understand why you would believe these 20 papers but not the thousands that say that man is responsible. Selective belief on display. Typical.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
I don't understand why you would believe these 20 papers but not the thousands that say that man is responsible. Selective belief on display. Typical.

Why don't you at least link to one of these thousands of papers that say man is responsible so members here can look at it?

a reply to: 3danimator2014

What I think it speaks to is that there are conflicting reports, not to mention loads and heaps of private interest funding the research.

Its sad. It isn't that people are dimwitted, or we are re-entering the dark ages. People are suspicious of science for very good reasons, and this is a good example. It doesn't take sophistication to tell that there are problems, like a lack of repetition of the results, the lack of null result reports, p-hacking, inadequate sample sizes, and other control issues.

Im not a scientist, and I can see issues on both sides of the argument. And im honestly left wondering why, instead of carbon, we can just agree that plastics, mercury, and pharmaceuticals shouldn't be in our water and fix THAT. I mean, i can see the importance of understanding the carbon cycle on climate to see if we can better control how the climate functions. But if we are going to instead scream at each other while staring into our navel, why don't we instead focus on something we can actually agree on that will improve everyones lives, and kick that carbon can down the road a couple of years while we get our ducks in a row scientifically (because im here to tell you the ducks are running amok).

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I said there are other possible explanations beyond solar irradiance.

Something other than solar irradiance is causing the supposed global warming on other planets as well as Earth? The same something, or different somethings? We know solar changes are not causing the warming on Earth.

And as far as short period of detailed observations, welcome to planet Earth.

We have direct, and proxy temperature measurements. We have direct, and proxy CO2 measurements. Going back decades, hundreds, and thousands of years.

Thousands of years on a planet that's billions of years old. It's like looking at one day in a person's life and saying you know all about them.

The weird thing and most important part of this thread is that the first link in the op is for an article by

Kenneth Richard

If you look up Kenneth Richard, every article he writes debunks or refutes global warming in some way.

That's the red flag right there.

If he was trying to find the truth he'd be publishing papers of all kinds regarding climate science no matter what the findings were.

To quote the arrow "Kenneth Richard! You have failed this thread!"

science is quickly becoming the new religion of control and when i see how people are predicting doom i find it rather ironic.
i mean the way i see trends over the last 400,000 years, we are in part of a warming period that will probably last a few thousand years still before a new ice age comes, it should get much warmer and all our silly efforts to stop it will probably backfire and we will end up hurting ourselves.

it is supposed to get warmer regardless of our influence on things. what i see is just panicking over nothing by ignorant children who think they know everything just because they know some things.

modern science is too new and is still evolving and i can only imagine how amusing modern science will look to future scientists someday.

a reply to: amazing

If you look up Kenneth Richard, every article he writes debunks or refutes global warming in some way.

Richard doesn't write all the articles.

There's plenty of peer reviewed papers that say the science is far from settled.

770 papers questioning AGW “consensus” since 2014

By Kenneth Richard

-Interestingly, since January 2014, the last 2 and half years, 770 peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published in scholarly journals that call into question just how settled the “consensus” science is that says anthropogenic or CO2 forcing dominates weather and climate changes, or that non-anthropogenic factors play only a relatively minor and inconsequential role.

Link

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: amazing

If you look up Kenneth Richard, every article he writes debunks or refutes global warming in some way.

Richard doesn't write all the articles.

There's plenty of peer reviewed papers that say the science is far from settled.

770 papers questioning AGW “consensus” since 2014

By Kenneth Richard

-Interestingly, since January 2014, the last 2 and half years, 770 peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published in scholarly journals that call into question just how settled the “consensus” science is that says anthropogenic or CO2 forcing dominates weather and climate changes, or that non-anthropogenic factors play only a relatively minor and inconsequential role.

Link

No, but this thread is based off of Kenneth Richard who has a known bias. Therefore not willing to look at all evidence and papers or research that dont' agree with his preconceived idea of climate change. That's the problem here.

And, yes I've read a few papers that shared Kenneth's views but I've also seen hundreds that don't agree with him.

Keep in mind that nothing is settled Science. Gravity is not settled Science although we accept it without question.

a reply to: amazing

No, but this thread is based off of Kenneth Richard who has a known bias. Therefore not willing to look at all evidence and papers or research that dont' agree with his preconceived idea of climate change. That's the problem here.

Same could be said of those on the other side of the fence like Michael Mann, not?

And, yes I've read a few papers that shared Kenneth's views but I've also seen hundreds that don't agree with him.

The link I posted indicates there were 770 papers from 2014 - July 2016, that is more than a few.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: amazing

No, but this thread is based off of Kenneth Richard who has a known bias. Therefore not willing to look at all evidence and papers or research that dont' agree with his preconceived idea of climate change. That's the problem here.

Same could be said of those on the other side of the fence like Michael Mann, not?

And, yes I've read a few papers that shared Kenneth's views but I've also seen hundreds that don't agree with him.

The link I posted indicates there were 770 papers from 2014 - July 2016, that is more than a couple.

Is Kenneth Richard a scientist or just a journalist? I can't find a good bio on him

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
I don't understand why you would believe these 20 papers but not the thousands that say that man is responsible. Selective belief on display. Typical.

because i like to cherry pick evidence to maintain my belief system.

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: Justoneman

Walk a mile in my shoes, man.

Everyday, when i leave my house i have to walk right along busy roads, and in the infernal dust hell, that the traffic rises (20-50 trucks, public transport), one time i could not breathe for a good while, and ended up vomiting.

That is certainly one thing worth ending, dust particles are something I take readings for and we need to find more ways to eliminate pollution filled dust particles. Sorry for your suffering and I hope you can find a way to avoid it.

originally posted by: D8Tee
There's plenty of peer reviewed papers that say the science is far from settled.

No, honey.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: amazing

No, but this thread is based off of Kenneth Richard who has a known bias. Therefore not willing to look at all evidence and papers or research that dont' agree with his preconceived idea of climate change. That's the problem here.

Same could be said of those on the other side of the fence like Michael Mann, not?

And, yes I've read a few papers that shared Kenneth's views but I've also seen hundreds that don't agree with him.

The link I posted indicates there were 770 papers from 2014 - July 2016, that is more than a couple.

Is Kenneth Richard a scientist or just a journalist? I can't find a good bio on him

Good question.
I can't find much info on him either.
Seems to be just a guy who looks at papers and categorizes them?