Climate change volcanoes and sun flares

[micaddict]

I see one in-depth reply in this thread.

And no one who dares to challenge it in-depth.

The article is garbage. It is no different to those free walking tours that you can do in cities around Europe. Highly entertaining? Sure. Gives a few vague insights to the past? Probably. Worth throwing them a few bob as a tip at the end? Perhaps... but fast and loose with the truth in the name of entertaining people.

Science is about nuance. It is about the fine detail. It is about hard data that people can cross check, analysis and form their own hypothesis and conclusions from. That article contains no hard data. It has no references. And any person who is sick of the politicalisation of the topic should be demanding much better, and condemning such articles to the waste bin. People should be sceptical. People should keep an open mind... but not so open that your brain leaks out. That article raises more questions than it even tries to answer.

What is their actual stance? Do they even have one? Or is it as vague as something like: temperatures on Earth have gone in cycles in the past? "Our planet seems to be in a cycle of constant change"??? Are they writing a school assignment? The planet IS in cycles of constant change, a reality that isn't missed by any climate scientist. The actual crux of the argument exists in the cause and effect... and even their attempt to document it disproves their fundamental point.

Just take their graph that brightly indicates 'Whenever solar radiation decreases and volcanic activity had increased, global temperatures SUDDENLY plummet often within weeks or years".  "a 500-Year plus span that extended from the early 1300s to the mid 1800s. During that time, there was little solar activity, or solar storms, which scientists refer to as the “Maunder Minimum.”

The Maunder Minimum occurred between 1645 and 1715 and was a period observed minimal sunspot activity. The first solar flares weren't observed by humans until the Carrington Event in 1859 but they are closely linked in occurrence, both the result of magnetic field interaction on the Sun. How can the Maunder Minimum be associated with 'Temperatures suddenly plummeting" three centuries before the event actually took place? The event occurs during an upward temperature trend on their graph? It literally indicates the opposite of the conclusion they are trying to draw.

Why is that even remotely acceptable? Why shouldn't it raise more questions? Have they just glanced over it? Does their graph include a degree of smoothing? If it does, why did they include the effect of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcano eruption at a much more microscopic level? Is it because it just fits their conclusion? Why didn't they explain the cause behind volcanoes reducing temperatures (sulphur based aerosols and debris in the troposphere and stratosphere restricting light penetrating to the ground)? Was the consequences to life of eruptions like Lakagígar not worth a mention? Are they really trying to suggest that we are all going to be fine because the volcanoes are going to erupt and reduce the temperate? The graphic does seem to imply that conclusion... despite the data not actually correlating in a way that supports it.

The article is TERRIBLE. Climate, and climate change is complex, and that article is nothing but a hatchet job, politically motivated puff piece.

 

[fazer]

Climatologist Cliff Harris
This appears as others have said,  report at the very least adjusted to fit an agenda.  After looking up information on Mr. Harris, it appears  he may have no credentials other than past articles in papers. 
Still I appreciate seeing JR's, Sammas, Ian's  and others comments.  I have trouble completely following other reports on global warming with somehow absolute knowledge of the future.  I found  the article on Facebook.  Posting these on DIY brings opinion from a forum I've followed and aways find gives me better perspective on my own views.  Let's keep up the dialogue for all to better  understand. 

 

[ruffrecords]

I see one in-depth reply in this thread.

And no one who dares to challenge it in-depth.

I don't think it needs it. The article concerned discussed just one of the many factors that affect climate change. On its own it was never going to be definitive.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Phrazemaster]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

 

[fazer]

Thanks Phrazemaster for the video. So here is a Nobel Laureate winner who uses science and math to come to a conclusion about Climate Change and Global Warming.  I find it fascinating.  I particularly like his comparing of global warming ideology to a religion and not science but Pseudoscience.  A religion depends on faith not fact.  Climate Change experts argument uses information that supports their argument but never the information that disproves it.    So now lets shoot holes in the reasons why he's not an expert and the other scientist are.  Its about money not science and not people.  IMHO 

 

[Phrazemaster]

Thanks Phrazemaster for the video. So here is a Nobel Laureate winner who uses science and math to come to a conclusion about Climate Change and Global Warming.  I find it fascinating.  I particularly like his comparing of global warming ideology to a religion and not science but Pseudoscience.  A religion depends on faith not fact.  Climate Change experts argument uses information that supports their argument but never the information that disproves it.    So now lets shoot holes in the reasons why he's not an expert and the other scientist are.  Its about money not science and not people.  IMHO

Well-stated. Now if we could all just focus on what we actually do agree on -- cleaner more efficient fuels -- we could appease both sides.

Ps thx for taking time to watch it.

 

[Matador]

So now lets shoot holes in the reasons why he's not an expert and the other scientist are.

When you have chest pain, do you run to see your dentist?  Or if you need your tooth pulled, do you look for a good brain surgeon?  There's a reason why scientists (and doctors) specialize.

https://skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

We often see scientists from non-climate fields who believe they have sufficient expertise to understand climate science despite having done minimal research on the subject; William Happer, Fritz Vahrenholt, and Bob Carter, for example.  As he admits in his own words, Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever fits this mould perfectly:

"I am not really terribly interested in global warming.  Like most physicists I don't think much about it..."

Several years later 36 Nobel laureates in bio-sciences and physics disagreed:

http://www.lindau-nobel.org/the-mainau-declaration-2015-on-climate-change/

We undersigned scientists, who have been awarded Nobel Prizes, have come to the shores of Lake Constance in southern Germany, to share insights with promising young researchers, who like us come from around the world....

Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change. We believe that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions. This endeavor will require the cooperation of all nations, whether developed or developing, and must be sustained into the future in accord with updated scientific assessment.

Like most things, the internet has given us enough voices to confirm all of our own beliefs and biases, no matter which side one takes. 

 

[fazer]

All read those Matador.

 

[Phrazemaster]

And yet, with other planets warming also, one has to wonder...

 

[ruffrecords]

Several years later 36 Nobel laureates in bio-sciences and physics disagreed:

Science is not  about consensus. It is about verifiable fact.

A long time ago the consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth, Then Copernicus came along and said otherwise. If we had gone with the consensus we would still believe earth is at the centre.

Cheers

Ian

 

[fazer]

Reading more does not convince me that it all comes down to experts and non experts.  If anything I think about "the elephant in the room",  As Ian has pointed out. 

In the previous Ivar Giaever video, the one thing that really stood out was the population increase from 1.5 billion to 7 billion in the last 100 years.  Scientist also point out the Fruit Fly dilemma and the stress on the planet. 

Also the Holocene Temperature Variations look's to be still cooler than 12K years ago and looks to have been higher at 8K years to 4 k years.  Then dropped, then its up but not as high as fluctuations at 10 K year ago.  Maybe I'm reading the red line wrong because the large black line shows lower for and average.

 

[Phrazemaster]

I think all the debate is great.

I wish as a planet we could make the commitment to cleaner fuels, creating systems that recycle and renew all the way up and down the lifecycle of goods, and honestly face responsible population growth.

To continue this wish, to develop new systems of goods distribution that don't involve money. Having people starving and others thriving, right next to one another, is revolting.

I wish we could focus on what we agree on, instead of fighting. The answers become so obvious.

We may never in a billion years understand all the variables that drive systems as large as climates. But a 5-year old would ask why we still pollute the air and why there are so many poor.

As they say, it is difficult for a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I think all the debate is great.

and more research of the basic science without preconceived outcomes engineered in.

I wish as a planet we could make the commitment to cleaner fuels, creating systems that recycle and renew all the way up and down the lifecycle of goods,

if you think about this, long term economic efficiency favors less waste. An interesting side note: as nuclear power plants are being decommissioned they are finding that nobody anticipated the difficulty of breaking down and disposing of tons of radioactive rubbish. 50 years in the future or more.

and honestly face responsible population growth.

Good luck with that... the scientific elite have consistently underestimate the productivity of farmers to ramp up food output. It is the natural imperative of living things to reproduce and no government deserves a say in that, pro or con.  If anything reproductive rates in the west are below replacement, but immigration and higher rates elsewhere will balance that and more.

To continue this wish, to develop new systems of goods distribution that don't involve money. Having people starving and others thriving, right next to one another, is revolting.

regrettably it is the nature of the world, and poverty only doesn't exist in bad(?) science fiction. We are wealthy and generous so can keep most from actually starving but every entitlement program invites fraud and abuse.  I don't remember which state, but recently one added a modest work requirement to receiving food stamps (SNAP) and the participation level dropped in half.  A less optimistic view is that some politicians prefer an underclass dependent on government handouts (teach a man to fish yadda yadda). 

I wish we could focus on what we agree on, instead of fighting. The answers become so obvious.

There are groups of economists who regularly review and prioritize the world's problems and what makes economic sense to address in what order. Climate change is not very high on that list, and politicians are less altruistically motivated (despite what they say). 

We may never in a billion years understand all the variables that drive systems as large as climates. But a 5-year old would ask why we still pollute the air and why there are so many poor.

I don't know how old you are, but in the last several decades I have seen tangible evidence of our environment getting cleaner. (We actually had rivers so polluted that they caught on fire). As usual China is at a later stage of industrial development so more like we were in our dirtier past.

As they say, it is difficult for a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.

Indeed... basic economics 101, we get what we incentivize.

JR

PS: I'd like to think this forum is far less shrill than most discussions of these topics on social media.

 

[Phrazemaster]

Thanks for sharing JR. Agree with most points. Sadly I concede your reproductive point as well - but if we don't pay attention we will choke out all resources with all the extra billions of mouths. Somehow we have to be smarter about that. I'm not sure it's normal for people to have tons of kids? My brother had 8; I had none. Is it a biological imperative to have so many?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Thanks for sharing JR. Agree with most points. Sadly I concede your reproductive point as well - but if we don't pay attention we will choke out all resources with all the extra billions of mouths. Somehow we have to be smarter about that. I'm not sure it's normal for people to have tons of kids? My brother had 8; I had none. Is it a biological imperative to have so many?

Yes... at a very basic level we are programmed to perpetuate our genome (make sure copies of us survive)..  So without civilizing forces we would keep all women barefoot and pregnant all the time... As we become wealthier and childhood survival rates improve we can  afford to make less children.

Some cultures and religions encourage child bearing to increase their relative power demographically, some quite the opposite have tried to limit children (like China's one child policy), but that turned out poorly as families killed girl babies, to insure a male heir.  Now there are not enough females to go around for all the adult males.  :

JR