Solar Activity cannot account for recent warming trend

[SpidermanTUba]

Here is a snippet from a recent paper on how solar activity cannot account for the recent warming trend:

There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar
variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some
detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was
a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century
and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism
that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates
about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in
global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability,
whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar
variation is amplified.

The entire paper can be found here:


http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media...pa20071880.pdf

[darin]

Except on Pluto:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

(shrug).

Man-caused/made Global warming = Myth perpetuated by Big Industry to steal BILLIONS in tax and other dollars.

[darin]

More on Solar Activity Major Cause of Earth's warming:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller21.html

[diuretic]

I am bereft of science knowledge but it seems to me that:

1. The Sun has been around for a while and (I don't know) it seems to me that it's been in a fairly stable state (give or take sunspot activity) for much of the time that life has been on Earth.

2. Given that (if it's correct of course) then the only variable of any consequence on Earth in terms of climate change has to be human activity as we are the only animals who have both adapted to various localised climates on Earth and have ourselves changed localised climates on Earth. Some primates might be able to start a fire to keep themselves warm but I've never heard of it.

3. If humans have been around for, say, a hundred thousand years and in that time haven't done much to contribute to climate change then that might be because we as a species were in insufficient numbers and we didn't have the technology to produce the factors that cause climate change.

4. But in years since the Industrial Revolution we have had the technology and we have used it.

5. If the signs of rapid climate change are detectable from about the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and show increased effect as we have industrialised around the globe then I reckon that's good enough for me.

[darin]

I am bereft of science knowledge but it seems to me that:

1. The Sun has been around for a while and (I don't know) it seems to me that it's been in a fairly stable state (give or take sunspot activity) for much of the time that life has been on Earth.

2. Given that (if it's correct of course) then the only variable of any consequence on Earth in terms of climate change has to be human activity as we are the only animals who have both adapted to various localised climates on Earth and have ourselves changed localised climates on Earth. Some primates might be able to start a fire to keep themselves warm but I've never heard of it.

3. If humans have been around for, say, a hundred thousand years and in that time haven't done much to contribute to climate change then that might be because we as a species were in insufficient numbers and we didn't have the technology to produce the factors that cause climate change.

4. But in years since the Industrial Revolution we have had the technology and we have used it.

5. If the signs of rapid climate change are detectable from about the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and show increased effect as we have industrialised around the globe then I reckon that's good enough for me.

Ya just can't cherry-pick facts like that.

[diuretic]

Ya just can't cherry-pick facts like that.

Cherry-picking? How is it cherry-picking?

It's just an outline of my thinking on the subject. By all means rebut it.

[SpidermanTUba]

More on Solar Activity Major Cause of Earth's warming:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller21.html

"onald W. Miller, Jr., MD" - I'm fairly certain that "MD" means medical doctor. I don't think they teach climatology in Medical School.

[SpidermanTUba]

Except on Pluto:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

(shrug).

Man-caused/made Global warming = Myth perpetuated by Big Industry to steal BILLIONS in tax and other dollars.

That's an interesting claim but you haven't a shred of evidence to back it up.

[SpidermanTUba]

Ya just can't cherry-pick facts like that.

On the other hand, you could be like dmp, and not use facts.

[diuretic]

On the other hand, you could be like dmp, and not use facts.

"Facts? Facts? We don't need....." ah, everyone knows how it goes

[darin]

That's an interesting claim but you haven't a shred of evidence to back it up.

I've got LOTS of evidence to back it up. Do you care?

[SpidermanTUba]

I've got LOTS of evidence to back it up. Do you care?

Yet you can't produce a single piece of it. Unless you expect me to believe that a medical doctor is somehow qualified as an expert in the fields of climatology or geology.

[darin]

Yet you can't produce a single piece of it. Unless you expect me to believe that a medical doctor is somehow qualified as an expert in the fields of climatology or geology.

But you won't question what the Medical Doctor wrote - you'll simply harp on his Degree eh?

lol

[diuretic]

But you won't question what the Medical Doctor wrote - you'll simply harp on his Degree eh?

lol

If the good doctor is outside of his discipline then what particular expertise can he claim? If you are making an appeal to authority best to make it to an authority in the discipline in question.

[SpidermanTUba]

But you won't question what the Medical Doctor wrote - you'll simply harp on his Degree eh?

lol

I didn't read what he wrote, he isn't qualified to make a expert opinion on the global climate. His opinion on the global climate is worth no more that yours is, or any schmo on the street.