Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Solar scientists begin to speak out against AGW

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Solar scientists begin to speak out against AGW

    New from the National Post:

    It's the Sun, stupid - Solar scientists are finally overcoming their fears and going public about the Sun-climate connection. Here are a few snips:

    Four years ago, when I first started profiling scientists who were global warming skeptics, I soon learned two things: Solar scientists were overwhelmingly skeptical that humans caused climate change and, overwhelmingly, they were reluctant to go public with their views. Often, they refused to be quoted at all, saying they feared for their funding, or they feared other recriminations from climate scientists in the doomsayer camp. When the skeptics agreed to be quoted at all, they often hedged their statements, to give themselves wiggle room if accused of being a global warming denier. Scant few were outspoken about their skepticism.

    No longer.

    Scientists, and especially solar scientists, are becoming assertive. Maybe their newfound confidence stems from the Climategate emails, which cast doomsayer-scientists as frauds and diminished their standing within academia. Maybe their confidence stems from the avalanche of errors recently found in the reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, destroying its reputation as a gold standard in climate science. Maybe the solar scientists are becoming assertive because the public no longer buys the doomsayer thesis, as seen in public opinion polls throughout the developed world. Whatever it was, solar scientists are increasingly conveying a clear message on the chief cause of climate change: It’s the Sun, Stupid.
    and

    Among solar scientists, there are a great many theories about how the Sun influences climate. Some will especially point to sunspots, others to the Sun’s magnetic field, others still to the Sun’s influence on cosmic rays which, in turn, affect cloud cover. There is as yet no answer to how the Sun affects Earth’s climate. All that now seems sure is that the Sun does play an outsized role and that the Big Chill on freedom of expression that scientists once faced when discussing global warming is becoming a Big Thaw.
    The full article is linked above.

  • #2
    Without reading the article... I'll guess that the author is Lawrence Solomon.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
      Without reading the article... I'll guess that the author is Lawrence Solomon.
      The Doctor demonstrating some Fingerspitzengefühl.

      What led you to that (correct) conclusion?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
        Without reading the article... I'll guess that the author is Lawrence Solomon.
        "By Lawrence Solomon"...

        Solomon's book, The Deniers, is a must read. It's not technically oriented - So non-scientists can easily read it. Solomon profiled several AGW skeptics, each of whom were among the top scientists in their respective climate-related disciplines. In pretty well every discipline related to climate scientists some of the most highly regarded scientists were skeptical of AGW, at least within their own disciplines.

        The "funny thing" Solomon discovered was that many of these skeptics still accepted the over all theory because they assumed that the science in all of the other disciplines was sound.
        Last edited by The Doctor; 26 May 10, 09:17.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The Ibis View Post
          The Doctor demonstrating some Fingerspitzengefühl.

          What led you to that (correct) conclusion?
          I've read his book, The Deniers... Twice.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #6
            Here's a related article:

            Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity?, by M Lockwood, R G Harrison, T Woollings and S K Solanki.

            Abstract:

            Solar activity during the current sunspot minimum has fallen to levels unknown since the start of the 20th century. The Maunder minimum (about 1650–1700) was a prolonged episode of low solar activity which coincided with more severe winters in the United Kingdom and continental Europe. Motivated by recent relatively cold winters in the UK, we investigate the possible connection with solar activity. We identify regionally anomalous cold winters by detrending the Central England temperature (CET) record using reconstructions of the northern hemisphere mean temperature. We show that cold winter excursions from the hemispheric trend occur more commonly in the UK during low solar activity, consistent with the solar influence on the occurrence of persistent blocking events in the eastern Atlantic. We stress that this is a regional and seasonal effect relating to European winters and not a global effect. Average solar activity has declined rapidly since 1985 and cosmogenic isotopes suggest an 8% chance of a return to Maunder minimum conditions within the next 50 years (Lockwood 2010 Proc. R. Soc. A 466 303–29): the results presented here indicate that, despite hemispheric warming, the UK and Europe could experience more cold winters than during recent decades.

            Comment


            • #7
              If we're entering a Maunder-type minimum, we better hope that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have a meaningful warming effect on the climate.

              There were a lot fewer people to feed back then.

              30 years of warming... 30 years of cooling... Rinse & Repeat.

              Almost the entire warming trend of the 20th century was due to the fact that there were two full warming cycles and only one full cooling cycle.

              Both warming cycles (1908-1942 and 1976-2003) had amplitudes of 0.4 C to 0.5 C and the cooling cycle's (1942-1976) amplitude was only 0.2 C to 0.3 C.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #8
                I distinctly recall you previously posting very authoritatively that anthropogenic emissions had no effect on global climate.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  I distinctly recall you previously posting very authoritatively that anthropogenic emissions had no effect on global climate.
                  There's no scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have a significant effect on climate change...

                  But, if we are entering a Maunder-type solar minimum, I can hope that they have an effect... Because we'll need it.

                  Just because I know something won't happen, doesn't mean I can't hope for it to happen.
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Your article suggests what many of us have been saying all along about AGW. It's not science, it's politics.
                    "The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made."
                    — Groucho Marx

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Catman View Post
                      Your article suggests what many of us have been saying all along about AGW. It's not science, it's politics.
                      It's both.

                      A lot of actually good science has been done by the Climategate folks. Not everything they have done has been fraudulent like the Hockey Stick. But they have horribly politicized the process.
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        A lot of Global Warming is suffering the effects of being caught in the lie.

                        If someone lies to you once in only 100 instances, you don't get near as annoyed as if you get lied to often enough that you lose a desire to give a damn about anything that is said at all.

                        Pathological liars are essentially sources that no longer possess any value even if they do tell the truth a little bit.

                        No one in my view has so much free time, that they want to indulge filtering all the lies just to find a few truths.
                        Life is change. Built models for decades.
                        Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
                        I didn't for a long time either.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                          There's no scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have a significant effect on climate change...

                          But, if we are entering a Maunder-type solar minimum, I can hope that they have an effect... Because we'll need it.

                          Just because I know something won't happen, doesn't mean I can't hope for it to happen.
                          Either they do or they don't. According to you, they don't, so your "hope" is somewhat contradictory and undermines y6our position considerably, as well.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            Either they do or they don't. According to you, they don't, so your "hope" is somewhat contradictory and undermines y6our position considerably, as well.
                            No more than my hope of winning the Lotto undermines my knowledge that the odds against me winning are astronomical. Hoping for miracles doesn`t undermine the probability against miracles.
                            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Perhaps not, but you don't encourage the rest of us to think that way, and it's no more realistic than believing that six billion people have no effect on our climate engine.

                              The entire climatology fiasco is now hopelessly mired in nonsensical argument about such simple things as whether it's getting warmer or colder...this from a science community that blissfully talks about lofty ideals such as missions to Mars.

                              In the end, Nature will do as it pleases, just as it always has. To quote an old, old saying: "It's not wise to screw with Mother Nature."

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X