This is sure to schock some people. How can this possibly be?
(Science World) It turns out the sun’s activity may just influence natural climate change. For the first time, scientists have reconstructed the solar activity at the end of the last ice age, around 10,000 to 10,000 years ago, learning a bit more about the climate of that time.
I think they meant 20k-10k years ago.
“The study shows an unexpected link between solar activity and climate change,” said Raimund Muscheler, co-author of the new study, in a news release. “It shows both that changes in solar activity are nothing new and that solar activity influences the climate, especially on a regional level. Understanding these processes helps us to better forecast the climate in certain regions.”
Unexpected? By whom? Right. Warmists. The Sun has been the primary driver of climate and weather (long term weather creates climate) for 4.5 billion years. After the Sun, you have things like land changes (both natural and anthropogenic, some which causes localized changes, some global)*, life (animal and plants), volcanic activity, and, yes, greenhouse gases.
The researchers found that reduced solar activity could lead to colder winters in Northern Europe. Yet this same process could also lead to warmer winters in Greenland, with greater snowfall and more storms.
“The study also shows that the various solar processes need to be included in climate models in order to better predict future global and regional climate change,” said Muscheler.
Sadly, this is information that actually needs to be published, to offset the idiocy of Warmists, who blame every weather change on Mankind, particularly mankind’s use of fossil fuels. And, we all know what happens next: Warmists say “sure, of course the Sun changed things back then. But, now, it is totally different!!!!!”
The Hockey Schtick has details on another study that highlights the Sun being the primary driver.
*Land changes can have tremendous changes upon the weather. Clear cutting, agriculture, urbanization, buildings, roads, etc, can change the weather tremendously. So can things like tectonic activity. Mountains blocking air flow.
Are you being serious? If so, this exemplifies how little Deniers know of climate science. No one denies that the Sun’s output and the angle at which the Sun’s rays strike the Earth is responsible for changes in the climate. (Have you ever even heard of Milankovich Cycles???)
What measured change in the Sun’s output and/or in the Earth’s orbit is causing the current warm period? Or do you believe we can measure changes in the Sun’s activity 20,000 to 10,000 years ago but not today?
But….but…. if the Sun is the major driver of the Earth’s climate, how can we blame Man for Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption? And if we can’t blame Man for his climate sins, how can we demand sacrificial offerings of money and power to redeem his transgressions?
This is dangerous stuff, sir. Why, if enough people thought about it and came to the same conclusions, the whole of Warmist philosophy would be in danger.
Cool.
Neon,
Of course the Sun is what drives the Earth’s climate. No one questions that.
But there is no evidence to suggest that the current rapid warming comes from changes in the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth. We can accurately measure the Sun’s output and what is reaching Earth and where. To falsify the Theory of AGW (CO2 driven warming), all that Deniers have to do is show that the Sun’s energy has increased during this warming period.
There is no evidence to support the Denier Hypothesis of Anything But Carbon Dioxide (ABCD Hypothesis). Deniers have an entire universe of possibilities to support their Hypothesis yet have not been able to assemble a shred of evidence to support it.
Climate scientists have only CO2; Deniers have the entire universe of possibilities to explain warming. Why can’t Deniers find any evidence to support their ABCD Hypothesis?
Jeff,
Please, please take a basic science course and pay attention. It is not the responsibility of anyone to offer contrary evidence to climate change. It is your responsibility to first ascertain that something is going on in the climate that is different than the last billion years then to isolate CO2 as a definite culprit. To date, you have not completed that task. Besides, I gave you an article on the fact that the earth is closer to the sun and you did not believe a clear scientific observation.
Jeffery says:
Scientist who wrote peer reviewed and published paper says:
Alas, it is not a Theory, it is barely a hypothesis. It is unproven beyond computer models (garbage in garbage out), and the facts do not fit the hypothesis. It fails to follow the Scientific Method.
g2,
It’s not clear from the press release whether the data in the paper supported his comments or not. Certainly there are no hints in the abstract. Note that the peer-reviewed paper is titled: Persistent link between solar activity and Greenland climate during the Last Glacial Maximum
The researcher is entitled to his informed opinion.
It is widely accepted among climate scientists that changes in solar activity and the Earth’s orbital wobbles contribute to climate change. In fact, this is the accepted theory for how the Earth comes in and out of interglacial/glacial periods for the past million years or so (see Milankovitch Cycles). It is also widely accepted that that is not happening now, since there is NO evidence of it happening now.
dave,
Insults and spurious claims that the Earth is warming now because it’s closer to the Sun. Yikes. And all the scientists in the world have missed your revelation? NASA missed that the Earth has inexplicably moved closer to the Sun? Our National Academy of Sciences missed this easy and obvious explanation?
Teach,
I think you are wrong. It is indeed a theory, supported by overwhelming evidence.
The basic hypothesis is quite simple. Greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere will cause long-term retention of heat from the Sun.
The greenhouse effect is proven (it’s why the Earth is as warm as it is!), so the basic physics are sound. So the real question is whether increasing the concentration of a long lasting greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide) can cause further heat retention. The answer is yes.
The Earth’s surfaces, atmosphere and oceans are warming coincident with the increase in atmospheric CO2. The increased CO2 has been proven to be from burned fossil fuels (there is a carbon cycle where massive amounts of CO2 move between plants, the atmosphere, the oceans and ocean sediments but the INCREASE from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is from burned fossil fuels). As the CO2 concentration increases the amount of radiation leaving the Earth decreases, and the wavelengths of radiation missing are those absorbed by CO2 (and water vapor, which is also increasing).
No alternative explanation has been supported by actual evidence. The Sun: No. Cosmic rays causing decreased clouds: No. Asteroid collisions: No. Sudden land mass changes: No. Change in albedo: Some – as large ice fields melt, less radiation reflected into space. Major changes in ocean currents: No. The MOST LIKELY explanation for MOST of the rapid warming is CO2 added to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.
The total processes that influence the Earth’s climate are much more complex than that, though – and that’s the beauty of science and research.
You are wrong. It’s a scientific theory and is supported by the evidence.
Jeffery,
If the paper had supported what you believe, you would say that the science is settled and this was another paper that deniers would ignore.
As it contradicts what you keep trying to say, you are dismissing it in every way that you can.