SkepticLance

Fred Here's a couple more references for you. On long term solar effects on warming/cooling cycles - three articles from sciencemag (AAAS) http://www.sciencemag.org Their 7 December 2001 edition. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/5549/2130?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Holocene&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&issue=5549&resourcetype=HWCIT Also http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;294/5549/2109 Also http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/294/5549/2149 And a more popular description of solar activity causing warming/cooling. Not very accurate, but generally supporting the point. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

If I am reading the last two posts correctly, then there are a couple of ostriches with heads in sand. If I am not, please explain. The big global temperature changes over the past thousand years, except the last 30, were all preceded by relevent sunspot activity changes. The concept that the sun has nothing to do with global warming/cooling seems to be real ostrich country.

There was a time when iron from the land entered the ocean in much greater amounts than today. That time was during the glaciation periods of the current Ice Age. Ice core studies have shown that lots of dust was deposited over the glaciers, and hence, logically, also in the ocean. This is probably partly due to glacial movement, and partly due to the fact that times of glaciation tend to be rather arid across much of the world. Hence more dust, and thus more iron into the ocean. It has been speculated that the low CO2 levels in the atmosphere during glacial times were due to the stimulation of phytoplankton by this iron deposition.

There are no absolutes in this world. Everything has meaning only relative to something else. So the question is : Is killing animals for meat cruel relative to the alternative? Then : What is the alternative? Well, the alternative for a cow or sheep is to be permitted to run wild and be hunted by predators. A wild cow or sheep will have an average lifespan of months, only, due to the very high mortality of calves and lambs. And when they die, do they do so painlessly? No. There is nothing crueller than the way a predator kills its prey. In the best case, it clamps its teeth on the throat of its prey and kills it by strangulation in minutes - long enough for the prey to feel terrible pain, panic and terror . In the worst case, it is a long, protracted hunt, filled with terror for the prey animal, with repeated painful woundings, and the prey finally dragged down to die slowly. On the other hand, a cow or sheep kept by humans as a meat animal is cared for - given good pasture or grain. It receives veterinary attention if sick. It is kept free of anything that might cause it stress (stress affects weight gain and meat quality; thus loss of money - so the farmer tries to prevent it). Finally, after a life that is the cow equivalent of heaven, it is led quietly into a slaughterhouse, and killed instantly and painlessly. Given a choice, if you must be a cow. Which is best? To live the life described above, or one in the wild filled with terror and disease, to be dragged down by a predator at an average age of only a few months?

I am very fond of Schott bottles. They have, of course, a heat resistant screw top plastic cap, which seals perfectly. Fill it with agar and autoclave the entire bottle. It remains sterile until the cap is removed. If a smaller container is needed, then a 20 ml McCartney bottle will do the same, with its screw cap.

To CDarwin You are correct about the company involved. They are likely to be setting it up in a cynical manner in order to score megabucks off naive governments etc. It is the general public who might support this nonsense that are showing the panic and hysteria.

Penn and Teller had a hilarious spoof on bottled waters. They filmed their scenes in a legitimate restaurant that was in on the joke. They told customers that they were having a water tasting, in which a wide range of bottled waters would be served, from many countries. In fact, they filled all the carafes from the hose out the back of the restaurant. The customers critically appraised the variety and all came up with clear favourites, despite it all being tap water.

It is a strong hint, but not definitive proof. There are lots of ways that a primitive trait can be lost and later(perhaps much later) re-acquired.

There was a recent New Scientist article also that discussed this. It seems to be a hysterical reaction, based on the view that climate change is immediate and disastrous. Exactly the sort of emotional reaction to be expected from the message produced by Al. Gore and Greenpeace, and their allies. It is far better to respond to the need to reduce CO2 in a more considered, deliberate, managed way, without the hysterical and panicky proposals that ocean fertilisers represent. There are many developments under way which can lead to this. Such things as new biofuels (not the silliness of ethanol from corn), hydrogen producing solar cells, new generation nuclear energy and so on. Let's get sensible, folks, and do this right.

To Swansont You are correct. However, I am casting doubt on the so called quantitative analyses. In particular, the figures given for solar forcings. These have always been very low, even for occasions such as the 1910 to 1941 warming, where the effect has been very strong. This has been something of a puzzle to me. I suspect the reason is that the mechanism for sunspot activity driven warmings/coolings is not really understood. There is a quite separate forcing, which is solar irradiance. This has been increasing to a small degree for decades. It has been accurately measured for a relatively short time, and I suspect this is what the IPCC use for their calculated solar forcings. This is not really the same as sunspot activity. Sunspots do increase irradiance, but they also have other effects, including magnetic fields (which reduce cosmic ray flux), and a substantial increase in ultra violet output, which affects ozone levels. If, as I think, the IPCC is only taking into account the increase in irradiance, they are missing the major source of sunspot driven global temperature change.

To Fred I am sorry if this appears undiplomatic, but that statement of yours is nonsense. We have a strong correlation between sunspot activity rise and fall, followed by global temperature rise and fall, six times. In fact, every time from the middle of the 20th Century back to more than a thousand years ago, that global temperature undergoes a significant rise or fall, it is preceded by sunspot activity rise or fall. Bascule is fond of saying that correlation does not prove causation. That is a true statement, but, as in this case, there are only three possibilities when the correlation passes beyond any reasonable possibility of coincidence. If A correlates with B, and does so often enough to be beyond coincidence, then either 1. A causes B 2. B causes A 3. Both A and B are caused by C If A is sunspots and B is global temperature, then clearly possibility number 2 is impossible. There is no way a warming Earth can cause sunspots to appear. That leaves possibility 1 or 3. Possibility 3 seems unlikely in the extreme, because the cause of global warming would then also have to cause sunspots. Not necessarily impossible. Maybe some unknown extra-solar event releases an unknown and undetectable particle in vast numbers that has the property of both stimulating sunspots and warming the Earth. Yes, not impossible, but unlikely in the extreme. Conclusion : the correlation between sunspot activity and global warming leaves an almost 100% certainty of causation with high sunspot activity causing global warming.

To foodchain This thread was about the Everett multi-universe theory. There are lots of multi-universe theories in which your comment is valid. However, in the Everett interpretation, the many universes essentially 'peel off' earlier universes by varying quantum outcomes. That means each new universe is almost identical to the one it came from, and changes will only become significant with time. In effect, all the universes that came from 'ours' over the past 100 years will still be quite similar.

I have read Hawkings "Brief History of Time" and understood it. It was well written and made a great contribution to the understanding of physics by amateurs.

To Swansont Thank you for your explanation. I can now see what you were driving at. However, your analogy deals with only one change in income. As far as climate change go, there are numerous changes - with temperatures rising and falling at various times. With the strong exception of the 1976 to present situation, the various times that temperature changes its trend (that is : rising temperature becomes falling, or vice versa) are always preceded by a change in sunspot activity. The same applies to the argument that a combination of climate forcings other than sunspots overcome greenhouse gases. This might happen once, or maybe twice. However, we have so many occasions where the trend alters, preceded by sunspot activity changes, that this interpretation seems pretty silly. Think about it. 1. Lower temperatures before 900AD. Sunspot goes up. Temperature goes up. 2. Higher temperatures in 1350 AD. Sunspot goes down. Temperature drops. 3. Lower temperature in 1750 AD. Sunspot goes up. Temperature up. 4. Higher in 1880 AD. Sunspot down. Temperature down. 5. Lower in 1910 AD. Sunspot up. Temperature up. 6. Higher in 1941 AD. Sunspot down. Temperature down. There are six separate occasions where sunspot activity change precedes a relevent temperature change. Are you trying to tell me it is all coincidence? If you are, then you must also believe that the high incidence of lung cancer experienced by smokers is also coincidence. I accept that other factors are involved. However, the empirical evidence strongly suggests that sunspot activity, up until about 1976, is the most potent.

At this stage we need to discount string theory. Until there is a series of positive predictive tests that fail to falsify string theory, we must regard it as pure speculation, not physics.

Swansont said : "the problem is when you imply that the "dominant driver" and overall trend have to match each other, or that whatever driver matches the overall is the dominant one." Could you please rephrase this? I am having a problem understanding what you are getting at. If you are suggesting that the parameter that correlates most closely to the trend is not the most potent, then I fear for your process of logic. This whole argument as far as I can see is simply that the more extreme global warming advocates do not like to accept that, in the past, sunspot activity could have been the most potent driver. Am I right in that interpretation? Obviously, over the past 30 years, greenhouse gases have been most potent. Also clearly, the pattern before that is different, and other parameters become more important. In the period of 1941 to 1976, where overall temperatures dropped by 0.2 Celsius, greenhouse gases cannot have been the dominant influence, since they increased very substantially, while temperatures fell. Sulphate aerosols may have been a part of the picture at that time, but so was a drop in sunspot activity. Over the period of 1880 to 1940, sunspot activity was clearly dominant. Greenhouse gases rose steadily, though at a much lower rate than today. From 1880 to 1910, at a time sunspot activity was falling, so was temperature. From 1910 to 1940, at a time sunspot activity was rising substantially, so was temperature. This is empirical data. Why is it so hard for people to understand that greenhouse gases were not the major influence at that time? In a similar way, sunspot activity has been found by empirical studies to be the major influence earlier in history. Sunspot activity can be estimated by studies of ice cores. These studies showed a high level of sunspot activity (though still lower than today) during the Medieval Climate Optimum of 900 AD to 1350 AD. Sunspot activity fell after that time, and the world entered the Little Ice Age. The coldest part of the Little Ice Age was a 50 year period known to astronomers as the Maunder Minimum, since there was almost zero sunspot activity at that time. Sunspot activity began to rise about 1750AD, and the world began to warm up.

1veedo Let me re-post my last statement "I did not require a single parameter. There are numerous parameters governing climate change. This makes the issue highly complex. However, there are sometimes dominant parameters, rather than single parameters". I have always accepted the complexity of global climate change, and this forms the centre post of my argument about taking the results of computer models too literally. The complexity is what makes it so difficult for models to get it right. However, among all the parameters that influence the climate, there is no equality. Some are always more potent than others. This is also part of my argument and has always been so. Ultimately, empirical evidence is what we must take most notice of. It is empirical evidence that shows that greenhouse gases are dominant at present. It is also that empirical evidence that shows the potency of sunspot activity as a climate driver in earlier decades.

Fred I do not readily take offense. However, my highest respect to you for the apology, even if it was unnecessary. Only quality people offer apologies. Swansont said : "Your requirement that there be correlation with but a single parameter is without basis." Re-read my posts. I did not require a single parameter. There are numerous parameters governing climate change. This makes the issue highly complex. However, there are sometimes dominant parameters, rather than single parameters. You would not argue with the statement that, over the past 3 decades, anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been the dominant parameter driving global temperature change. Would you? So why is it so difficult for you to grasp the simple fact that, in times before those AGGs became so potent, that sunspot activity was then the dominant driver? Here is another report discussing the issue http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml "The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years. Dr Solanki does not know what is causing the Sun to burn brighter now or how long this cycle would last. He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself."

Some people have a funny idea about what constitutes science. Science is not based on calculations as its mainstay. Calculations are a tool. Nothing more. They can be valuable, or misleading, depending on the situation. Modern science is based on empirical testing. The results of calculations have value in direct proportion to how well they are verified by empirical testing. That is the reason why global climate models are suspect. They are castles in the sand, in that there is little clear empirical testing to support or refute them. The fact that over the past 30 years warming correlates with greenhouse gases appears to support them, but when the models are used to retroactively predict what happened before 1976, they start to fall apart. Please take note also : misquoting me is not an argument. Swansont said "Math is hard" isn't much of a critique, IMO. It certainly doesn't make it wrong." Re-read the post. That was not the argument. Your statement is just a red herring. Fred said "What I can't get my head around in all this is why some people believe that climate scientists must all be lying, or seriously deceived, or just after fund" I suggest that you, too, re-read the posting. Again, that is not what was said. Bascule said : "Why can't any of the naysayers develop contradictory forcing inputs and models which reconstruct the instrumental record, develop models where accepted forcing inputs don't work, or *gasp* develop forcing inputs that can reconstruct the instrumental record from existing models?" Do you think that making the same mistake a second time is a good strategy? Bascule also said : "This is not true, for the simple reason that the current warming trend started in 1960. So why do you say 1976? Simple. It better fits your agenda." Please do not engage in deliberate deception. You are as aware as I am that any warming from 1960 to 1976 is trivial. The real warming happened after 1976. Bascule also said : "If you can see why the earth's radiative balance is dependent upon the complex interplay of multiple, constantly changing forcings which operate within a complex dynamical system, you'll realize why that argument is bullshit." The complexity of the system is exactly why your arguments are wrong. We know that after 1976 that AGGs are a dominant force, and we know from the historical record, that in earlier periods, sunspot activity is dominant. There are doubtless many other inputs, some of which are currently unknown. A whole raft of both positive and negative feed-back mechanisms will be in play, some of which we are aware of, and some of which we are not. It is the arrogant assumption that we know it all and can predict it all that gets to me.

To Bascule We have been through all this before. You, like 1veedo, believe anything that comes from the IPCC must be as if written by God. Sorry, it is not so. IPCC is a bunch of a few scientists, and an enormous number of bureaucrats and politicians who put out whatever fits their own agenda. I have no doubt that most of the scientists are honest, but it is hard to get around the personal agendas of so many non scientists. The various forcings that you like to quote are a case in point. They are the results of calculations, that work on the results of other calculations, that work on the results of yet more calculations. They are so far removed from reality that the error factor is huge. The fact that they show minimal impact from solar forcings, when direct historical data shows it is large is a case in point. As long as you believe fervently in the divine nature of IPCC calculations, you and I will never agree. You said : "You mean 1960?" Temperatures fell from 1941 to about 1960, correct. However, they stayed relatively stable (and when I use the word 'stable' it is intended to be a relative term) until 1976. Since this discussion is about warming, I used the 1976 date. 1976 is the date representing the beginning of the current warming trend. You have seen this graph before. http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif In one sense, it is also fallible because the sunspot activity has been converted to a reconstructed irradiance. However, it shows, from 1860 to 2000 in a way that reflects numerous other similar sets of data, the close correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature. If you can see the way sunspot activity is related to temperature from this graph, and a number of others, you will understand how the IPCC calculations of solar forcings cannot be correct.

iNow asked "But doesn't current sunspot activity imply that global temperatures should presently be decreasing, which it's not?" As I have said before, sunspot activity has not changed much over the past 50 odd years, apart from the 11 and 22 year cycles. Over the past 30 years, temperature rise correlates closely with greenhouse gas rise, and this is doubtless the best explanation for the current rise in global temperature. The point I made about sunspot activity driving warming and cooling applies to an earlier time - before 1976.

Fred asked about empirical evidence for the large sunspot changes and associated large global temperature changes. These come from a variety of studies. I am not sure if I have a single reference to put it all together. A good general discussion can be found on Wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation A good graph relating sunspots to temperature back to 1860 can be found on http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif This shows the relationship quite convincingly. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1998/Lean_Rind.html http://www.solarstorms.org/CloudCover.html

To Fred All honest and competent scientific research should be regarded as helpful. I do not include unwarranted deduction as honest research. Good research must include solid empirical data - not deduced data, unless the calculations are based only on proven material rather than uncertain assumptions. What I meant by 'unhelpful' was discussing minor changes in sunspot activity in this thread when the real impact has been during times of major sunspot activity change.

1veedo said : "The Earth should actually be getting cooler right now anyway -- scientists more or less regard global warming as a 180 degree turn away from "normal." This may or may not be correct. I have seen references, by different scientists, to expectations that without humans the world will cool or will not cool. We just do not know. "That's what's wrong with your whole "1941 to 1976" reasoning. Yes CO2 levels were high back then but so was particulate pollution. Particulates have the effect that they black the sun and cool down the planet, hense why between "1941 to 1976" the Earth cooled." This is one of those terrible hind-sight predictions. The whole anthropogenic global warming thing took off about 1980. Of course, the question then arose - What about the cooling of 1941 to 1976? Somewhat embarassing since greenhouse gases were steadily rising while temperatures dropped. Someone came up with the idea that it must be sulphate aerosol pollution that caused the cooling. That has never seemed very convincing for the simple reason that sulphate pollution did not suddenly appear in 1941 and suddenly disappear in 1976. It was certainly present in large amount before 1941, and there is actually a hell of a lot of it right now, from Eastern Europe and China air pollution, with the associated acid rain etc. However, sunspot activity by comparison DOES suddenly increase and fall. It fell substantially for the first half of the period in question. The global temperatures then stabilised, and started rising again from 1976. The period of about 1955 to present saw sunspot activity remaining fairly steady apart from the 11 and 22 year cycles, thus not affecting temperature change to any significant level. "Just because the human impact on the climate hasn't been as overwhelming as the past 30 years doesn't mean we haven't been doing anything." Actually, if you re-read my posts, you will find I have not denied that. Any increase in greenhouse gases clearly will increase the insulating effect of the atmosphere and cause warming. What I have been saying, is that the effect of changing sunspot activity is greater, at least prior to 1976. If you re-check the graphs, you will see that rises in AGGs before the 20th Century were relatively trivial, and thus had a trivial effect.

There appears to be a lot of confusion here. The effect of sunspots on global average temperature does not appear to be a result of direct changes in solar irradiance. In fact, apart from normal 11 and 22 year cycle changes, sunspot activity has been relatively steady for most of the past 50 odd years. There was a big increase in sunspot activity after 1910, and it fell again about 1941. From about 1955 there has been little overall change. However, sunspots are assocated with a couple of changes in solar output other than irradiance. 1. Magnetic effects. 2. Increased ultra violet output. The magnetic effects may act through cosmic ray flux. It has been known for some time now that cosmic ray intensity reaching the Earth's atmosphere drops off when sunspot activity is high. This appears to be a result of high magnetic effects, since cosmic rays are very high energy charged particles and are deflected by magnetic fields. Thus, a hypothesis has been formed that suggests that at times of high sunspot activity, and lowered cosmic ray flux, there are fewer charged particles in the atmosphere to act as nucleation sites for clouds. Since low altitude clouds reflect heat and are a cooling influence, this means warmer conditions. There is a little empirical evidence available from satellite studies that show fewer clouds when sunspot activity is high, but I do not believe we can say this hypothesis has sufficient evidence to be accepted. A second hypothesis depends on the ozone generating effect of ultra violet. Since ozone is a potent greenhouse gas, this may be a means by which high sunspot activity can result in warmer temperatures. Again, this is a mere hypothesis and remains unproven. The point is that measuring irradiance is quite unhelpful in determining the effects of sunspots on global temperature. It is also quite unhelpful to talk about changes in sunspot activity over the past 50 years. The big changes have been at other times.