4 ms·

> > Fact 2: Solar output has increased recently > Citation needed. Maybe they meant 'recently' as in geologic time and not "since 2000"? I think it's interes

> > Fact 2: Solar output has increased recently > Citation needed. Maybe they meant 'recently' as in geologic time and not "since 2000"? I think it's interesting that solar energy and magnetic fields and cosmic energy fluctuates from year to year. I think these primary inputs to the system not staying constant would make it impossible to model climate such that the model could be an accurate predictive tool. This particular tool seems rigged to show a certain outcome, and I feel bad for folks here who are frustrated by its +1C floor on temperature rise by the end of the simulation. That (crude) part of the design was probably meant to frustrate and/or panic people into taking action. I'm happy to see such obvious rigging of the game on display here and that folks are thinking about that.

Matumio 7y ago
Solar activity may be rising (but I think it's falling actually?), and yes has had an impact in the past, and yes we don't know how large exactly. Does this mean we cannot make any valid predictions until we know it to the last digit? This of course depends on how large the uncertainty of its effect is, compared to other effects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate
- EdSharkey 7y ago
  You cite a lot of uncertainty about Solar activity! Sure, you can use models to make predictions for a date in the future. Then, you wait to see if you reach that date and the predictions come true. Then you can make qualitative assertions about the accuracy of the model, its shortcomings, and whatnot. Do we have evidence of past climate models making accurate future predictions? (I really don’t know, now you have me curious.)
  - Matumio 7y ago
    Surely we have historical data to validate models with?! I'm no expert, but this all sounds very plausible to me. Some parts are even basic physics, like reflection and black-body radiation, which I'm pretty sure we have nailed down exactly by now. Other parts are uncertain: simplifications of topology, chaotic processes, methane content of melting grounds, etc. The model allows to answer "what-if" questions, and the uncertainty of the answer also depends on the question. Would the temperature rise if earth's atmosphere suddenly had the composition on Venus? Hell yes, we can predict that with high confidence, without ever trying it for real. Can we predict the gusts of wind caused by this, the global heat distribution, the exact timing? Probably not, at least it's not plausible to me that we could model every effect that matters for such a detailed prediction. But does it sound so unbelievable that we have a model accurate enough to predict the rough effect of additional CO2 on global temperature? Or would you argue that it is more plausible that most scientists are corrupt and follow someone's agenda, and have discarded the idea of doing honest science which they must have had when starting?
    - linuxftw 7y ago
      > does it sound so unbelievable that we have a model accurate enough to predict the rough effect of additional CO2 on global temperature? Yes, it does sound unbelievable because CO2 is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, and water vapor is approximately 2.5% of the atmosphere while also being the strong greenhouse gas. It's a giant fraud used a political tool for the brainwashed masses.
    - EdSharkey 7y ago
      You can make hypotheses and test them with models, that is science and it can shed light on how processes work. But these models have input variables that have some randomness and some which are currently unknown to us. It's putting the cart before the horse to consider these models to be simulations, which is how we treat them politically. The only appropriate reaction to how we frame the climate in politics is skepticism. There is clearly a push to amp the climate rhetoric up to crisis levels right now. It's easier every day to be a skeptic.
breakyerself 7y ago
The sun varys from year to year, but its variability is a lot smaller than you imply and solar irradience has been directly measured to be decreasing for the last 40 or so years while global average temps have climbed to levels not seen in 130,000 years. Along with direct observation of decreasing solar output solar has been ruled out because the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming. This is consistent with greenhouse gasses not allowing heat to escape to the upper reaches of our atmosphere. Solar forcing would warm all levels of the atmosphere not just the bottom. Also night time temps are increasing faster than day time temps. This is the opposite of what you would get with solar forcing. Basically bringing up solar as an alternative hypothesis betrays that you do not have the requisite understanding to attempt overturning an entire field of science. Don't feel bad most of us don't.
- EdSharkey 7y ago
  I'm not hypothesizing anything, solar energy is the primary input to the system by nature of the fact that removing the sun would leave Earth a lifeless rock. I do find all of the catastrophising of nature very fascinating. The switcheroo from "global warming" to "climate change" was pretty slick. The attempt to step the message up to "climate crisis" is going to be barrels of fun. And, yes, I do feel for those people who are frustrated or living in fear by climate alarmists. "It's already too late ..." is full-on revolutionary agitprop. I can only hope people burn out on this whole thing, exhausted by it all, rather than have a psychotic break.
  - breakyerself 7y ago
    Solar energy is the primary input to the system, but it isn't driving warming. There is no evidence that it is. Literally everything else you said here is just politics.
    - EdSharkey 7y ago
      > isn't driving warming I never said anything about warming, that’s your line. I said, "I think these primary inputs to the system not staying constant would make it impossible to model climate such that the model could be an accurate predictive tool." Also, we’ve long moved onto “Climate Change”, even though all the models still predict warming. > Solar energy is the primary input to the system, but it isn't driving warming. You seem so sure, and that has me questioning my position. People seem to like to quote Wikipedia here, so I DDG'd for a few seconds with the !wiki thing. Here's what came up. I may need to throw some bucks in the Wikipedia fundraising kettle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate Says here after all of the prehistoric climate change hypothesized to be tied to solar output: > The link between recent solar activity and climate has been quantified and is not a major driver of the warming that has occurred since early in the twentieth century. Maybe you’re right! Let’s keep reading. > Human-induced forcings are needed to reproduce the late-20th century warming. I thought I was busted, except in the very next sentence … > Some studies associate solar cycle-driven irradiation increases with part of twentieth century warming. So solar cycle-driven irradiation CAN correlate with temperature change. And in fact, if you read the whole article you can see regular admissions there’s a lot we don’t understand and the sun is a contributing factor in varying temperatures.
imtringued 7y ago
>This particular tool seems rigged to show a certain outcome, and I feel bad for folks here who are frustrated by its +1C floor on temperature rise by the end of the simulation. That (crude) part of the design was probably meant to frustrate and/or panic people into taking action. What? No it makes you feel like the whole thing is pointless because people aren't even willing to take moderate action. If we drop everything and only focus on climate change we won't drop the temperature that much. 25% of the predicted warming has already been locked in. That's a massive loss and it won't be possible to do anything about it.
- EdSharkey 7y ago
  Argh, does this web app really engender such feelings of hopelessness in you or is this an act? I'm sorry either way. Don't believe the hype! The +1C is a lie, propaganda. ;(

Matumio 7y ago

Solar activity may be rising (but I think it's falling actually?), and yes has had an impact in the past, and yes we don't know how large exactly. Does this mean we cannot make any valid predictions until we know it to the last digit? This of course depends on how large the uncertainty of its effect is, compared to other effects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate

EdSharkey 7y ago
You cite a lot of uncertainty about Solar activity! Sure, you can use models to make predictions for a date in the future. Then, you wait to see if you reach that date and the predictions come true. Then you can make qualitative assertions about the accuracy of the model, its shortcomings, and whatnot. Do we have evidence of past climate models making accurate future predictions? (I really don’t know, now you have me curious.)
- Matumio 7y ago
  Surely we have historical data to validate models with?! I'm no expert, but this all sounds very plausible to me. Some parts are even basic physics, like reflection and black-body radiation, which I'm pretty sure we have nailed down exactly by now. Other parts are uncertain: simplifications of topology, chaotic processes, methane content of melting grounds, etc. The model allows to answer "what-if" questions, and the uncertainty of the answer also depends on the question. Would the temperature rise if earth's atmosphere suddenly had the composition on Venus? Hell yes, we can predict that with high confidence, without ever trying it for real. Can we predict the gusts of wind caused by this, the global heat distribution, the exact timing? Probably not, at least it's not plausible to me that we could model every effect that matters for such a detailed prediction. But does it sound so unbelievable that we have a model accurate enough to predict the rough effect of additional CO2 on global temperature? Or would you argue that it is more plausible that most scientists are corrupt and follow someone's agenda, and have discarded the idea of doing honest science which they must have had when starting?
  - linuxftw 7y ago
    > does it sound so unbelievable that we have a model accurate enough to predict the rough effect of additional CO2 on global temperature? Yes, it does sound unbelievable because CO2 is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, and water vapor is approximately 2.5% of the atmosphere while also being the strong greenhouse gas. It's a giant fraud used a political tool for the brainwashed masses.
  - EdSharkey 7y ago
    You can make hypotheses and test them with models, that is science and it can shed light on how processes work. But these models have input variables that have some randomness and some which are currently unknown to us. It's putting the cart before the horse to consider these models to be simulations, which is how we treat them politically. The only appropriate reaction to how we frame the climate in politics is skepticism. There is clearly a push to amp the climate rhetoric up to crisis levels right now. It's easier every day to be a skeptic.

breakyerself 7y ago

The sun varys from year to year, but its variability is a lot smaller than you imply and solar irradience has been directly measured to be decreasing for the last 40 or so years while global average temps have climbed to levels not seen in 130,000 years. Along with direct observation of decreasing solar output solar has been ruled out because the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming. This is consistent with greenhouse gasses not allowing heat to escape to the upper reaches of our atmosphere. Solar forcing would warm all levels of the atmosphere not just the bottom. Also night time temps are increasing faster than day time temps. This is the opposite of what you would get with solar forcing. Basically bringing up solar as an alternative hypothesis betrays that you do not have the requisite understanding to attempt overturning an entire field of science. Don't feel bad most of us don't.

EdSharkey 7y ago
I'm not hypothesizing anything, solar energy is the primary input to the system by nature of the fact that removing the sun would leave Earth a lifeless rock. I do find all of the catastrophising of nature very fascinating. The switcheroo from "global warming" to "climate change" was pretty slick. The attempt to step the message up to "climate crisis" is going to be barrels of fun. And, yes, I do feel for those people who are frustrated or living in fear by climate alarmists. "It's already too late ..." is full-on revolutionary agitprop. I can only hope people burn out on this whole thing, exhausted by it all, rather than have a psychotic break.
- breakyerself 7y ago
  Solar energy is the primary input to the system, but it isn't driving warming. There is no evidence that it is. Literally everything else you said here is just politics.
  - EdSharkey 7y ago
    > isn't driving warming I never said anything about warming, that’s your line. I said, "I think these primary inputs to the system not staying constant would make it impossible to model climate such that the model could be an accurate predictive tool." Also, we’ve long moved onto “Climate Change”, even though all the models still predict warming. > Solar energy is the primary input to the system, but it isn't driving warming. You seem so sure, and that has me questioning my position. People seem to like to quote Wikipedia here, so I DDG'd for a few seconds with the !wiki thing. Here's what came up. I may need to throw some bucks in the Wikipedia fundraising kettle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate Says here after all of the prehistoric climate change hypothesized to be tied to solar output: > The link between recent solar activity and climate has been quantified and is not a major driver of the warming that has occurred since early in the twentieth century. Maybe you’re right! Let’s keep reading. > Human-induced forcings are needed to reproduce the late-20th century warming. I thought I was busted, except in the very next sentence … > Some studies associate solar cycle-driven irradiation increases with part of twentieth century warming. So solar cycle-driven irradiation CAN correlate with temperature change. And in fact, if you read the whole article you can see regular admissions there’s a lot we don’t understand and the sun is a contributing factor in varying temperatures.

imtringued 7y ago

>This particular tool seems rigged to show a certain outcome, and I feel bad for folks here who are frustrated by its +1C floor on temperature rise by the end of the simulation. That (crude) part of the design was probably meant to frustrate and/or panic people into taking action. What? No it makes you feel like the whole thing is pointless because people aren't even willing to take moderate action. If we drop everything and only focus on climate change we won't drop the temperature that much. 25% of the predicted warming has already been locked in. That's a massive loss and it won't be possible to do anything about it.

EdSharkey 7y ago
Argh, does this web app really engender such feelings of hopelessness in you or is this an act? I'm sorry either way. Don't believe the hype! The +1C is a lie, propaganda. ;(