4 ms·

I would like to see solar activity included in the discussion as well. But anytime I bring it up I'm called a climate denialist. But we're seeing auroras very f

I would like to see solar activity included in the discussion as well. But anytime I bring it up I'm called a climate denialist. But we're seeing auroras very far south and those days it's no issue mentioning the sun is currently in an active phase. Why is that detail always omitted when it comes to global warming, sorry climate change?

jeremyjh 3y ago
I don't understand. Do you think there is scientific doubt about the greenhouse effect, or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that for hundreds of thousands of years CO2 concentrations have correlated with average temperature? There isn't any doubt about the problems of greenhouse gases, and there isn't anything we can do about the sun's activity other than use it as an excuse to do nothing "until we understand".
- worksonmine 3y ago
  This is the kind of responses I'm referring to. I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything as you assume, I'm wondering why solar activity isn't accounted for in the models. Maybe it can explain something? Trust the science and all that you know, being thorough. I'm curious if the changes we see can be explained by the sun activity yes. I'm not qualified to assess which of the scientists are right and which aren't, and to what extent CO2 gases cause global warming. Instead of just asking me to take it for a fact when asking a question please use your expertise and explain it in a sense that I can understand and verify. I'm asking out of curiosity and because I want to understand, to me this could all be because of the sun and an elaborate cash-grab, just as plausible. Because it's not about stopping it at all costs, some people can apparently buy the right to produce more? With these kind of hand-wavy responses from those who claim to have the knowledge where do you think me and other like me are turning for information? I don't know if it's easier to build a giant sunscreen than to get the worlds population eating bugs because apparently cows fart too much? But we still keep exploiting the amazon, and doing everything we can to keep the endless growth economy we've built going. So how pressing can it really be? We're fighting wars over more resources, when maybe we should be fighting to stop consumerism? I don't know. But I'm not taking anyones word for it, help me understand or move on. Don't tell me what to think.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - paulmd 3y ago
    > I'm wondering why solar activity isn't accounted for in the models why do you work from the assumption that it's not? a trivial search turned up this article from 2011 which says that models already do include approximations of solar activity even at that time. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/grantham-institute/public/publications/briefing-papers/Solar-Influences-on-Climate---Grantham-BP-5.pdf https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/grantham-i... obviously it is something that is constantly being improved, like everything else in the model. but there aren't good direct historical proxies for solar output - you can't take a "core sample" and go back 1000 years of solar activity, so the datasets really only go back 60 or 70 years there, and even rough measurements of sunspot activity/etc will only probably go back less than 200 years. but over the last 15 years this is something that's been actively studied and addressed and they're trying to incorporate more detailed modeling. https://eos.org/science-updates/better-data-for-modeling-the-suns-influence-on-climate https://eos.org/science-updates/better-data-for-modeling-the... again, this only affects between 7-30% of the total picture, according to most studies. so it's not like this is where global warming is coming from. contributing factor? sure, a small one. but like, I don't know why everyone works from the assumption that they thought of one thing that all the scientists forgot about completely. One clever trick to explain global warming, climate scientists hate him. which is why stuff like this is not really constructive or helpful. like if you don't know, why are you so sure about what is being incorporated or not? why isn't the question "how is this being incorporated"? Because it probably is. > I don't know. But I'm not taking anyones word for it, help me understand or move on. Don't tell me what to think.
    - worksonmine 3y ago
      Much more constructive thank you. To be honest I haven't looked into it much in the last decade just going from the news and general discourse. I've noticed that we've been going into an active phase and it's mentioned a lot in other situations but never when it comes to the reasons behind climate change. Especially since it could make it worse I'd assume they'd push harder on it being more of a problem now. Feels like they're hiding something. According to your first link we can track solar activity: > Evidence of variations in solar activity on millennial timescales can be found in the records of cosmogenic radionuclides in such long-lived natural features as ice cores from large ice sheets, tree rings and ocean sediments. Using careful statistical analysis it is now possible to identify decadal and centennial signals of solar variability in climate data. 7% sounds low yes, but 30% is absolutely not a "small" factor. I'd think the direct effect of solar activity would be much easier to measure even on a micro level than CO2. A decade back a graph was popular where temperature and solar activity correlated almost 1:1. I'm not trying to argue for emissions, I'd prefer no cars, fresh air and banned plastics. But an honest debate where I'm not a conspiracy nut for asking completely valid questions is not much to ask for (not directed at you just the general discourse). If it really is serious then don't tell me we need to keep the economy going, that we have a demographic problem or try to sell me emission rights. We do or we don't, the next iphone or the next generation, that's the solution I expect to the level of threat they're telling me it is. Meanwhile they fly in private jets from summit to summit. I'm not even trying to keep my way of living I'm already a hermit with a broken screen on my 4 year old phone, and rarely eat red meat. What they say and what they do doesn't seem to match.

jeremyjh 3y ago

I don't understand. Do you think there is scientific doubt about the greenhouse effect, or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that for hundreds of thousands of years CO2 concentrations have correlated with average temperature? There isn't any doubt about the problems of greenhouse gases, and there isn't anything we can do about the sun's activity other than use it as an excuse to do nothing "until we understand".

worksonmine 3y ago
This is the kind of responses I'm referring to. I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything as you assume, I'm wondering why solar activity isn't accounted for in the models. Maybe it can explain something? Trust the science and all that you know, being thorough. I'm curious if the changes we see can be explained by the sun activity yes. I'm not qualified to assess which of the scientists are right and which aren't, and to what extent CO2 gases cause global warming. Instead of just asking me to take it for a fact when asking a question please use your expertise and explain it in a sense that I can understand and verify. I'm asking out of curiosity and because I want to understand, to me this could all be because of the sun and an elaborate cash-grab, just as plausible. Because it's not about stopping it at all costs, some people can apparently buy the right to produce more? With these kind of hand-wavy responses from those who claim to have the knowledge where do you think me and other like me are turning for information? I don't know if it's easier to build a giant sunscreen than to get the worlds population eating bugs because apparently cows fart too much? But we still keep exploiting the amazon, and doing everything we can to keep the endless growth economy we've built going. So how pressing can it really be? We're fighting wars over more resources, when maybe we should be fighting to stop consumerism? I don't know. But I'm not taking anyones word for it, help me understand or move on. Don't tell me what to think.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- paulmd 3y ago
  > I'm wondering why solar activity isn't accounted for in the models why do you work from the assumption that it's not? a trivial search turned up this article from 2011 which says that models already do include approximations of solar activity even at that time. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/grantham-institute/public/publications/briefing-papers/Solar-Influences-on-Climate---Grantham-BP-5.pdf https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/grantham-i... obviously it is something that is constantly being improved, like everything else in the model. but there aren't good direct historical proxies for solar output - you can't take a "core sample" and go back 1000 years of solar activity, so the datasets really only go back 60 or 70 years there, and even rough measurements of sunspot activity/etc will only probably go back less than 200 years. but over the last 15 years this is something that's been actively studied and addressed and they're trying to incorporate more detailed modeling. https://eos.org/science-updates/better-data-for-modeling-the-suns-influence-on-climate https://eos.org/science-updates/better-data-for-modeling-the... again, this only affects between 7-30% of the total picture, according to most studies. so it's not like this is where global warming is coming from. contributing factor? sure, a small one. but like, I don't know why everyone works from the assumption that they thought of one thing that all the scientists forgot about completely. One clever trick to explain global warming, climate scientists hate him. which is why stuff like this is not really constructive or helpful. like if you don't know, why are you so sure about what is being incorporated or not? why isn't the question "how is this being incorporated"? Because it probably is. > I don't know. But I'm not taking anyones word for it, help me understand or move on. Don't tell me what to think.
  - worksonmine 3y ago
    Much more constructive thank you. To be honest I haven't looked into it much in the last decade just going from the news and general discourse. I've noticed that we've been going into an active phase and it's mentioned a lot in other situations but never when it comes to the reasons behind climate change. Especially since it could make it worse I'd assume they'd push harder on it being more of a problem now. Feels like they're hiding something. According to your first link we can track solar activity: > Evidence of variations in solar activity on millennial timescales can be found in the records of cosmogenic radionuclides in such long-lived natural features as ice cores from large ice sheets, tree rings and ocean sediments. Using careful statistical analysis it is now possible to identify decadal and centennial signals of solar variability in climate data. 7% sounds low yes, but 30% is absolutely not a "small" factor. I'd think the direct effect of solar activity would be much easier to measure even on a micro level than CO2. A decade back a graph was popular where temperature and solar activity correlated almost 1:1. I'm not trying to argue for emissions, I'd prefer no cars, fresh air and banned plastics. But an honest debate where I'm not a conspiracy nut for asking completely valid questions is not much to ask for (not directed at you just the general discourse). If it really is serious then don't tell me we need to keep the economy going, that we have a demographic problem or try to sell me emission rights. We do or we don't, the next iphone or the next generation, that's the solution I expect to the level of threat they're telling me it is. Meanwhile they fly in private jets from summit to summit. I'm not even trying to keep my way of living I'm already a hermit with a broken screen on my 4 year old phone, and rarely eat red meat. What they say and what they do doesn't seem to match.