You may find this article at Phys.org by Nicola Scafetta interesting, frustrating, or infuriating or some of each. The article considers the role of the sun in climate change. Here’s the opening paragraphs:
Although the sun provides nearly all the energy needed to warm the planet, its contribution to climate change remains widely questioned. Many empirically based studies claim that it has a significant effect on climate, while others (often based on computer global climate simulations) claim that it has a small effect.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) supports the latter view and estimates that almost 100% of the observed warming of the Earth’s surface from 1850–1900 to 2020 was caused by man-made emissions. This is known as the anthropogenic global warming (AGWT) theory.
The answer to the question is that we don’t really know. However, rather than taking an the extreme precautionary principle approach that the IPCC seems to I think there’s another way of looking at things.
There are things we can’t do much about like the sun and its cycle and things we can do something about. Why not address some of the things we can do something about? Catastrophizing may be easier to organize mass movements around but it doesn’t actually produce practical solutions.
That’s why, for example, I think that hybrids are a better alternative to straight internal combustion engines than electric vehicles are. Not to mention that they’re much stingier in their use of materials like rare earths, the discovery, mining, and processing of which pose problems of their own.
Scafetta has spent many years trying to build a curve that fits data by adding and deleting variables that make his curve fit better. He has done this by changing his variables for different time periods not based upon any coherent theory of physics but because it makes his curve fit better. If you will recall there were some pretty complex theories about the movements of the planets that were able to generate curves, assuming the planets and sun rotated around the earth, that were surprisingly close to being accurate.
He makes the claim that there are aspects to the energy coming from the sun that are not well understood that may prove the IPCC completely wrong.
” However, because the physics of such mechanisms is still poorly understood, they cannot be implemented in current GCMs. However, if their impact is shown to be large, current GCMs will be unsuitable to model climate change.”
If.
Steve
Probably the best source of information on climate is Roy Spencer, who runs the satellite that measures whole Earth temperature. He thinks the recovery from the Little Ice Age is half natural and half AGW.
By the way, Michael Mann and other climatologists believe the Little Ice Age never happened, that the 1850 world temperature had been the norm for at least 1,000 years. This claim is contradicted by ice core temperatures from Greenland that depict a steady decline in Holocene temperatures since the Younger Dryas event.
All the climate models except the Russian model run hot, and predict temperature rises over the last 30 plus years that are twice what is observed. So the other modelers have got the physics wrong, too.
However, with interest payments on the accumulated US debt on track to exceed $1 trillion this year, and with the call-up of reserves for service in Europe, climate is a secondary issue. Of course, a Nuclear Winter following a large-scale nuke exchange would solve the earth warming problem.
“All the climate models except the Russian model run hot, and predict temperature rises over the last 30 plus years that are twice what is observed. So the other modelers have got the physics wrong, too.”
A recent graphic showing the actual vs a number showed it was even more than twice. Climate “science” is relatively primitive.
Dave Schuler: The answer to the question is that we don’t really know.
There is strong scientific evidence that humans are warming the climate. There is still significant uncertainty, however, concerning how much warming to expect, but few researchers put it much below 2°C per doubling of CO2.
bob sykes: Probably the best source of information on climate is Roy Spencer, who runs the satellite that measures whole Earth temperature.
Technically, satellites don’t measure surface temperature but atmospheric irradiance. The tropospheric temperature has to be teased from the data. However, UAHv6.0 shows warming of 0.147°C per decade since 2000, which is in line with expected anthropogenic warming.
bob sykes: He thinks the recovery from the Little Ice Age is half natural and half AGW.
You didn’t provide a citation, but perhaps he is suggesting that there is sufficient lag in ocean heat turnover to account for the delay. However, observations of ocean heat content do not support that claim.
bob sykes: By the way, Michael Mann and other climatologists believe the Little Ice Age never happened
No one doubts that the Little Ice Age happened, but the question is to what extent it was a global phenomenon. The evidence suggests that the cooling phase affected different parts of the globe at different times, and that the mean global temperature only decreased somewhat. It does show that even small changes in average temperature can have broad climatic effects.
Drew: “All the climate models except the Russian model run hot”
Most models do not run hot. Some models run hot. When averaging across all models, the average can be distorted. Climate sensitivity is still thought to be roughly between 2-4°C.
Ptolemy. Couldn’t remember the name. Physics major son reminded me that given the limitations of astronomical observations the Ptolemy numbers fit better than the heliocentric claims, however, his calculations were very complex with the need to adjust lots of separate factors depending upon stuff like time of year.
Steve
You can’t really argue successfully against settled science.
Especially settled science with powerful financial incentives.
I would only caution that the time frames involved, as with evolution, are beyond our scope of knowledge or experience.
None of us are likely to live long enough to answer climate questions definitively.
But anyone who actually believes that enough of the world’s population will change their behavior against their own interests to effect a climate change is smoking their own B.S.
Grey Shambler: You can’t really argue successfully against settled science.
You can, but that requires actual evidence rather than simply disbelief.
Grey Shambler: I would only caution that the time frames involved, as with evolution, are beyond our scope of knowledge or experience.
We may not know everything about evolution, but we know a lot. For instance, humans share a common ancestor with lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
Grey Shambler: But anyone who actually believes that enough of the world’s population will change their behavior against their own interests to effect a climate change is smoking their own B.S.
That’s actually a legitimate point. It’s called the tragedy of the commons, wherein the short-term individual interest works against the long-term interest of everyone. However, that’s what governments can do. For instance, it may be in the individual’s interest to run a red light but against the collective interest. Governments solve the problem of incentives by enforcing traffic laws.
Individual countries can gain a short-term competitive advantage by dumping their pollution, but it may be against their long-term interest, especially if they dump their pollution on other countries who might react negatively, either by no longer buying their goods or through other, more aggressive means.
More than the tragedy of the commons, there are energy hungry populations who do not care about our commons.
Fools errand to tell Indians or Africans to forego modern food production or air conditioning.
Sacrifice your own family on this altar, not me.