Climate-Change Skeptics Proved Wrong (Again): Sun Nixed As Cause

Yet another climate-denying claim has been scientifically shown the door, although this is expected to have as much effect as a trigonometric proof on a charging bull.  Skeptics have been saying that global temperature rises might be due to changes in the sun, pretty much the ultimate "it wasn't us, a big boy did it," with a giant fusion reactor as the elusive culprit.   Researchers have shown that this isn't the case and unlike the original claim their work involves advanced computer models, a distinct lack of the word "might", and has been published in Science.

Professors Peter Adams and Jeff Pierce did a bunch of things that those throwing around the solar excuse didn't:
a)  They did detailed work analyzing the actual effects of such activity
b)  They actually understood what such effects would really even be
c)  They rigorously applied scientific procedures to this research, constructed computer models, and would have reported the results either away
d)  They spent many, many years earning PhDs in scientific research and the title of "Professor."
We have to say, d) is our favorite.

The whole point of the original claim isn't any actual merit, just the fact that there were no models on the effects of changing solar activity on the atmosphere - so people who seriously stand up in public and say "Six billion monkeys setting fire to things has absolutely no effect on the air" could wave their arms and say "SOLAR blahblah COSMIC RAYS blablah (don't limit our emissions) blah!".  Luckily, scientists have a way of taking that sort of thing and instead of shouting back - which the skeptics are professionals at - actually testing the hypotheses.  Like it was some kind of "science" process designed to boil out biases and arrive at the truth or something.

The simulations show that the effects of cosmic rays from the sun are barely 1% of what they'd have to be to explain what we've seen.  The scientists are even one step ahead of the slimy "maybe-sorta" game, admitting their simulations can't account for everything that exists, becuase nothing could ever do that (including their opponents' arguments), but pointing out that nothing omitted missed could skew the results enough to appreciably alter the results.

So the scientists have proven something to be bullshit, but since we live in a world where phone psychics still exist we'll have to wait and see whether that actually affects anything.

Posted by Luke McKinney.

Changes in the Sun are not causing Global Warming, Study Says http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511122425.htm

Comments

[DH]

WELL,...YER TELLIN EVERYBODY THAT THE SCIENTISTS PROVED SUMTHIN...WUT'S THAT WORTH//???..WOULD YOU...SHARE THE DATA ..??...

[Simon]

Deniers are so arrogant, of course it's our fault.

[SCIENCEWTFLOL]

They'll just change their studies next year after this year proves to be one of the coldest ever...like last year.

[Really?]

Computer models are only as good as their input. Don't put your blind faith in them. Also, do you really think that the unimaginably enormous ball of fire in the sky that gives all heat to this planet has no effect on the climate? Yeah that seems likely...
I'm not saying this study is wrong in its findings, but beware your 'all knowing' computer models.

[chea mgee]

I would like to see the DATA. I believe the story but ranting is lame. How many people will you convince by being obnoxious.

[ibrahemovich]

I would not be too quick to second guess the role the sun plays in heating our atmosphere; remember its technically responsible for everything. Computer models are just that, models.

Your rant only makes you sound less informed; and I would like to point out that there are 'skeptics' on the global warming debate who also have PhD's. It is science there should rarely been a consensus, that's the whole point.

Either way we will all know more soon enough, patience is a virtue.

[Jonrgrover]

Climate is always changing, look at the historical record.

[Christian Rioux]

It's not the sun itself, but the earth orbit around the sun that is responsible for climate changes, especially ice ages.

The other sources are Co2 levels, but not necessarly human influence. Co2 level have been higher and lower thant today, even before human existed.

When Co2 levels were lower, it caused gigantic Ice ages. Co2 is needed to heat the planet.

[Jesse]

For all those requesting data, the article clearly stated their findings are published in Science. Stop asking the good folks at Daily Galaxy, and go get the latest issue of Science. This is a blog not a scientific journal.

[Trent1492]

@Simon,

"They'll just change their studies next year after this year proves to be one of the coldest ever.like last year."

Last year was the 9th warmest year on the instrument record. Simon do you know how climate is defined?

[Trent1492]

@ibrahemovich

"Climate is always changing, look at the historical record."

No one is arguing that the climate has never ever changed before. Do you always set up straw man arguments? You are also committing the genetic fallacy of reasoning. Just because something has had a different cause in the past does not preclude it from having a different cause now.

[pikestaff]

The British met. office has published a graph showing global temperatures dropping since the year 2000, CO2 in the atmosphere is 383 parts per million, I dont think CO2 has much effect, but Methane, which holds 20 times more heat than CO2, might. in the last 200o years, volcanic activity has gone up %300, I bet the 10 billions tons a year of gas and particulates they spew out could have some bearing on 'global warming' its May here in England, and the wind is still cold. I read a report last week, an artic survey stated that the ice sheet is 2 metres thicker than they thought it would be, at 4 metres.

[Simon]

Trent1492, posters' names are at the bottom..

Do you know that that is quite easy to work out?

[oto kiralama]

You are also committing the genetic fallacy of reasoning. Just because something has had a different cause in the past does not preclude it from having a different cause now.

[democratsarefascists]

Riiiight.

We're supposed to accept from you that it takes generations to indicate climate change through data, yet now you say some claim made now, based on two months' data in a SIMULATION, supports your claims.

Hypocritical much?

[John Clare]

Very interesting and very likely to be true, however stopping the effect caused by the six milliards of people on the earth isn't going to disappear just because everyone turns light bulbs off and drives more responsibly. The answer is fewer people. How about stopping child allowances for a start?

[Barrie O'Leary]

Where do these corresondents come from? Hoo-Ha! Most know nothing of science but that does not stop them from being stupid critics.
The scientst have reported that the sun is not responsibble for the global warming which Earth is reported to be experiencing. Something else like methane emissions in the atmosphere can be looked at for that. The report states nothing at all to the contrary.

[Aloysius J Kling Sr]

More garbage!

[Mifkin]

Really?

Call me stupid but from the outset I'd agree with the sceptics, the energy the sun puts out would trump anything we could do. (Which ironically I would have thought would magnify any effects we create)

How does the sun, which is responsible for I would assume a very large percentage of the heat have a less then 1% effect on climate fluctuations?
Im gonna get me the science magazine yeehaw!

[Bart]

The blog post seems to put an inordinate amount of faith in a single study based on computer models of the kind which failed to predict our recent round of cooling.

"Last year was the 9th warmest year on the instrument record."

So, your idea is that warming should be gradual, but cooling should be instantaneous? Are you familiar with the elementary concept of prediction using, say, least squares polynomial regression or other trending techniques? I ask merely for information.

[Ray]

This argument is a smoke screen to cover the real facts of the debate. Go ahead and listen to the Goreacle while drinking your cool aid and waiting for the sky to fall.

[willy the impeached]

Dude, the climate is always changing. Way back in the day that had a word for it ... weather.
And since when is a computer MODEL data? You don't seem to have even the most basic level of science with in your mentally tenuous grasp.