Sunspots do not cause climate change, say scientists; key claim of global warming sceptics debunked

[Newsjock]

Source: The Independent

Leading scientists, including a Nobel Prize-winner, have rounded on studies used by climate sceptics to show that global warming is a natural phenomenon connected with sunspots, rather than the result of the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide.

The researchers – all experts in climate or solar science – have told The Independent that the scientific evidence continually cited by sceptics to promote the idea of sunspots being the cause of global warming is deeply flawed.

Studies published in 1991 and 1998 claimed to establish a link between global temperatures and solar activity – sunspots – and continue to be cited by climate sceptics, including those who attended an "alternative" climate conference in Copenhagen last week.

... However, many scientists now believe both of these studies are seriously flawed, and that when errors introduced into the analysis are removed, the correlations disappear, with no link between sunspots and global warming. Peter Laut, a former adviser to the Danish Energy Agency who first identified the flaws, said there were practically no observations to support the idea that variations in sunspots played more than a minor role in global warming.

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sunspots-do-not-cause-climate-change-say-scientists-1839867.html

[rfranklin]

1. Will Fox News trumpet this scandal?

No, I didn't think so.

[WriteDown]

2. So wait...

We have the raw data on the sunspot phenomenon? Phew.

[wuushew]

4. Why more snark?

not helpful or needed

[Duppers]

6. I agree with you

writedown is downwrong and welcome to my ignore list. I'm sick of his posts and joins others in wondering if he's a hiredhand of the one of the oily corps down in Texass.

We don't need snarky asshole deniers on this issue.

[WriteDown]

11. We don't use the word "denier" anymore...

Heretic is the preferred term or infidel. May want to check your email for the memos. :)

[kestrel91316]

17. Why should we use a religious term? You're the one who is the religious fundie.

What's your take on evolution, for the record??

You're in TX. Which oil company do you work for?

[WriteDown]

18. Evolution looks good to me...

Probably there will be more discovered about it though and corrections made. Like Newton's Laws.

Yeah, Texas, a transplant from New York to North Carolina to Texas.

Didn't Texas just elect an openly gay mayor to the largest city EVER.

I wish I worked in oil/gas. I have a few friends who are getting rich doing so, but that is not my field.

Oh, and how am I a religious fundie?

[WriteDown]

9. Point taken. Thanks. nt

[kestrel91316]

16. He's our resident RW global warming denialist.

[Duppers]

5. your card...

[WriteDown]

10. How is that Olsen twin?

Heath is that you?

[beardown]

7. Just his way of agreeing with the research.

Hey, Writedown was probably the major poster on the thread about the raw data getting deleted. He likes to have the original data available, even when it's just a small part of the overall research data. So if the raw data is available and it disproves the sun spot theory often put out by deniers, then he will accept the findings. He's just somewhat awkward with making postings that support global warming theory.

I'm sure that's it because otherwise he'd lose what slim threads of credibility that he has left on the subject. Come on Writedown, show these skeptic skeptics that you're just after the truth behind global warming and not just a fundamentalist type denier who wouldn't accept global warming if you were standing knee deep in frozen ice cap water in the middle of Kansas. Come out with a clear and simple acknowledgment of that the sun spot theory is on the same death list as polar bears. You can do it.

[WriteDown]

8. I can accept when data is refuted...

I find it interesting and thought provoking. Notice that I do not blindly defend the sunspot theory.

[sam sarrha]

3. there are solar fluctuations, but fossil fuel CO2 has buried them like Katrina slam'n into NOLA

will all the extra water in the Rising Oceans bulge at the equator and slow the earth's rotation and cause differential pressures on tectonic plates. resulting in disastrous seismic activity..

it seems a global perfect storm could result, one storm tripping another, causing a third. say global warming melts the ice, raises the ocean levels, extra water bulges at the Equator.. slowing the earth rotation just a little.. by this time the oceans Thermal-cline has stopped, causing an immediate ice age event.. about that time the Tectonic plates readjust causing serious eruptions. this would spew acids, CO2, dust into the stratosphere causing a Volcanic winter on top of an ice age event. supercharging that event, and finishing us off.

it has been recorded that when the Thermal-cline stops an ice age event is immediate.. within a couple years at most. if the equatorial waters aren't moving they will quickly heat up.. during the last ice age there was ice up to 1.5 miles thick on the poles down to below the great lakes and Seattle. the weight of the ice depressed the earth's crust about 1800 feet at the great lakes region. it is still rebounding. it takes 5 lbs of red hot cast iron to vaporize 1 lb of water.. and the oceans were about 380 feet lower. all kinds of shit will happen quickly.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1227_020102wirclimate.html

[FVZA_Colonel]

12. I thought it had been generally accepted for a while now that solar activity was not having the

greatest effect on Earth's climate?

It's not surprising that it's still being discussed, though.

[Abq_Sarah]

13. Gee, this is easy

If the data is flawed, the "most scientists" quoted can run the data and show where mistakes were made. They can submit their own papers instead of demanding the retraction of the "flawed" studies. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

[daleo]

14. Give this one a try

Laut,P. (2003), Solar activity and terrestrial climate:
An analysis of some purported correlations,
J.Atmos. Solar-Terr.Phys.,65, 801–812.

Let us know what you think of his paper (he's one of the scientists quoted in the article).

[beardown]

15. More like a tennis game.

The call for a retraction will hopefully motivate the original research group to defend their paper by reviewing it.

If they find that the 'flaw' discovered was not a real flaw they can reply with their new findings and the challenging group has to review their own review.

If they find that the 'flaw' was valid then they should retract their paper.

If they find that the 'flaw' was valid and they are oil company hacks, then they will reissue the paper under 20 different titles.