It's a bit warm/ wet/ cold outside

[Funt Solo]

[Hawkmumbler]

The cyclical argument is based largely in bad faith. Yes, the atmospheric variable IS cyclical. Over tens of millions of years. Not 200. Certainly not at the accelerated rate we are seeing today.

[The Legendary Shark]

Of course. It's all so simple, Funt. The answer to the question of how much influence, if any, the hottest thing in the Solar System has on climate and climate change is "steam engines."

I bow to your superior reasoning.

(The above is, of course, the fallacy Appeal to Ridicule - which is one of your favourites so I thought you might enjoy it.)

If you want to discuss what the paper actually says, rather than what you think it says, then I'm in. If not, rant away.

[Hawkmumbler]

Recommendation 5. In this paper, we have focused on the
role of the Sun in recent climate change and compared this
with the role of anthropogenic factors. Therefore, other than
in passing, we have not explicitly investigated the possible
role of other non-solar driven natural factors such as internal
changes in oceanic and/or atmospheric circulation. As
discussed throughout Sections 2.5-2.6, such factors may
actually have a solar component, e.g., Refs.
[39,40,61,63,71,93,96,99,111–113,211,234,482]. However,
we encourage further research into the role of other possible
natural factors which do not necessarily have a solar
component on recent climate change, e.g., Refs. [119–123].

Now see, I feel this here demonstrates the core issue with the whole essay (I hesitate to call it a study) in the definite dependency on confirmation bias. I can't imagine why it hasn't been accepted for publication.

[The Legendary Shark]

Well, I'm lagging behind you a bit there, Hawkie, because I'm still only on page 40 (RL work to do) and haven't got to the end yet.

I do not think that calling for further research is confirmation bias - to me, confirmation bias would lead to the position that no further research is required in any other area.

Also, the paper was submitted to Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics on 7 December 2020 and accepted 14 April 2021, which at least implies peer review - or a particularly voluminous inbox.

[IndigoPrime]

The vast, vast majority of scientists agree on thing X, after countless hours of rigorous and painstaking peer-reviewed research. Thing X's broader effects can be seen and directly tie into not only the thing the vast, vast majority of scientists broadly agree on.

I guess at least when CFCs were shown to be a problem years back, the world's response was based on solid science rather than a few people arguing that maybe it's because of the Sun, because that gave the Earth a chance to heal, rather than leaving an even bigger hole in the ozone layer. And, as various folks have noted, had that change not happened, we'd have been even more fucked right now than we already are.

Still, sure, let's blame the Sun and argue that the current ongoing and clearly now terrifyingly real climate crisis is all just a natural ebb and flow, when the change we're seeing is unprecedented throughout history, bar during periods of extreme and worldwide volcanic activity or a fucking massive meteor whacking into the Yucatán Peninsula.

"But what if the vast, vast majority happens to be wrong?" *Paging Joel Pett! Paging Joel Pett!*

[The Legendary Shark]

But that's not the argument, IP, is it? The argument is more nuanced than that and cannot be won by simply appealing to the majority. To blame everything on CO2 to the extent that all other possible contributing factors are ignored is not, and never has been, the scientific method. I'm sure that carbon dioxide does play a role, as do gases like tetrafluoromethane and hexafluoroethane amongst many others.

This planet of ours is in a right bloody mess due to many factors, which includes an abundance of pollutants in the soil, water, biosphere, and atmosphere. How do all these many pollutants combine, or not? How do they react to the sun's varying output over time, if at all?

To dismiss a study of the sun's effects on an incredibly complex planetary system due to political pressure is as daft as dismissing CO2 because of the same pressures. Let the scientists do their work, all of them, and let their findings inform politicians instead of the other way around (see what I was saying about grammar and logic in the other thread). Science always works best when scientists challenge one another; when challenges are prohibited only stagnation results.

[IndigoPrime]

It's like arguing whether asphyxiation from a boot on your throat was down to the leg in the boot or the style of the shoe. We know the effects of CO2.

Let the scientists do their work, all of them, and let their findings inform politicians instead of the other way around

They do. The problem is that a tiny minority then picks up on largely dismissed or poorly peer-reviewed ideas, which can then drive public opinion and politics. Remember Andrew Wakefield? I have a horrible feeling that had this forum existed during his time, some here would be vociferously defending him against the "mainstream".

Science always works best when scientists challenge one another; when challenges are prohibited only stagnation results.

Well, quite. Science is rarely an end game—it's right until the next thing comes along to slightly or dramatically change the accepted understanding of whatever comes to be. With climate science, we are way, way beyond "but what if CO2 isn't really the problem?" We knew it was decades ago. If it wasn't for a handful of very powerful, very rich organisations, this message would be out there now.

With climate, we're still stuck in the same mindset tobacco was in decades back. We've at least shifted beyond "smoking is good for you", but are still stuck on "but what if it isn't that bad?", while a minority tries to hand-wave away its ill effects. Governments could and should take action now. All these "but the Sun" things do is give them the excuse to delay, because, hey: what if CO2 isn't really to blame? (Well, it won't be alone soon. Methane will escape in vast quantities and then we really are in the shit.)

[Tiplodocus]

Plus, you know, we can't do a thing about the sun. But we can do something about all of the other proven factors? So why don't we do them?

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

The cyclical argument is based largely in bad faith. Yes, the atmospheric variable IS cyclical. Over tens of millions of years. Not 200. Certainly not at the accelerated rate we are seeing today.

Not entirely true Hawk. There's the Schwabe cycle, often just called the Solar cycle. It's an eleven year cycle, correponding with the sun flipping its magnetic poles. At it's peak (solar maximum) an increase in sunspots, solar flares and a high probability of mass coronal ejections. At it's low point (solar minimum) there's basically none of that. During the solar maximum there is an increase in ionization in the Earth's upper atmosphere which leads to more O₂ splitting thus more Ozone forming. During the solar minimum, less ionization, less Ozone. This is coming from my final year project and wasn't published in a fancy journal. It's all on a floppy disc in a box of all floppies somewhere in my old bedroom da's study.

I do not think that calling for further research is confirmation bias - to me, confirmation bias would lead to the position that no further research is required in any other area.

Now if I can politely suggest you're misrepresenting things here Shark. As far as I'm aware no one is stopping or even suggesting we research less about the sun and it's interactions with us. There is wealth of ongoing research on the Sun and it's effects. The Parker Solar probe is up there right now collecting new exciting data. There's deep dark caves in antartica where they're studying solar nutrinos. The paper you posted cites dozens of studies into this field (or at least the first couple of pages do, I didn't read the whole thing).

The reason I suspect all this research isn't prominent in efforts to tackle climate change, is for the same reason the Schwabe cycle wasn't at the forefront of discussion on the depletion of the Ozone layer:

...we can't do a thing about the sun. But we can do something about all of the other proven factors? So why don't we do them?

[milstar]

Obviously, we inject too much poison in the atmosphere. Factories that emit poisenous fumes, gas expeditence, oil, non-recycable materials obviously aren't beneficial to human health, but human actions aren't the only factor why climate has changed. And I do not need to hear some gullible kid like Greta Thunberg to bleat "How dare you". As if the Pandora box has opened. If for one, we happen to significantly reduce all negatives that affects us (and the nature), I still wouldn't expect that the temperature would drop for ten degrees (at least). It's already determined that cyclical changes are intrinsic to this planet. How much severe is a thing open for discussion.

Some have their own ways on the matter:
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/letter-to-un-was-not-signed-by-500-experts-on-climate-science-breitbart/

[Funt Solo]

If you want to discuss what the paper actually says, rather than what you think it says, then I'm in. If not, rant away.

Always with the ad hominems, Shark. You never actually address the points I make. I wasn't ranting. The last thing I did on this thread was re-post a data chart that illustrates well that the extent of the global warming we're currently experiencing is not part of a natural cycle, but human-induced.

You've got 52 pages of this thread where you can look at lots of evidence that proves this fact. You are choosing to champion one paper that seeks to undermine all of the other evidence. A paper whose author is a long-standing climate change denier, who at one point managed to come to the conclusion that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. (You say I'm ridiculous, but this is like Captain Redbeard Rum in Blackadder deciding that he doesn't need a crew, despite all the other Captains needing one.)

It's worthwhile pointing out that your tactics here follow your tactics in other debates. You have a chosen position prior to the debate, and only ever come up with evidence that backs up your originally chosen position (neatly ignoring the other 52 pages of evidence). Then, when people point out the problems with your flawed evidence, you cry foul and say that other people don't accept new information - something you yourself seem incapable of.

There's an issue also with the balance of information. One outlier position is not worth the same as all of the other positions ever taken. One outlier scientist is not worth the same as all of the other scientists. (Yes, blah - new things get discovered - old ideas get overturned: but see above. Connolly has a motive coming in. Altruism, she does not live with him. So, we can go to Occam's Razor for a conclusion, can't we?)

And lastly, you always avoid the point I make about your (admitted) position in either the topic of climate change or of Covid. You have stated that facts are not important to you, and will not sway you, because you just *know* that something ain't right. You said that. Not me. I'm not ridiculing you, or appealing to ridicule. (I do find your logical position ridiculous, but that's not the same thing.) So, I'm not trying to convince you of anything - you're not capable of being convinced. I'm just batting back the outlier positions you present, so I can fight for a little accuracy.

Summary: it's human-induced climate change. (And you should get vaccinated.)

[The Legendary Shark]

I don't remember saying that facts are unimportant to me, but if I did, I was wrong (depending on the context, of course). That accusation has been made twice now, without quotes. Can you remember where or when I said it?

I'm not sure how you can call the lead author a "long-standing climate change denier" when the paper is exploring a possible contributory factor to climate change. Perhaps you mean "anthropogenic climate change skeptic," which isn't the same thing. I lean towards that position too, in all honesty, just as you lean the other way. Neither position means that nothing should be done or that only one thing can be done. There's nothing wrong with cleaning up our act, CO2 included, and our biases - yours and mine - do not undermine that important necessity. We both want humanity to survive and flourish, I feel, but have very different ideas on how to achieve that. I am basically an idividualist (to oversimplify) whereas you (also to oversimplify) seem to be a collectivist. Neither standpoint is perfect nor is there no room for one side to borrow elements from the other.

I apologise for my style of argumentation. Though I try to present my arguments calmly, clearly and logically I often fail but please rest assured that I do not proceed from a desire to deliberately upset or rile you. We are fellow Squaxx, after all - and surely that's the most important thing on this site.

Summary: humans contribute to climate change (and other terrestrial maladies). ([spoiler]REDACTED[/spoiler])

[Funt Solo]

I don't remember saying that facts are unimportant to me, but if I did, I was wrong (depending on the context, of course). That accusation has been made twice now, without quotes. Can you remember where or when I said it?

In the Covid thread that you got locked. You said [p76, my underlining]:

I never said the virus was a hoax (though I have to consider that it might be). My worry is that the situation is being magnified and capitalised upon by certain globalist factions to achieve goals they've been working towards for decades - such as global governance, the abolition of cash money, increased dependence on authority and so on. And sure, maybe I'm wrong, but...

For me, this makes it clear that facts don't matter to you as much as feelings do. It doesn't matter if you're wrong because you've already bought into an ill-defined global conspiracy with so many bells, whistles and cul-de-sacs that it's impossible to argue against it (or, coherently, for it). Please don't take this as an invitation to do a deep dive into your broader conspiracy theory belief system, because see my previous sentence.

I'm not sure how you can call the lead author a "long-standing climate change denier"

Because he is: a brief Google throws up his previous work on CO2-greenhouse denial. Boy's got form. (The term "climate change denier" is shorthand for "human-induced climate change denier" in the same way that "conspiracy theorist" is short for "belief in outlandish theories regardless of evidence to the contrary".)

I apologise for my style of argumentation ... We are fellow Squaxx, after all  ...

Thanks. Agreed.

Summary: humans contribute to climate change (and other terrestrial maladies).

Yup - and what I see in the presented data and the vast majority of conclusions is that we can do something about it if we manage to engender the political will. Denial of the effects of CO2, or the extent of the danger, or the extent of humanity's influence will provide an argument (that aligns with the desires of fossil-fuel companies, by the way) against tackling the problem: which could (no hyperbole required) end the human race somewhat prematurely. Oops!

[The Legendary Shark]

Right. I think it's probably best if we ignore each other from now on, then - we're obviously on very different wavelengths and incapable of adjusting frequencies.