
Correlation of Global Temperature, Sunspots, Solar Irradiance, Cosmic Rays - ycombonator
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128045886000148
======
itcrowd
There has been a correlation over the past ~10k years between solar activity
and global temperatures. This non peer-reviewed book seems to spread the
(false) message that this correlation still holds. However, it thereby
neglects the role of CO2 as a primary mechanism of global temperature.

For the past ~10k years before the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have been
almost constant at ~290 ppm. Therefore, the other drivers of climate change
dominated. Now that CO2 is rising at unprecedented levels (see e.g. [1]), the
other influencers of climatic change are no longer the driving forces. CO2 is
the world's thermostat knob [2]. It is undeniable.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:CO2_40k.png)

[2]
[https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract)

~~~
lliamander
> However, it thereby neglects the role of CO2 as a primary mechanism of
> global temperature.

From the book desription[1]:

> For example, there is an absence of any physical evidence that CO2 causes
> global warming, so the only argument for CO2 as the cause of warming rests
> entirely in computer modeling. Thus, the question becomes, how accurate are
> the computer models in predicting climate? What other variables could be
> missing from the models?

It does not _neglect_ , but _disputes_. Whether that disputation is successful
is above my pay-grade.

[1][https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128045886/evidence-
ba...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128045886/evidence-based-
climate-science)

~~~
itcrowd
That book can claim what it wants. I am waiting for the science to back up
those claims.

Physical evidence of CO2 causing global warming has been presented for over
120 years. Arrhenius was the first to propose that such a mechanism can cause
_global_ warming [1]. Please wake up to the 20th century. Snooze, and wake up
to the 21st. Global warming due to CO2 increases in the atmosphere is real.

If you have any peer-reviewed science contradicting my claims, please present
them.

[1]
[http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf](http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf)

~~~
darawk
The book is disputing that point. If you want to knock it down, you should be
debunking the argument that it makes.

~~~
thaumaturgy
Multiple laboratory experiments have confirmed that atmospheres rich in carbon
dioxide retain more heat from radiative sources. Here's one you can do at
home:
[https://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/jesei/co2gr...](https://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/jesei/co2green/home.htm)

There's no difference here between arguing against CO2 warming and the Earth
being a sphere(oid). Anybody that's still publishing material arguing that the
science on this point is in any way unsettled is intentionally ignoring
results from the field that disagrees with their ideology.

~~~
darawk
> Multiple laboratory experiments have confirmed that atmospheres rich in
> carbon dioxide retain more heat from radiative sources. Here's one you can
> do at home:
> [https://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/jesei/co2gr...](https://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/jesei/co2gr..).

I don't think the book is arguing that CO2 rich atmosphere don't retain more
heat. Factors like these don't exist in isolation though. And he seems to be
arguing that variations in natural factors explain the global climate history
better than CO2 levels. I'm not sure if that's true, but that seems to be the
point that needs debunking, if it isn't.

------
Skunkleton
Probably not: [https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-
tempe...](https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-
vs-solar-activity/)

~~~
DougWebb
The chart on that page shows the solar radiation as a (somewhat) instantaneous
measure, against the global temperature which is a cummulative amount. The
annual solar radiation jumps from a lower value to a higher value right about
where the temperature starts increasing. It seems a reasonable theory to think
that more radiation started coming in each year, and without an outlet it
caused the temperature to start rising.

This doesn't mean that we haven't been making things worse, or that there's
nothing we can do. But it's crucial for us to understand _everything_ that's
impacting the climate, so we can make good decisions.

~~~
itcrowd
The major drivers of climate change are known. Pretending the "science isn't
settled" is sticking your head in the sand. Solar irradiance, CO2 and water
vapor are important, but some are more important than others.

Educate yourself. Here's a link:
[https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/](https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/)

edit: I meant the "science _isn 't_ settled" above

edit2: Changed "All the drivers" to "The major drivers" because "all" is too
presumptuous

~~~
darawk
> All the drivers of climate change are known.

That's a fairly presumptuous, unscientific statement. Global climate is an
extremely complex phenomenon. We certainly do not know _all_ the drivers of
it.

~~~
yokaze
Knowing everything is religion. There amount of details you know gives you
accuracy.

We didn't know everything with the Newtonian laws, but no one is claiming that
apples don't fall from the tree.

Contrary to climatology, where for some reason, people still come out and
favour a non catastrophic outcome. And that despite the models lived up to
make predictions within their accuracy, and even rather systemically too low
for the last decade.

Do we know everything? No, but that's hardly an argument to suggest the apple
will fall up the tree.

~~~
darawk
I'm not arguing that climate science is incorrect, just that the commenter I
was responding to was making a bad argument.

------
anon_lead_dev
[https://suspicious0bservers.org/](https://suspicious0bservers.org/) anyone?
;)

------
ghthor
This community isn't prepared to even begin looking at any evidence that the
main driver of climate change is the sun. That raises too many questions

~~~
tomrod
I mean, not really, but that is because it's unsatisfying in the extreme.

The sun is responsible because it's gravity well gave a system where the
planet could accrete.

The sun is responsible because it give energy to the earth, thus energizing
chemicals and likely causing life to emerge, panspermia excepted.

The sun is responsible because it heats up carbon dioxide which keeps heat
like a greenhouse.

One of these things have value in action-ability as it relates to climate
change.

