Just to remind everyone NASA said we are in a period of high sun radiation both last years and exceptionally this year so I doubt we will all suffer so much when the sun reduces the solar flare activity
Like Danny Dyer you mean?
Edit: argh my stupid joke doesn’t make sense now the post was moved to a different thread 
1 Like
Solar flare activity has no effect on global surface temperatures. That argument has been done to death.
I’m actually surprised that this NOAA page is still up in Trumps new America.
2 Likes
Is it ok to disagree?
It is of course, but this is a question that was answered definitively decades ago and was frequently brought up by climate sceptics who argued that it’s all the fault of the Sun and nothing to do with humanity. I say ‘was’ as even the climate sceptics now realise it’s a losing argument.
Not in this case. It’s established science 
Solar radiation storms primarily cause electromagnetic interference (bad for satellites and the power grid, but good if you want to see the Aurora Borealis) but the x-rays are trapped by the Earth’s magnetic field so although there is a minor heating effect in the ionosphere lower down the atmosphere is not affected.
What we are seeing currently are the effects of climate change, where an increased average global temperature means more extreme weather (heatwaves, hurricanes, and greater rainfall).
The responsibility for that lies 100% with we humans.
If increased solar activity meant more frequent canicules etc. the effect would have been noted in the pre-industrial period.
1 Like
There is of course a correlation between mean solar radiance and the earths surface temperature. That is also established science and what was responsible for the ‘little ice age’. If you look at a graph of solar radiance vs mean earth surface temperature since they were both accurately measured (1880s), there is a correlation. This carries on till the early 60’s when they start to diverge and the divergence accelerates. Interestingly solar output has declined in the last 20 years or so whilst surface temperatures have continued to rise.
Is it ok to disagree with that as well?
From the white hot liquid earth core to the flaming fireball 93 million miles away the little surface dwellers are only a tiny tiny part even with all their inventions. I do not agree with poisioning ourselves and our atmosphere but there are plenty of climate scientists questioning our beliefs andvsome changing stance. Just like atherosclerosis there are plenty who blame it all on cholesterol and plenty who disagree.
You are free to believe whatever you like, your Worship, but I regret to tell you that there are not “plenty of climate scientists questioning our beliefs”. There is a small minority, whose “research” is often funded by the fossil fuel lobby, who are noisily disagreeing with a huge amount of very solid evidence for man-made climate change gathered over a very long period all around the globe.
Yes of course nature affects our climate, but the crucial difference is that natural climate change happens on a long timescale (hundreds of thousands to millions of years).
The current observable climate change effects have happened over a period of roughly 150 years and correlate very closely with the well documented increase in greenhouse gases from human activity.
The evidence for this is very clear and cannot be explained by normal geological or atmospheric processes.
5 Likes
An accusation that can be equally levelled against the believers. Popular to go along with the trend, dangerous to question it.
No one as far as I know dares to say drilling lots of deep holes into the earth and extracting miliions and millions and more probably towards the trillions of gallons of oil does any harm because they pretty much fund everyone everywhere.
Use solar, wind and solar thermal and put an end to the oil industry save for some plastics that sooner or later can also be replaced. A bit of nuclear obviously but hey ho.
I fail to see how climate research dating back to WW2 could have been funded by a renewable energy lobby that didn’t exist yet.
I think you have an extremely cynical view of scientists, and also how science works, old bean.
While there may be some peer pressure to espouse a particular view, scientists who publish research that is not founded on a solid basis of evidence immediately lose a heck of a lot of credibility which is not going to do their careers any good.
As for not criticising oil production I don’t know where you get that idea from as one of the key points always made about climate change is that our reliance on fossil fuels is one of the major contributing factors, and probably the most important one.
Politicians, I grant you, may not dare to bite the hands that feeds them, but scientists have repeatedly warned about the dangers of using oil and gas to power our civilization.
Yes indeed, I heartily agree with you there. So I’m not sure why we are debating whether climate change is real or not.
1 Like
What was ever stopping the existing oil companies from putting the research into solar and continuing to make $€£ with renewables?
1 Like
Just a thought guys - not sure this is the place for this discussion - surely there are better threads, elsewhere. @cat is looking for interest/suggestions/ideas for her house. The above discussion will stop people reading - she needs help, not hinderance.
3 Likes
A fair point, well made.
Sorry I get a bit triggered by this topic!
1 Like
I thought I was by saying the extreme is a passing thing, never the less I will stop also.
Billy feel free to edit as you wish.
1 Like
Its always the same when too hot to sleep at night and we turn to something to occupy ourselves.
YouTube is not the answer as it fills people’s heads with rubbish and distorts logical thinking, then worse it gets posted here as a discussion piece🙄
1 Like
Says the chap backing fossil fuels 
Exxon, who have and still do dispute the link between fossil fuels and global warming did lots of research from the 1970’s onwards into the effects of adding large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Their findings accurately predicted the onset and acceleration of global warming. The research was not published until Exxon inexplicably published some of the research in an effort to counter the very points the research was making. Scientists examined the research and found that it actually supported the global warming consensus. DOH.
2 Likes
If driving a fossil fueled vehicle rather than an EV is backing fossil fuels we are both guilty as charged 
I wouldn’t go that far. Not everyone can afford a new car and some people prefer a fossil fuel car, or are persuaded by the negative press they get from seemingly all around (this describes my brother perfectly). Electric car uptake is growing and will continue to grow at the expense of fossil fuel cars. I drive a fossil fuel car but my next will be an electric.
Edit: I really prefer not to blame individuals for the situation we find ourselves in.
4 Likes