[LINK] NASA Solar Storm Warning
swilson at lockstep.com.au
Sun Jan 10 16:57:24 AEDT 2010
stephen at melbpc.org.au wrote:
>> [Stephen Wilson:] Why shouldn't Greg and Phil be comfortable in being
>> able to dismiss nonsense like the idea that the movement in the
>> Milky Way might contribute to short (very very very short) scale
>> climate change?
> Why be so quick to dismiss?
For all sorts of reasons:
(1) because good science involves filters
(2) because if you don't dismiss the extreme and crackpot theories you
will waste so much time you won't make progress
(3) because climate change action is imperiled by the nay-sayers who
latch onto all the fringe theories as "evidence" that the scientific
consense is flimsy.
> [A solar maximum] has been building since 1958. Does science assert
> climate systems are completely un-affected by solar storms, and by
> associated sun spots and a build up of them?
As far as I know, no climate scientist says climate is unaffected by
such factors. But the strong scientific consensus -- as revealed by the
IPCC reports, and by for example editorials in New Scientist and
Scientific American I have read on the topic since the 1980s -- is that
there is indeed one major causative factor, namely the liberation of
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by human activity.
> I guess NASA uses the term 'Storm' with reason?
Err yes, solar magnetic storms represent extreme fluctuations in the
solar "wind" of charged particles that constantly bombard the earth.
The word "storm" here is a metaphor and not a meteorological technicality.
See also George Bush's "Dessert Storm", or the Melbourne "Storm".
> Anyway, i say again, let's await additional scientific information, but
> also act on what we do presently know anyway. Or is this just 'bullshit'?
Nobody objects to ongoing climate research, and nobody says the climate
changes for just one reason. What many scientists object to is the
(usually political) perversion of scientific process by those who insist
on equal time being given to crackpot theories.
And what I was specifically objecting to was Stephen's suggestion that
Greg and Phil were being somehow complacent in their casual dismissal of
the Milky Way idea.
More information about the Link