[codebolt]

Under the impression that a lot of climate scientists are quick to disregard the effect variations in solar activity has on climate. To be clear, I'm not denying the effects of CO2, but it still seems possible that the role of CO2 has been exaggerated to some extent. The rise in global temperatures in the past century has coincided with increases in both CO2 and solar activity. And it's probably not a coincidence that last time we had a long period with a quiet sun (the Maunder minimum) was also a very cold period here on earth.

[GeoAtreides]

The rise in global temperature does not coincide with solar activity:

1) Temperature vs Solar irradiance: https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-tempe...

2) Temperature vs Sun activity: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.htm...

3) Number of sunspots over the year: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/couldnt-sun...

Not sure why people think scientists would miss obvious things. If a non-specialist can think of a probable objection, chances are the specialist in that field has already study that objection in their intro classes.

[Kye]

Plus: unlike most other measures, we have 400 years of actual observation of the sun's activity. It takes some effort to translate the many ways it's been recorded, and it's not perfect, but the data is there. Climate scientists know the sun had an extended period of low activity through the late 1600s and early 1700s and can form hypotheses.

If we go through another, it's not a big shocker. It's an opportunity to test those hypotheses and develop a better understanding of the impact of solar cycles on the planet's climate. If they're wrong, it's not some grand indictment of climate science. It's just...science. But if they're right and we don't take measures to prevent the worst heating, then we might not get another chance until we recover from the floods and resource wars and the loss of knowledge.

[codebolt]

Well, 'just science' is easy to say when you're not suffering the direct impact of climate politics. Looks more and more to me like they're trying to hold back the economic development of many of the poorer countries in the world. The models they base this on at least better be correct.

[Kye]

https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995

“Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.”

The risk if you're wrong: conflicts over shrinking arable land, resources, and climate refugees fleeing disasters could escalate into a world-ending war. Or regional wars that completely erase all that economic development.

The risk if climate scientists are wrong: we make a cleaner, healthier, and more sustainable world for nothing.

[codebolt]

The risk if climate science is wrong: In the west, we only make a bunch of imaginary problems for ourselves that waste the time and money of the average citizen on a daily basis. But in the global south, billions of people are forced to live in perpetual and worsening poverty with no chance of economic improvement.

If climate science was right and we still allowed carbon to burn, yes the world would heat but if we used our minds I'm sure we could solve a lot of the challenges as they appear.

[isoprophlex]

The solar irradiance varies by less than two parts in thousand throughout the cycles, see [1], it goes up and down by about 0.5 W/m2 around it's mean value.

On the other hand, if we hit 500 ppm CO2, that'll contribute about 3.7 W/m2. The Wikipedia page on Radiative Forcing has quantitative data, including the effect of the solar cycle...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File%3ASo...