Do you agree with this statement from the Danish National Space Institute?

Question

Our resident 'top answerer' is fond of citing the "Danish Space Agency (Dutch NASA)", claiming that the group concludes "that changes in the Sun causes changes in our climate." Of course this is true (all climate scientists would agree), but the agency doesn't conclude that the Sun is the *only* cause of climate change. The Danish National Space Institute states:

"Climate is subject to influences by both natural and human forces, including greenhouse gases, aerosols, solar activity, and land use change."

http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research/Research_sections/Sun_Climate.aspx

Is this statement something we can all agree upon?

Answer 1

Somewhat.  I would agree with solar activity and land use change (but that is not global but local change).  Aerosols were believed to be an influence.  Greenhouse gases though...the natural ones I can go with, but human generated greenhouse gases on a scale large enough to influence climate?  No.  We know that isn't the case.

These scientists must need more funding so that's why they added the manmade gh gases.  I won't agree with them.

Answer 2

In general, definitions of 'climate' or 'climate change' cannot be condensed to a few words in a sentence.  This is obviously a compromise statement, which you are attempting to use out of context, and as you know, a good compromise leaves everyone unhappy....this statement could be used to support either side of the discussion, oh year, sorry, 'the discussion is over' according to gore, so no more discussing!!!, anyway, I agree this is what the Dane's think 'climate' is whether it is what we should all use as a definition of 'climate' is open for, yeh I know, discussion....so no.

Answer 3

I don't see any problem with the statement and report in general, it is fairly consistent with most other research that I have seen.  It does explain a little further the influence of both natural processes and human activities and addresses some of the uncertainties in researching the data of the respective influence(s) of natural vs. human interactions, but that is to be found in most of the other serious reports I've seen too.  I think some people have difficulty grasping the concept of statistical probability and this report doesn't go into that to speak of.

The main issue I see with what passes for 'debate' here is using stuff like this out of context (as you were accused of doing but did not) to reach a conclusion that is obviously not shared by the original document, report or commentary.

If there is a very valid point to be made about GW/AGW, it is that nobody really knows for sure exactly the amount of influence mankind is having on global climate and what the outcome will be.  Our only option with the data so far is to make a reasoned analysis of the risk and determine what actions we should take.  As I understand it, the scientific community has weighed in even as research continues and the majority believe that the risk is high enough to warrant action.

Some people feel that what is being proposed at this point is economically unfeasible and/or limiting in terms of future liberties and freedom to choose and I share some of those concerns, but that is what we really should be debating.  Folks who take snippets of information and comments out of reports and data and try to use it out of context like to prove or disprove anything are just wasting time and credibility.  That the 'top answerer' in this category repeatedly does so says more about the value and validity of YA contributor ratings than it does about the issue of GW/AGW.

Fortunately, in the real world, even as diversionary arguments continue here, many of the changes AGW would demand are already coming to pass as a result of market forces.  So this category is little more than entertainment that keeps some folks from annoying other people on street corners and at convenience stores and bars with their mindless yammering.

Hmmm...I guess there is some value in the 'top contributor' ranking.

Answer 4

Agree. It's a distinction I think most well-informed people appreciate and will give in their answers, when appropriate.

I think it was Adam who expressed the feeling that the answers here indicate the level of dialogue is improving.  I agree.  But the number of "fluff" questions in the category is still excessive.  Perhaps he's right, though, and the tide has turned.  This may result in a new round of desperate questions and antagonistic answers from the hard core skeptics.

But thank you for helping to keep me around, as I generally enjoy it and it keeps me on my toes!  I look forward to your questions and answers, and to the way you engage the community here.

Answer 5

I would agree with that statement.  Sure...collectively we may exert as much influence on the global climate as a child's balloon exerts on a 747.  It DOES have an influence, but I wouldn't claim the balloon gives the jet its lift.

BTW:  This is how the so-called consensus was formed ...only to have words put into its collective mouth.  My above answer would translate into headlines reading:  "Expert Global Warming Skeptic evans_michael_ya Admits Man Is Responsible For Global Warming!"  Ok, that may be a little long for a headline, but that would be the gist of the front page article.  There's more science behind creating, administering, and analyzing surveys than there is behind AGW theory.

Answer 6

Yes, why would I argue?

Answer 7

How about we agree that you need to do your research. first it was Global Warming, now climate change... admit that you cannot change nature, it is too powerful! Do your part to clean up the earth by poluting less.

Answer 8

Your hypothesis is not warming but catastrophic warming.   If the sun has played a role that effects climate sensitivity.   In other words we will get warming but not the catastrophic results that you think warrants drastic measures.

Edit:  The thumbs down shows that although people claim to be knowledgeable about global warming, they are not.  There is a reason why the IPCC says 90% of the warming is unnatural.  If more warming that is attributed to the sun, the  the parameters for the computer models change, and they predict less warming in the future.

Answer 9

I agree with the officials that the sun solar cycle about solar maximum and solar minimum is a valid.

But In one part I disagree with the part that human is the cause of global warming. Do you think that human capabilities even in the near future can stop natural disaster like earthquake, hurricanes,cyclones,typhoons,tornado and volcanic erruption. And it won't happen and it will never will

Answer 10

Dana - all joking and my rampant skepticism aside I agree that humans have some kind of impact on climate.  I just think it's small enough to be negligible in the face of the other 97% of CO2 that is natural.  I also think the residency time of CO2 in the atmosphere is a subtle and unresolved issue.

If you want to be serious, I would be more concerned with the Ocean's uptake of CO2 and its changing pH and alkalinity than global weather or melting ice caps.

But I don't believe that either imply the end of humanity and or the world.  I also think it's naive to think there is no political agenda behind the actions promoted by climate science "findings."

Dr. James Hansen is a hack and a fraud and has no shame.

Answer 11

First off, I'd like to say, that the Danish National Space Institute is the Danish NASA (as in from Denmark), not the Dutch NASA.  Dutch refers to people from the Netherlands (aka Holland).

To answer your question, I do agree with the statement.  And reading that quote, I am wondering why this website is being used as evidence for "skeptics".  The website says that changes in sun contribute to climate change, but it does not say that humans don't have anything to do with it.

Answer 12

Another good question Dana!

You ask a yes/no question of a link given by a GW skeptic; surely this must be easy to answer...

Here's mine: Yes!

See, easy... but what do you get instead?

Loads of codswallop especially from the skeptics who proposed the link in the first place!

I love Mikey's flipping around; now the link is being used to undermine the skeptics, he doesn't like it - didn't bother him the first time round...

That said, the majority of responses have been reasonable and explain why/why not they agree with the statement so perhaps we are finally getting to the point where we can have rational debate.

Answer 13

Belief is a strange thing. Even when presented with the TRUTH, it's way too scary to suspend 'beliefs',because of their determined efforts to ignore the facts have left them powerless to understand what is happening. That makes them very frightened! There is so much religious 'dogma' in the answers to this so far.  When they are out of ammo in the scientific 'comeback', they fall back on the old stand by...God did it, and mere man cannot change the Earth that God 'created'! lol!

When scienific understanding fails,God is the answer?

Kinda sad how ignorant people prefer to be that way!

Answer 14

I would agree!

Answer 15

Yes, but climate changes aren't caused by CO2 produced by humans.  The only climate changes that humans are responsible for are not really climate changes but weather changes--cloud seeding, drying up storm clouds, and other forms of weather modification.  But even that has limits.