Climate Science

Scientific Consensus isn’t a “Part” of the Scientific Method: it’s a Consequence of it

Although conceptually simple, the term “scientific consensus” is often misused and misunderstood. It can get confused with appeals to popular opinion or erroneously conflated with “consensus” in the colloquial sense of the word. These misunderstandings can lead to things like opinion polls, often predominated by unqualified individuals, being misconstrued as evidence that no scientific consensus exists on some topic for which it clearly does, or that it leans towards a different conclusion than it actually does. In some cases, the very concept itself invokes resentment or even retaliatory commentary from people whose views are threatened by its implications. The purpose of this article is to clarify the concept that the term scientific consensus is meant to refer to and address some of the arguments commonly leveled against it.

Defining Scientific Consensus

Just as the term “theory” has a different meaning in science than its colloquial usage, the term scientific consensus means something different than “consensus” in the usual colloquial sense. The latter typically refers to a popular opinion, and needn’t necessarily be based on knowledge or evidence. On the other hand, a scientific consensus is, by definition, an evidence-based consensus. A convergence of the weight of existing evidence is a prerequisite which distinguishes a knowledge-based scientific consensus from mere agreement. This is critical, because the scientific enterprise is essentially a meritocracy. As a result, it doesn’t matter if a few contrarians on the fringe disagree with the conclusions unless they can marshal up evidential justification of comparable weight or explain the existing data better. The weight of the evidence is paramount. (more…)

Share
By Credible Hulk, ago

The One True Argument™

Anyone who has spent much time addressing a lot of myths, misconceptions, and anti-science arguments has probably had the experience of some contrarian taking issue with his or her rebuttal to some common talking point on the grounds that it’s not the “real” issue people have with the topic at hand. It does occasionally happen that some skeptic spends an inordinate amount of time refuting an argument that literally nobody has put forward for a position, but I’m specifically referring to situations in which the rebuttal addresses claims or arguments that some people have actually made, but that the contrarian is implying either haven’t been made or shouldn’t be addressed, because they claim that it’s not the “real” argument. This is a form of No True Scotsman logical fallacy, and is a common tactic of people who reject well-supported scientific ideas for one reason or another. In some cases this may be due to the individual’s lack of exposure to the argument being addressed rather than an act of subterfuge, but it is problematic regardless of whether or not the interlocutor is sincere. (more…)

Share
By Credible Hulk, ago

No, Solar Variations Can’t Account for the Current Global Warming Trend. Here’s Why:

In part I of this series on the sun and Earth’s climate, I covered the characteristics of the sun’s 11 and 22 year cycles, the observed laws which describe the behavior of the sunspot cycle, how proxy data is used to reconstruct a record of solar cycles of the past, Grand Solar Maxima and Minima, the relationship between Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) and the sunspot cycle, and the relevance of these factors to earth’s climate system. In part II, I went over the structure of the sun, and some of the characteristics of each layer, which laid the groundwork for part III, in which I explained the solar dynamo: the physical mechanism underlying solar cycles, which I expanded upon in part IV, in which I talked about some common approaches to solar dynamo modeling, including Mean Field Theory. This installment covers how all of that relates to climate change and the current warming trend. (more…)

Share
By Credible Hulk, ago

The Solar Dynamo: The Physical Basis of the Solar Cycle and the Sun’s Magnetic Field

In my previous article, I laid out some basics about the sun’s structure and physical characteristics in order to set up the groundwork upon which I could then explain the physical mechanism which underlies the solar cycles I talked about in the article prior to that one. I understand that this is a bit more technical than most readers may be accustomed to, which is why I’ve included a simplified “tl; dr” version before delving deeper.

Solar Dynamo Theory

The leading scientific explanation for the mechanism by which these solar cycles emerge is the solar dynamo theory. It arises from an area of physics called magnetohydrodynamics, which is the field which studies the magnetic properties of electrically conducting fluids, and is covered in most university textbooks on plasma physics. So how does it work?

The tl; dr version is as follows: (more…)

Share
By Credible Hulk, ago

The Structure and Properties of the Sun

In my most recent post, I discussed the characteristics of the sun’s 11 and 22 year cycles, the observed laws which describe the behavior of the sunspot cycle, how proxy data is used to reconstruct a record of solar cycles of the past, Grand Solar Maxima and Minima, the relationship between Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) and the sunspot cycle, and the relevance of these factors to earth’s climate system. Before elaborating on the sun’s role in climate change, I’d like to take a look at the mechanism in terms of which the magnetic cycles underlying these solar cycles actually arises, but in order to do that, it’s necessary to first go over some basics:

The Structure of the Sun

The Core: The core of the sun is where pressures and temperatures are high enough to facilitate the nuclear fusion reactions which power the sun (Eddington 1920). The sun is so hot that there are few (if any) actual atoms of hydrogen and helium gas (Bethe 1939). They exist in a plasma state; the gases are ionized and cohabit with free electrons. So protons are being collided and fused into helium nuclei in what’s known as the proton-proton chain (PPO Chain), which is the dominant fusion process in stars of masses comparable to (or less than) the sun. In the PPO chain, two protons fuse and release a neutrino. The resulting diproton either decays back into hydrogen via proton emission, or undergoes beta decay (emitting a positron), which turns one of the protons into a neutron, thus yielding deuterium. The deuterium then reacts with another proton, producing 3He and a gamma ray. Two 3He from two separate implementations of this process then fuse to produce 4He plus two protons (Salpeter 1952).  (more…)

Share
By Credible Hulk, ago

The Sun and Earth’s Climate: The Solar Cycle and the Maunder Minimum

The Solar Cycle

The Sun goes through an approximately 11 year periodic solar cycle (Gnevyshev 1967). This cycle includes variations in solar irradiation, the amount of ejected materials, solar flares and sunspot activity. Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is measured in power per unit area (energy per unit time per unit area), and is of particular importance in that it represents the total incoming energy driving the climate system.

Since we’ve only had direct satellite measurements of TSI since the mid-late 1970s, estimates of solar output for earlier times were (and are) based on one or more proxies. Sunspot observations are one such proxy. Sunspot abundance correlates strongly with TSI, so they can thus be used as a proxy for solar maxima and minima. Astronomers have recorded telescopic sunspot observations since the early 1600s, and there is evidence of naked eye observations dating much further back (Stephenson 1990). In addition to noticing that the number of sunspots oscillated in 11 year cycles, astronomers also noticed that sunspots would first appear in pairs or groups at about 30 – 35 degrees both North and South of the solar equator, and the mean latitudes of subsequently appearing spots would tend to migrate towards the solar equator as the cycle progressed, a phenomenon referred to as Spörer’s Law (Carrington 1858, Carrington 1863, Spörer 1879). (more…)

Share
By Credible Hulk, ago

The Ultimate Environmental Cataclysm: Asteroid and Comet Impacts and their Effects on Climate

The Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T boundary) extinction ~66 million years ago is perhaps the most famous extinction event in Earth’s history. It featured a massive asteroid impact which led to the extinction of an estimated 76% of all fossilizable species, and marked the end of the ~170 million+ year reign of the dinosaurs (Pope 1998). Initially regarded as a radical proposition, this is the Alvarez hypothesis, after Luis Alvarez, the lead scientist of the team that discovered the first of multiple lines of smoking gun evidence for the impact of an asteroid ~10 km across under Chicxulub on the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula right around the time of the K-T boundary (Alvarez 1979, Smit 1981, Smit 1980, Bohor 1984, Bohor 1987, Bourgeois 1988 & Hildebrand 1991).

Source.

An artist’s interpretation of a hypothetical asteroid impact. Sources: Here and here.

(more…)

Share
By Credible Hulk, ago

The Climatological effects of Volcanic Eruptions: The End Permian Extinction, the Toba Super-Volcano, and the Volcanic Explosivity Index

Volcanic eruptions can have both short-term and long term effects on Earth’s climate. In the short term, they release large quantities of ash and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the stratosphere, which quickly gets blown all around the globe. The sulfur dioxide subsequently reacts to form droplets of sulfuric acid (H2SO4), which then condense into fine aerosols. These aerosols reflect sunlight back into space, thereby cooling the troposphere below. These effects can last for 1 – 3 years. In the long term, they can increase atmospheric concentrations of CO2 which can lead to global warming via the greenhouse effect over long periods of heightened volcanic activity

For years it was thought that the volcanic ash was primarily responsible for cooling effects by blocking sunlight. However, it was later discovered that its effects are short-lived, and that the total amount of sulfur-rich gases released in an eruption was a more important determinant of an eruption’s global cooling effects. (more…)

Share
By Credible Hulk, ago

Milankovitch Cycles and Climate: Part III – Putting it All Together

In parts I and II, we looked at axial obliquity, axial precession, apsidal precession, orbital eccentricity and orbital inclination, and how their cycles can affect the climate. In this installment of the series, we’ll look briefly at how these cycles look when combined, and then discuss one of the most prominent unsolved problems raised by the theory: The 100,000 Year problem.

Putting it all together

Putting it all together

Notice that the peaks and valleys in temperature are roughly periodic, and that with the possible exception of apsidal precession, there are slight fluctuations in the periods and amplitudes of these orbital cycles. One reason for this has to do with fluctuations in solar output, but another likely reason has to do with the very causes of these orbital cycles themselves: namely, these cycles are driven by mutual gravitational perturbations between the Earth, Sun, Moon, and to a lesser extent, Jupiter and the other planets in the solar system (Borisenkov 1985, Spiegel 2010) . (more…)

Share
By Credible Hulk, ago

Milankovitch Cycles and Climate: Part II – Orbital Eccentricity, Apsidal Precession and Orbital Inclination

In part I, we looked at some of the ways in which changes in axial obliquity and precession can affect the climate. In this article, we’ll look at orbital eccentricity, apsidal precession and orbital inclination, and some of their climatological consequences.

Orbital Eccentricity:

This refers how elliptical earth’s orbital path is. The greater the eccentricity of a planet’s orbital path, the less circle-like and more elliptical (oval-like) it is. An ellipse has an eccentricity greater than or equal to zero, but less than one. An eccentricity value of e = 0 corresponds to a perfect circle, whereas e = 1 corresponds to a parabola, and e > 1 corresponds to a hyperbola. At higher eccentricity values (albeit less than one), there is a greater discrepancy between a planet’s perihelion and aphelion: a planet’s nearest and furthest points from the Sun during its orbit. (more…)

Share
By Credible Hulk, ago