It’s always bothered me why we had two ice ages and the medieval warm period in fairly recent times without a concrete reason for it. I have seen various papers that may explain it due to cycles of sunspot activity. I’ve noticed that the last two years have shown a decrease in global temps via satellite readings which happens to coincide with a predicted lessening of sunspot activity. The lowering of sunspot activity is supposed to last around forty years which should answer the question one way or another.
You would get a much more positive and engaged response from more educated folks like me here if you would provide sources whenever you attempt to state a "fact" to promote your argument. This is the basis of scientific debate/discussion. You failed to do that.
Let's analyze what I've quoted from you...
First of all, which source are you using to claim there is no explanation for ice ages and warm periods in the past few (tens of) thousands of year? You state that as if it is fact when such a claim is not obvious.
Second of all where are you getting the number "40" from sunspot cycle activity? It is fairly well established that sunspot activity cycles on a period of roughly 22 years (with a variability on the order of 2-4 years). See this reference for an explanation on that:
The Sunspot Cycle | UCAR Center for Science Education
Third...no source cited for the claim that "global temps via satellite readings" are decreasing. Land surface temperatures worldwide continue to increase in the mean (with a ton of noise that is characteristic of the Earth's climate system, but there are long-term trends that are visible in the data). Try starting with
www.climate.gov instead of some bullshit article written by an obvious climate change skeptic (who also seems to have little to no direct knowledge or experience dealing with climate change science). You may also want to pay attention to events such has how ridiculously hot the summer has been in Alaska so far this year (try
High temperatures smash all-time records in Alaska in early July 2019 | NOAA Climate.gov), which is certainly consistent with predictions of increased warming at higher latitudes.
Frankly at this point I find continued contrarian attitudes or doubts on the human impact of climate change to be pretty disrespectful and contemptible among those who do not have the education and research experience. You need to look within your own country's borders and examine the attitudes held by professionals that
do have some knowledge and experience on the topic. Let's delve into this...
Steinhouse et al. (2014), BAMS:
of ~1800 meteorologists surveyed in roughly the year 2012...
52% find climate change to be occurring
and to be largely human caused
5% find climate change to be occurring but to be largely naturally caused
20% thought the evidence was insufficient, but 11% of the total (so 55% of those 20%) thought there was some indication of human-induced change
89% believed climate change is occurring. That's what people refer to when they use the term "consensus".
When considering those who classify themselves as climate scientists and publish on climate topics, the numbers become:
78% believe it is happening & human caused
2% believe it is happening but is mostly naturally caused
98% in total believe global climate change is occurring (again...consensus)
Maibach et al. (2017), BAMS (let's see what your favorite broadcast meteorologist thinks):
Several hundred broadcast meteorologists responded to a survey in each of years 2015, 2016, and 2017. In total, the results were:
91% think climate change is happening
49% think climate change is happening and is either mostly or entirely caused by humans. Add another 21% who think it is caused somewhat equally by both human and natural means.
21% think climate change is happening but is mostly or entirely caused by natural processes
Bottom line: there is certainly room for healthy and evidentiary debate on the topic, but there is at least a broad consensus among knowledgeable people and a strong consensus among experts on the topic. To insist or claim otherwise is just flat out incorrect and damnable. There is way more evidence that climate is changing than that it is not changing, and a lot of evidence that humans are significantly contributing. If anyone wants to claim otherwise, they need to provide suitable material (data, evidence, publications etc.).
As a meteorological expert with three meteorology degrees (B.S., M.S., and Ph.D.) and who has many lead-authored published works who understands the scientific method and atmospheric science better than most on this board, I will not tolerate denial or debate that does not align with proper scientific reasoning on this thread (or any other thread on this site). If such debate does not occur, I will absolutely lock this thread!
If you have a problem with me flexing what authority I have on this site, take it up with the owner. If you feel your minority views are unfairly suppressed here, then take your discussion to another forum or website.
I will not allow tin-foil hat or intentionally ignorant or contrarian viewpoints on a matter of fact to be discussed as if it is anything but.