Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[DMC]

The goalpost was "name a specific 'left' policy that was driven by religion.

Your dumb ass was asked this repeatedly, and you failed to do so.

:lol "honest broker" fail

That wasn't what you were talking about. That was left poster B's misdirection therefore maybe his goal but not mine.

[DMC]

Pseudoscience is very often dressing up mysticism in fancy science-y words, i.e. Intelligent Design

Paranormal

[DMC]

was your literal response



im bored at this point. i can tell you are too given your random non sequiturs like brining up secular slaveowners as some attempted dig :lol

and all this just so you can have a proper whataboutism... which would still be a whataboutism given the subject of this thread



You said I said ""but the left believes in god". I didn't say that. :lol you say "was your literal response" and then post a quote where it doesn't say that. I said they all believe in invisible sky daddy. That's about as pseudoscientific as you can get.

Keep whiffing, Philo. Maybe one day, if you sling enough shit and declare premature victory often enough, you'll score.

[Th'Pusher]

You said I said ""but the left believes in god". I didn't say that. :lol you say "was your literal response" and then post a quote where it doesn't say that. I said they all believe in invisible sky daddy. That's about as pseudoscientific as you can get.

Keep whiffing, Philo. Maybe one day, if you sling enough shit and declare premature victory often enough, you'll score.

You’re not actually delusional enough to think that any honest person who reads this thread believes you win any of these arguments, right?

[spurraider21]

You said I said ""but the left believes in god". I didn't say that. :lol you say "was your literal response" and then post a quote where it doesn't say that. I said they all believe in invisible sky daddy. That's about as pseudoscientific as you can get.

Keep whiffing, Philo. Maybe one day, if you sling enough shit and declare premature victory often enough, you'll score.
:lmao

Dem leaders/GOP leaders... all believe in invisible sky daddy.

Talk more about pseudoscientific bullshit.


his point was that people in government use pseudoscience to justify inaction re: climate change and your rebuttal was "well the other side believes in god too"

[DMC]

:lmao

Compulsive lying doesn't work when the evidence is laid out for anyone to see.

I didn't mention "the other side" (which you conveniently left unbolded in your paraphrase)

A lawyer pretending words don't matter, that you can change wording and not change meaning... that's rich.

Not latching on to the fact that I was addressing the "pseudoscience" comment instead of the climate change part, that's just you being you.

RG said "the entire purpose of this thread is to expose pseudoscientific bullshit". You ignored that and cherry picked something you felt you could actually argue successfully.

[DMC]

You’re not actually delusional enough to think that any honest person who reads this thread believes you win any of these arguments, right?

You're still sore over the woodshed incident, left poster D.

[spurraider21]

Compulsive lying doesn't work when the evidence is laid out for anyone to see.

I didn't mention "the other side" (which you conveniently left unbolded in your paraphrase)

A lawyer pretending words don't matter, that you can change wording and not change meaning... that's rich.

Not latching on to the fact that I was addressing the "pseudoscience" comment instead of the climate change part, that's just you being you.

RG said "the entire purpose of this thread is to expose pseudoscientific bullshit". You ignored that and cherry picked something you felt you could actually argue successfully.
My post said your position was that “they believe in it “too”. Ergo both believe in it. It’s a paraphrase that kept the same meaning. And this is just you trying to spin off into another tangent

[Winehole23]

chain-smoking puny, self-declared victories.

derplike.

[DMC]

My post said your position was that “they believe in it “too”. Ergo both believe in it. It’s a paraphrase that kept the same meaning. And this is just you trying to spin off into another tangent

You were wrong. That wasn't my position. My position was that pseudoscience is prevalent in our leadership, even if their positions on issues are different. Paraphrasing when the quote is available is sloppy at best, but in your case it's intentionally dishonest because you only take cases you feel you can win.

[DMC]

My post said your position was that “they believe in it “too”. Ergo both believe in it. It’s a paraphrase that kept the same meaning. And this is just you trying to spin off into another tangent

But that wasn't my position. If you had a leg to stand on you wouldn't need to cherry pick parts of sentences to support your distraction and you wouldn't need to paraphrase by inserting your spin. My comment wasn't a rebuttal. It was directly responding to his comment using the same words "pseudoscientific bullshit". Somehow you call that a rebuttal but had to paraphrase to get there because what you wanted me to mean wasn't apparent in the quote.

[RandomGuy]

You were wrong. That wasn't my position. My position was that pseudoscience is prevalent in our leadership, even if their positions on issues are different.

To some degree yes.

Does one side base their policies more on pseudoscience than the other? If so, which one and how did you determine that?

[DMC]

Spurraider21 is a huge faggot

Dude that's unfair

Oh nm I see you edited it.

[RandomGuy]

Dude that's unfair

Oh nm I see you edited it.

hit the first thing I saw. realized it was unfair and took it out. Replaced it with something more constructive.

[DMC]

To some degree yes.

Does one side base their policies more on pseudoscience than the other? If so, which one and how did you determine that?

The right is by default more uneducated and therefore easier to dupe. The leadership doesn't believe in most of the pseudoscience bullshit, they just profess to believe it so they can push whatever policy they want across. This isn't a new thing. Of course the left has segments of their base who are also prone to believing pseudoscientific bullshit so it's not exclusive to the right and it's not exclusive to divisive topics. The concept that everyone should be taken care of medically likely stems from theism. There's no scientific evidence to support moral directions. Many across the political spectrum look to their clergy to guide them on matters of morality. You can bet there's plenty who vote democratic that don't hold conventional left wing views but see some benefit from that party (or feel they are supposed to vote that way). Climate change is just one of the issues that people differ on and when you get above the poverty line is almost always a difference of who's willing to financially support the corrective measures vs the actual efficacy of those measures other than it being simply a political tool. No doubt climate change is happening, how much of a different large sacrifices will make is more of a political talking point.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol "cocque"

You uneducated motherfucker.Where did you go to school? I had to teach you the difference between imply and infer.

[spurraider21]

Where did you go to school? I had to teach you the difference between imply and infer.
PragerU

[RandomGuy]

Does one side base their policies more on pseudoscience than the other? If so, which one and how did you determine that?


The right is by default more uneducated and therefore easier to dupe. The leadership doesn't believe in most of the pseudoscience bullshit, they just profess to believe it so they can push whatever policy they want across. This isn't a new thing. Of course the left has segments of their base who are also prone to believing pseudoscientific bullshit so it's not exclusive to the right and it's not exclusive to divisive topics. The concept that everyone should be taken care of medically likely stems from theism. There's no scientific evidence to support moral directions. Many across the political spectrum look to their clergy to guide them on matters of morality. You can bet there's plenty who vote democratic that don't hold conventional left wing views but see some benefit from that party (or feel they are supposed to vote that way). Climate change is just one of the issues that people differ on and when you get above the poverty line is almost always a difference of who's willing to financially support the corrective measures vs the actual efficacy of those measures other than it being simply a political tool. No doubt climate change is happening, how much of a different large sacrifices will make is more of a political talking point.

It's the right that pushes for prayer in schools.
It's the right that uses religion as the basis for abortion policy.
It's the right that wants intelligent design taught as a viable scientific theory.
It's the right wants to tear down separation of church and state as an explicit goal.
It's the right that wants Israel policy be dictated by the Book of Revelation.
It's the right that wants climate change policy to be non-existent because you can't trust science.

The two aren't even close to be equivalent.

[DMC]

It's the right that pushes for prayer in schools.
It's the right that uses religion as the basis for abortion policy.
It's the right that wants intelligent design taught as a viable scientific theory.
It's the right wants to tear down separation of church and state as an explicit goal.
It's the right that wants Israel policy be dictated by the Book of Revelation.
It's the right that wants climate change policy to be non-existent because you can't trust science.

The two aren't even close to be equivalent.

You're using argument from consequences, but the consequences of the beliefs don't support or negate that they are still pseudoscientific beliefs.
These are all outcomes you don't want, but what in science says any of them are bad?

Also, most of what you posted has nothing to do with pseudoscience. If you want to scream out about how bad the right is, pretty sure everyone here knows how you feel already on these issues.

People who are truly religious use religion as the basis for their beliefs. Imagine that.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Always funny reading people who masturbate onto their boxes of ammo give educated climate change takes based on propaganda facebook posts

[spurraider21]

You're using argument from consequences, but the consequences of the beliefs don't support or negate that they are still pseudoscientific beliefs.
These are all outcomes you don't want, but what in science says any of them are bad?

Also, most of what you posted has nothing to do with pseudoscience. If you want to scream out about how bad the right is, pretty sure everyone here knows how you feel already on these issues.

People who are truly religious use religion as the basis for their beliefs. Imagine that.
his original point was specifically about the consequence though, ie the inaction re: climate change

[DMC]

I showed what I was responding to. Create whatever imaginary scenario you like.

[DMC]

Always funny reading people who masturbate onto their boxes of ammo give educated climate change takes based on propaganda facebook posts

You should stop going to gay erotica sites it seems.

[RandomGuy]

You're using argument from consequences, but the consequences of the beliefs don't support or negate that they are still pseudoscientific beliefs.
These are all outcomes you don't want, but what in science says any of them are bad?

Also, most of what you posted has nothing to do with pseudoscience. If you want to scream out about how bad the right is, pretty sure everyone here knows how you feel already on these issues.

People who are truly religious use religion as the basis for their beliefs. Imagine that.

Not using an argument from consequences. https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/argument-from-consequences/
If you think so, feel free to try and restate that post into that form.

I was citing examples of the right using religion and pseudo-science to drive policies to bolster that case that the two ends of the spectrum are not close to equally bad. The right is way, way, worse.

I use religious stupidity/pseudoscience relatively interchangeably.

I generally assert "religion poisons everything".

[RandomGuy]

Always funny reading people who masturbate onto their boxes of ammo give educated climate change takes based on propaganda facebook posts

The thing that bugs me the most is that they say "climate change isnt' based on actual data" then simply go on to say "doing something about it would damage the economy".

I asked for some evidence about how exactly it would "damage the economy" and got one flawed non-peer reviewed study on PV in Spain that was... bad.

Best evidence we have is that lowering CO2 emissions would end up being vastly better for the economy than keeping carbon-intensive forms of energy. More efficiency, renewables, and other benefits stack up faster than the costs as far as I have been able to tell.

[Winehole23]

too long to be an alternate headline, too clunky to be a line in a song, but roughly accurate

1410016262923579399

[DMC]

Not using an argument from consequences. https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/argument-from-consequences/
If you think so, feel free to try and restate that post into that form.

I was citing examples of the right using religion and pseudo-science to drive policies to bolster that case that the two ends of the spectrum are not close to equally bad. The right is way, way, worse.

I use religious stupidity/pseudoscience relatively interchangeably.

I generally assert "religion poisons everything".

You are indeed using that argument.

Otherwise, what does prayer in school have to do with science of any kind? What about abortion? Separation of church and state? How about Israel or the Book of Revelations?

You don't like the outcomes, but that doesn't make them bad. It only means you don't want them. The only real issue you have here is climate change, and even if you had your way we'd be right where we are now.

[RandomGuy]

You are indeed using that argument.

Otherwise, what does prayer in school have to do with science of any kind? What about abortion? Separation of church and state? How about Israel or the Book of Revelations?

You don't like the outcomes, but that doesn't make them bad. It only means you don't want them. The only real issue you have here is climate change, and even if you had your way we'd be right where we are now.

smh

As I said, if it were an appeal to consequences, you could put my statements in the correct form.

You either can't do that (because you don't understand) or won't bother (laziness or some other reason).

I provided a list of right wing policies I thought met the criteria of being driven by religion. At no point did I explicitly or implicitly make a statement on the consequences which would be required for that.

Your assertion, your burden of proof. I am calling bullshit. Put up or STFU.

[RandomGuy]

You are indeed using [the appeal to consequences]


It has two logical forms, a positive and negative one. The positive form goes:

If X is true, then Y will happen.
Y is desirable.
Therefore, X is true.
And the negative one:

If X is true, then Y will happen.
Y is undesirable.
Therefore, X is false.

https://fallacyinlogic.com/appeal-to-consequences/


It's the right that pushes for prayer in schools.
It's the right that uses religion as the basis for abortion policy.
It's the right that wants intelligent design taught as a viable scientific theory.
It's the right wants to tear down separation of church and state as an explicit goal.
It's the right that wants Israel policy be dictated by the Book of Revelation.
It's the right that wants climate change policy to be non-existent because you can't trust science.

The [right and left wing] aren't even close to be equivalent.

Knock yourself out. X is there, but Y is not, unless you want to strawman, and no where did I imply that any of the X's are either true or false because of the consequences.

I have given you the form, and the statements that you have mistakenly attributed to that fallacy. Make the square peg fit into the round hole.

[RandomGuy]

You are indeed using that argument

[outline how that is, if you think it is true]

(crickets)

:lol

You suck at this. Really, really badly suck at it. Looks like you figured out, yet again, that you have no idea what you are actually trying to say.

You can infer what you want to from that. :rollin

[DMC]

smh

As I said, if it were an appeal to consequences, you could put my statements in the correct form.

You either can't do that (because you don't understand) or won't bother (laziness or some other reason).

I provided a list of right wing policies I thought met the criteria of being driven by religion. At no point did I explicitly or implicitly make a statement on the consequences which would be required for that.

Your assertion, your burden of proof. I am calling bullshit. Put up or STFU.

Sure..

If P, then Q will occur.
Q is undesirable.
Therefore, P is false.

Where P is the scientific validity of the GOP and Q is separation of church and state


Rinse and repeat for most of your comments

[DMC]

https://fallacyinlogic.com/appeal-to-consequences/



Knock yourself out. X is there, but Y is not, unless you want to strawman, and no where did I imply that any of the X's are either true or false because of the consequences.

I have given you the form, and the statements that you have mistakenly attributed to that fallacy. Make the square peg fit into the round hole.


[outline how that is, if you think it is true]

(crickets)

:lol

You suck at this. Really, really badly suck at it. Looks like you figured out, yet again, that you have no idea what you are actually trying to say.

You can infer what you want to from that. :rollin

What are you, 12? Act like somebody already.

[RandomGuy]

Sure..

If P, then Q will occur.
Q is undesirable.
Therefore, P is false.

Where P is the scientific validity of the GOP and Q is separation of church and state


Rinse and repeat for most of your comments

That is just... wow kind of dumb, or more than a little dishonest.


At no point did I explicitly or implicitly make a statement on the consequences which would be required for that.

So you went right out and strawmanned my statement into claiming I was making statements on consequences.

Let me put it in a more basic form.

X, therefore Y.

The separation of church and state is a religious based policy. = X
A given group is not scientific if its policies are religious based policies. = Y

The right is pushing for the separation of church and state (X), therefore they are not scientific (Y).

That is what I meant, and that is what I said.

More explicitly:

The "scientific validity" of the GOP as a whole is completely independent of how shitty or desirable the outcomes of their preferred policies are.

If you advocate for policies based on non-scientific principles, you are therefore not scientific. If a group advocates for policies that are non-scientific, that group is therefore not scientific.

Providing examples of non-scientific based policies does not make any claim of truth about underlying assertions.

You.
Dumb.
Ass.

[Winehole23]

maybe they can get prisoners to do it, if immigrant labor does not suffice or starts to get overly accustomed to breaks and sahde.


In recent days, labor organizers have received reports of fruit pickers in the region suffering heat-related illnesses, which can include nausea, confusion, slurred speech, and unconsciousness. Many workers say their employers haven't set up tents for shade and require them to supply their own water. Meanwhile, children as young as 12 years old (which is legal due to the exclusion of agricultural workers (https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/immigration/immigration-employment/child-farmworkers-labor-laws/) from fundamental labor laws) and elderly workers in their 60s and 70s have been working in the cherry and blueberry fields in Washington and Oregon, labor organizers told Motherboard. Motherboard has also reviewed photo evidence of children working in cherry fields in recent days.


"There's no shade where I work," a cherry picker in Yakima County in Washington, where temperatures have exceeded 100 degrees for the past three days, told Motherboard on Monday in Spanish. Motherboard granted the worker anonymity because she feared retaliation from her employer. "A lot of people who don’t feel well keep working so as not to lose money for lunch or rent. People endure a lot to finish. They give more than they are able to."
https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7ezk4/farmworkers-endure-brutal-conditions-during-historic-heat-wave

[DMC]

That is just... wow kind of dumb, or more than a little dishonest.



So you went right out and strawmanned my statement into claiming I was making statements on consequences.

Let me put it in a more basic form.

X, therefore Y.

The separation of church and state is a religious based policy. = X
A given group is not scientific if its policies are religious based policies. = Y

The right is pushing for the separation of church and state (X), therefore they are not scientific (Y).

That is what I meant, and that is what I said.

More explicitly:

The "scientific validity" of the GOP as a whole is completely independent of how shitty or desirable the outcomes of their preferred policies are.

If you advocate for policies based on non-scientific principles, you are therefore not scientific. If a group advocates for policies that are non-scientific, that group is therefore not scientific.

Providing examples of non-scientific based policies does not make any claim of truth about underlying assertions.

You.
Dumb.
Ass.

If the right is pushing for separation of church and state, what's wrong with that? Isn't that what Thomas Jefferson suggested in his letter to the Danbury Baptists?

How is the separation of church and state determined scientifically? Explain why these things are good or bad from a scientific standpoint. Also explain how science has anything to do with a political position on abortion. What does science say about the value of human life?

[Winehole23]

1410623844361007107

[Ef-man]

They finally get caught lying for money. Even Manchin was involved.

Undercover Exxon video reveals an anti-climate campaign.

A senior ExxonMobil lobbyist appears to have unwittingly revealed how the oil company uses its political muscle to undercut climate action.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/01/business/exxon-tape-video-keith-mccoy/index.html

"Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes," Keith McCoy, the Exxon (XOM) lobbyist, said during a covertly filmed job interview recorded by Greenpeace's UK investigative platform.

"Did we join some shadow groups to work against some of the early efforts? Yes, that's true," McCoy said in the video, which was published Wednesday by the UK's Channel 4. "But there's nothing illegal about that. We were looking out for our investments. we were looking out for our shareholders.”

The footage seems to corroborate what many suspected all along: Exxon's public support for climate solutions at times conflicts with its work behind the scenes.

The report from Channel 4 did not allege Exxon or its lobbyists did anything illegal. After all, plenty of major corporations use campaign donations to shape the laws in their favor.
Exxon CEO Darren Woods responded to the footage by saying the comments "in no way represent the company's position" on climate policy and its commitment to carbon pricing.

"We condemn the statements and are deeply apologetic for them, including comments regarding interactions with elected officials," Woods said in a statement. "They are entirely inconsistent with the way we expect our people to conduct themselves. We were shocked by these interviews and stand by our commitments to working on finding solutions to climate change."

Woods, who became CEO in 2017 after Rex Tillerson stepped down from the helm of Exxon to become President Donald Trump's secretary of state, also said the individuals in the footage "were never involved" in developing the company's positions on the issues discussed.
'He is the kingmaker'

Yet during the video McCoy suggested he's very much involved in Exxon's efforts to influence key lawmakers. The Exxon lobbyist compared the influence campaign to fishing, where the company tries to "kind of reel them in."

"Because they're a captive audience. They know they need you and I need them," McCoy said.

McCoy identified 11 US senators he says are "crucial" to Exxon, singling out Senator Joe Manchin, the moderate Democrat from West Virginia, as particularly important.

[RandomGuy]

If the right is pushing for separation of church and state, what's wrong with that? Isn't that what Thomas Jefferson suggested in his letter to the Danbury Baptists?

How is the separation of church and state determined scientifically? Explain why these things are good or bad from a scientific standpoint. Also explain how science has anything to do with a political position on abortion. What does science say about the value of human life?

My entire point was that the right side of the spectrum is vastly less rational than the left, mainly because many more policy decision/stances were based purely on religious beliefs.

That's it.

Many pseudo-scientific beliefs are based purely on religion in one way or another, e.g. flat-earth.

In the case of climate change the "anthropogenic dominance" school that says "God put this here for us to do as we see fit and controls everything, therefore we cannot really be changing the climate" means that evangelicals are much less likely to accept the scientific fact that we are rapidly causing global climate to shift.

Religion poisons everything, IMO. Once you start abdicating reason in one area, the next one becomes all the easier.

Once you make rational reasoning the enemy as many defenses of faith do, you hobble yourself.

[RandomGuy]

Exxon CEO Darren Woods responded to the footage by saying the comments "in no way represent the company's position" on climate policy and its commitment to carbon pricing.

"We condemn the statements and are deeply apologetic for them, including comments regarding interactions with elected officials," Woods said in a statement. "They are entirely inconsistent with the way we expect our people to conduct themselves. We were shocked by these interviews and stand by our commitments to working on finding solutions to climate change."

https://media.giphy.com/media/71qbKPIRzoxxK/giphy.gif

:rollin

[boutons_deux]

Exxon CEO Darren Woods is FUCKING LIAR

Exxon bribes politicians, Exxon finances rightwing hate media, stink tanks that excrete AGW-denying shit attacking climate scientists and campaigners, hires whore scientists to deny AGW, while calling the law enforcement to defend their gas/oil pipelines

Exxon and all the BigCarbon industries are criminal operations.

[DMC]

My entire point was that the right side of the spectrum is vastly less rational than the left, mainly because many more policy decision/stances were based purely on religious beliefs.

That's it.

Many pseudo-scientific beliefs are based purely on religion in one way or another, e.g. flat-earth.

In the case of climate change the "anthropogenic dominance" school that says "God put this here for us to do as we see fit and controls everything, therefore we cannot really be changing the climate" means that evangelicals are much less likely to accept the scientific fact that we are rapidly causing global climate to shift.

Religion poisons everything, IMO. Once you start abdicating reason in one area, the next one becomes all the easier.

Once you make rational reasoning the enemy as many defenses of faith do, you hobble yourself.

You need to show how abortion of an otherwise healthy pregnancy has a scientific explanation for being "good", that promotes better decision making than what the right is using. Otherwise you're taking your stance as the gold standard and measuring everything else as deviations.

Sure, religion poisons everything. We're right back to the fact that leaders on all sides of the isle profess religious beliefs.

[Ef-man]

https://media.giphy.com/media/71qbKPIRzoxxK/giphy.gif

:rollin

:lol
Shocked!

https://media1.tenor.com/images/8fb48eec02e058bb7e4f5bfe7da27eed/tenor.gif?itemid=11163853

[RandomGuy]

You need to show [strawman].

Sure, religion poisons everything. We're right back to the fact that leaders on all sides of the isle profess religious beliefs.

I was thinking you were deliberately mis-representing what I was saying.

Now, I am pretty sure you just don't understand it. Reading disability maybe?

That makes having a coherent conversation difficult.

So let's address your fallacy, because you keep re-stating it as if it is sound reasoning.


We're right back to the fact that leaders on all sides of the isle profess religious beliefs.

Sure. But they do not do so equivalently.

The right is provably more religious.

Nor does the left base so much of their preferred policies on purely religious beliefs.

If you want to claim they are equivalent, you have committed a fallacy, and an easily provable one.


False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence does not bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.

Are they equivalently religious? Yes or no. (You have already admitted they are not)

Leaving:

Does the left and the right equivalently base policies on religion? Yes or no.

[RandomGuy]

Religion is inherently irrational/delusional. (P=Q)

Policies based on delusion are less likely to be sound. (Q=R)

Therefore policies based on religion are less likely to be sound. (P=R)

Q.E.D

The right bases far more of their policies on religion than the left. (Q1>Q2)

Therefore right wing policies are less likely to be sound than the left wing policies, all other things equal. (Q1=R1, Q2=R2, therefore R1>R2)

Q.E.D.

[Winehole23]

1410623844361007107

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E5WO6MgXIAI6cQB?format=jpg&name=small

[Winehole23]

~one billion people depend on this snowmass


By comparing the 1979-99 average snowmelt with the 1999-2019 average, the authors find a 16% decline in annual snow meltwater across the region. This is mainly caused by increasing temperatures depleting snow reserves, the study says. However, it adds that changing precipitation patterns in the region also play a role in determining snow reserves.


The authors also assess future changes in snowmelt under a range of different emissions scenarios and “shared socioeconomic pathways” (SSPs) (https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-shared-socioeconomic-pathways-explore-future-climate-change). In the SSP1-1.9 scenario, which is broadly consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5C, snowmelt will decrease by a further 6% by the end of the century. However, a 40% drop is expected in the most pessimistic scenario – SSP5-8.5 (https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-high-emissions-rcp8-5-global-warming-scenario) – which would see global temperatures exceed 4C by the end of the century.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/climate-change-has-driven-16-drop-in-snow-meltwater-from-asias-high-mountains

[RandomGuy]

~one billion people depend on this snowmass

https://www.carbonbrief.org/climate-change-has-driven-16-drop-in-snow-meltwater-from-asias-high-mountains

Wonder if that leads to lower levels for the mississipi in general, if anything similar portends for the rockies.

[RandomGuy]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-heat-wave-pacific-northwest/

Just a week ago, the Pacific Northwest — a place normally known for its cool and wet climate — endured the most extraordinary heat wave ever observed there in modern times. Even seasoned meteorologists could not believe what they were seeing as seemingly impossible heat persisted day after day.

Portland, Oregon, climbed to 116 degrees, breaking an all-time record by an astonishing 9 degrees. Lytton, Canada, broke that nation's all-time record three days in a row, topping out at 121 degrees. The very next day, 90% of the town burned to the ground as over 100 wildfires scorched British Columbia. Officials say several hundred people were killed by the heat, and that number is expected to rise after assessments are complete.

The extremity of the heat wasn't just unusual — it would have been "virtually impossible without human-caused climate change," according to a new analysis by 27 climate scientists from the World Weather Attribution network. And the study warns, "As warming continues, it will become a lot less rare."

------------------------------------------------

DarrinS I pointed out to you over a decade ago, the evidence would become too hard to ignore.

Even for you.

[RandomGuy]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/07/human-activity-influencing-global-rainfall-study-finds

Human activity such as such as greenhouse gas emissions and land use change were a key factor in extreme precipitation events such as flooding and landslides around the world, a study has found.

In recent years, there have been numerous instances of flooding and landslides: extreme precipitation, an amount of rainfall or snowfall that exceeds what is normal for a given region, can be a cause of such events.

Natural variations in climate, such as El Niño–Southern Oscillation (Enso), affect precipitation. But attribution research studies, such as the latest modelling study, published on Tuesday in Nature Communications, work to better understand whether human actions impacting the climate, such as greenhouse gas emissions and land-use changes, contribute to the likelihood and severity of extreme events.

In the study, UCLA researchers looked at global climate records to examine whether anthropogenic influence – human-induced changes to the climate – had affected extreme precipitation. By examining multiple data sets of observed precipitation, the researchers were able to build a global picture, and found evidence of human activity affecting extreme precipitation in all of them.

“It is vital to identify the changes [to precipitation patterns] caused by human action, compared to the changes caused by natural climate variability,” explained lead researcher Gavin Madakumbura. “It allows us to manage water resources and plan adaption measures to changes driven by climate change.”

Up till now, work in this field has been restricted to countries, rather than applied globally. But the research team utilised machine learning to create a global data set.

Human-induced climate change is causing the Earth’s temperature to increase. Different mechanisms link warmer temperatures to extreme precipitation. “The dominant mechanism [driving extreme precipitation] for most regions around the world is that warmer air can hold more water vapour,” said Madakumbura. “This fuels storms.”

While there are regional differences, and some places are becoming drier, Met Office data shows that overall, intense rainfall is increasing globally, meaning the rainiest days of the year are getting wetter. Changes to rainfall extremes – the number of very heavy rainfall days – are also a problem. These short, intense periods of rainfall can lead to flash flooding, with devastating impacts on infrastructure and the environment.

“We are already observing a 1.2C warming compared to pre-industrial levels,” pointed out Dr Sihan Li, a senior research associate at the University of Oxford, who was not involved in the study. She said: “If warming continues to increase, we will get more intense episodes of extreme precipitation, but also extreme drought events as well.”

Li said that while the machine-learning method used in the study was cutting edge, it currently did not allow for the attribution of individual factors that can influence precipitation extremes, such as anthropogenic aerosols, land-use change, or volcanic eruptions.

The method of machine learning used in the study learned from data alone. Madakumbura pointed out that in the future, “we can aid this learning by imposing climate physics in the algorithm, so it will not only learn whether the extreme precipitation has changed, but also the mechanisms, why it has changed”. “That’s the next step,” he said.


-----------------------------------

DarrinS It isn't just heat either. Consider Houstons 50 inches of rain.

[RandomGuy]

1410623844361007107


Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Sorry, but why do they give? Is it to cover up a lie, or is it to keep a lie from hurting them?

Do people with money always give to change an outcome out of unethical reasons, or do they give to keep the other side from causing unethical things to happen.

You have assumed motive, which has no place in a scientific discussion.

Some shit doesn't age well, does it?

[RandomGuy]

You know what? Fuck it. I don't even care about the "denier" label any more. The AGW ship has been sinking for some time now and its advocates are scurrying around like drowning rats trying to save it. Time and observations will disprove this pseudoscience, just like it disproved other shitty theories from the 1970's.

:lmao

Nope.

You gullible idiot. smh

[Frenchfred]

:lmao

Nope.

You gullible idiot. smh

so far time and observation are on the side of global warming, no question about it

[Thread]

so far time and observation are on the side of global warming, no question about it

Nazi's!!!

[RandomGuy]

so far time and observation are on the side of global warming, no question about it

Boggles the mind that there are stull suckers out there that believe it is a hoax so "greedy scientists can get more grants" or some such.

[Thread]

Boggles the mind that there are stull suckers out there that believe it is a hoax so "greedy scientists can get more grants" or some such.

It's like race hustling, RG. Same with this...global warming hustling. Keep the masses in the herd, going the one way.

[DarrinS]

Boggles the mind that there are stull suckers out there that believe it is a hoax so "greedy scientists can get more grants" or some such.

https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197878&p=9929284&viewfull=1#post9929284

[ChumpDumper]

Darrin still has incandescent light bulbs.:lol

[DarrinS]

Darrin still has incandescent light bulbs.:lol

I have zero

[Winehole23]

Did you ever learn how to pre-wash your dishes and stop blaming it on Lemi-Shine and your dishwasher?

[RandomGuy]

https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197878&p=9929284&viewfull=1#post9929284

What would make it a crisis?

Hundreds of people dying from heat/cold events?

Thousands?

Trillions of dollars of economic damage?

Do tell.

[DarrinS]

Did you ever learn how to pre-wash your dishes and stop blaming it on Lemi-Shine and your dishwasher?

I didn't blame Lemi-Shine.

Lemi-Shine was the solution.

[Winehole23]

I didn't blame Lemi-Shine.

Lemi-Shine was the solution.that's right, you blamed hippie enviroa

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197878&p=9929284&viewfull=1#post9929284

Translation:

"I don't deny we aren't warming the planet, I just deny that could ever have adverse consequences."

Duly noted.

You aren't the kind of idiot that denies the existence of brick walls, you are the kind of idiot that would deny the possibility that driving with your eyes closed might result in a collision with one.

So much better. :rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197878&p=9929284&viewfull=1#post9929284

Risks from floods, storm surges and flash floods
Underestimated natural hazards
https://www.munichre.com/en/risks/natural-disasters-losses-are-trending-upwards/floods-and-flash-floods-underestimated-natural-hazards.html

Hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones
Tropical cyclones — The natural hazard with the highest insured losses
https://www.munichre.com/en/risks/natural-disasters-losses-are-trending-upwards/hurricanes-typhoons-cyclones.html

Winter storms
A risk to entire continents
https://www.munichre.com/en/risks/natural-disasters-losses-are-trending-upwards/winter-storms.html

Thunderstorms, hail and tornadoes
Localised but extremely destructive
https://www.munichre.com/en/risks/natural-disasters-losses-are-trending-upwards/thunderstorms-hail-and-tornados.html

Wildfires
Clear indicators that climate change is changing the risks
https://www.munichre.com/en/risks/natural-disasters-losses-are-trending-upwards/wildfires-as-the-climate-changes-so-do-the-risks.html

Droughts and heatwaves:
Gradual but catastrophic
The consequences of drought and extreme heat are more devastating and dangerous than they may first appear
https://www.munichre.com/en/risks/natural-disasters-losses-are-trending-upwards/droughts-and-heatwaves-gradual-but-catastrophic.html


Climate crisis alters the risk landscape
The consensus among scientists is that the emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases since industrialisation began are the main cause of rising temperatures in our planet’s atmosphere and oceans. Global warming has various consequences.
All 19 years since 2002 rank among the 20 warmest since measurements began.
© Munich Re
Deviation in global mean temperature from the 1880-1900 average
All 19 years since 2002 rank among the 20 warmest since measurements began
Sea ice and glaciers are melting. Sea levels are rising, currently at an annual average of some 3 mm.

Higher temperatures – and the correspondingly higher energy content in the atmosphere – change the probability distributions of individual meteorological parameters and weather patterns. This is especially significant from a risk perspective.

If weather extremes occur more frequently and/or become more intense, then there will be more losses – unless measures are implemented to minimise losses. Construction engineering measures come to mind, as do changes in land use.

It is very probable that climate change has played a role in severe hailstorms in North America and Europe, wildfires in California and heatwaves in many places.

Referred to as hurricanes, typhoons or cyclones in different parts of the world, more and more tropical cyclones have brought extreme precipitation in recent years. There are also signs that particularly severe storms account for a rising percentage of all storms.

Individual loss events cannot be attributed directly to climate change. Nevertheless, the analysis of long-term trends on the basis of meteorological data – in combination with underwriting and socio-economic data – provides key indications of the changing risk from dangerous storms.
https://www.munichre.com/en/risks/climate-change-a-challenge-for-humanity.html


{edit}
Munich Re = one of the globe's largest reinsurers that asborbs all the catastrophic losses from large climate disasters from other insurers to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars annually.{/edit}

The people who pay for these events seem to think it is a crisis.

Do you know more than they do?

[ChumpDumper]

I have zeroDid the new ones cost $50 each?

[DarrinS]

Did the new ones cost $50 each?

No

[ChumpDumper]

I have zero


Better stock up on your incandescent bulbs

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110516/ap_on_hi_te/us_led_lighting;_ylt=AsE3Gkdtse.WMyLRBM_sWOCs0NUE; _ylu=X3oDMTNqNzVocWJlBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwNTE2L3VzX 2xlZF9saWdodGluZwRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzg EcG9zAzUEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9sa XN0BHNsawNs:lol

[RandomGuy]

No

The people who pay for these events seem to think it is a crisis.

Do you know more than they do?

[DarrinS]

The people who pay for these events seem to think it is a crisis.

Do you know more than they do?


Man, you desperately want me to care about this topic again. :lol

[RandomGuy]

Man, you desperately want me to care about this topic again. :lol

Just wondering if evidence actually ever changes your mind. You appear impervious to it.

[Frenchfred]

What would make it a crisis?

Hundreds of people dying from heat/cold events?

Thousands?

Trillions of dollars of economic damage?

Do tell.

when millions of immigrants will come because their country will become too hot. Then, republicans will start to look for a solution

[Winehole23]

1413662322896289794

[DarrinS]

Death Valley is hot, y'all

[ChumpDumper]

Death Valley is hot, y'allWhy do you still have to downplay this?

Why is it important to you?

[pgardn]

It's like race hustling, RG. Same with this...global warming hustling. Keep the masses in the herd, going the one way.

Yeah acid rain was climate hustling. London choking in smog was climate hustling. Ozone depletion was climate hustling.

All rectified with admission.
You are this old and dont remember the us changing the air around us... where the fck have you been?

[pgardn]

Death Valley is hot, y'all

It gets colder during winter than in the summer.
Fun game of facts for children.

[Thread]

Yeah acid rain was climate hustling. London choking in smog was climate hustling. Ozone depletion was climate hustling.

All rectified with admission.
You are this old and dont remember the us changing the air around us... where the fck have you been?

...on everybody's fucking Ignore List.

[Winehole23]

Death Valley is hot, y'allit's as unusual for the whole central valley to be as hot as Death Valley as it is for Death Valley to hit 130F.

the temperature in BC a week or so ago was 45 degrees above normal. they don't have air conditioning there because they've never needed it.

[Frenchfred]

it is impossible to convince people who don't believe in science. They are similar to those who were claiming that the earth was flat a few centuries ago

[pgardn]

it is impossible to convince people who don't believe in science. They are similar to those who were claiming that the earth was flat a few centuries ago

Same as the people who dont want evolution to be taught.
Dark ages Darrin. Its comfy for people ready to die I guess.

[spurraider21]

Death Valley is hot, y'all
Did you walk around Death Valley with a thermometer though?

[pgardn]

...on everybody's fucking Ignore List.

Acid Rain was a deal back in your day and has been figured out.
This site was not even around. You need to read something other than novels about the travails of old men past their sexual prime.

[Thread]

it is impossible to convince people who don't believe in science. They are similar to those who were claiming that the earth was flat a few centuries ago

Nazi's!!!

[pgardn]

Nazi's!!!

what?...

The Nazis knew the earth was round.
They knew that firing long range artillery down or up latitude lines needed adjustment.

No, you see the people who understand this and look at Trumper's dont think Nazis!!! they sadly think ignorant dumbasses...

[spurraider21]

what?...

The Nazis knew the earth was round.
They knew that firing long range artillery down or up latitude lines needed adjustment.

No, you see the people who understand this and look at Trumper's dont think Nazis!!! they sadly think ignorant dumbasses...
the nazi's handicapped their scientific progress because of their retarded worldview. they wrote off the work of great scientists as "jewish physics"... and tried banning the use of any of it, including relativity :lol

until they needed heisenberg to try to get them a nuke, at which point they allowed him to use jewish science :lol... fuckin morons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik

[Thread]

what?...

The Nazis knew the earth was round.
They knew that firing long range artillery down or up latitude lines needed adjustment.

No, you see the people who understand this and look at Trumper's dont think Nazis!!! they sadly think ignorant dumbasses...

Nazi's!!!

[Thread]

the nazi's handicapped their scientific progress because of their retarded worldview. they wrote off the work of great scientists as "jewish physics"... and tried banning the use of any of it, including relativity :lol

until they needed heisenberg to try to get them a nuke, at which point they allowed him to use jewish science :lol... fuckin morons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik

Nazi's!!!

[Frenchfred]

what?...

The Nazis knew the earth was round.
They knew that firing long range artillery down or up latitude lines needed adjustment.

No, you see the people who understand this and look at Trumper's dont think Nazis!!! they sadly think ignorant dumbasses...

the moron is still posting his Nazi's comments :lol I have to say that he is close to a nazi though, he is racist like them, he is expecting his handouts like a good socialist, he might have his membership at the National Socialist German Worker party.

[spurraider21]

Nazi's!!!
would the world be a better place if the axis powers had won, cub?

[pgardn]

the nazi's handicapped their scientific progress because of their retarded worldview. they wrote off the work of great scientists as "jewish physics"... and tried banning the use of any of it, including relativity :lol

until they needed heisenberg to try to get them a nuke, at which point they allowed him to use jewish science :lol... fuckin morons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik

I should have said longitude lines btw...

But this is always interesting when political views prevent the dissemination of solid information.
I know the Soviet agricultural minister completely ruined their wheat crop because communistic doctrine conflicted with Mendelian genetics in his mind. Something like this...

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-the-soviet-union-chose-the-wrong-side-on-genetics-and-evolution-23179035/

And our Trumpsters want to make a virus and a vaccine a political issue. Fkn idiots. "That mask has me breathing CO2! Im gonna die!"

[spurraider21]

I should have said longitude lines btw...

But this is always interesting when political views prevent the dissemination of solid information.
I know the Soviet agricultural minister completely ruined their wheat crop because communistic doctrine conflicted with Mendelian genetics in his mind. Something like this...

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-the-soviet-union-chose-the-wrong-side-on-genetics-and-evolution-23179035/
yep!

[Thread]

would the world be a better place if the axis powers had won, cub?

"axis powers" would have not been on the European continent had (the world) not tried to starve Germans/Germany into perpetuity after the War to end all wars had ended. Christ-a-mighty, Lincoln had laid it out for all the world to play it out a half century earlier after "the good old boys meanin' never no harm" & clothed in gray had given up the fight..."Let 'em down easy, boys."

Though we applied learned lessons when we built Japan back up after punishing them sternly for that Sunday morning wake up call.

& now there's Merkle runnin' Poot's pipeline down from up above. tee, hee.

[Frenchfred]

would the world be a better place if the axis powers had won, cub?

I know that he is a maga supporter so a fascist by definition but he seems in love with the nazis

[Thread]

I know that he is a maga supporter so a fascist by definition but he seems in love with the nazis

Nazi's!!!

[spurraider21]

"axis powers" would have not been on the European continent had (the world) not tried to starve Germans/Germany into perpetuity after the War to end all wars had ended. Christ-a-mighty, Lincoln had laid it out for all the world to play it out a half century earlier after "the good old boys meanin' never no harm" & clothed in gray had given up the fight..."Let 'em down easy, boys."

Though we applied learned lessons when we built Japan back up after punishing them sternly for that Sunday morning wake up call.

& now there's Merkle runnin' Poot's pipeline down from up above. tee, hee.
I’m asking you the time and you respond by telling me how you would go about building a clock. Ducking the question. Gave you some time, still acting like a chickenshit

[spurraider21]

I know that he is a maga supporter so a fascist by definition but he seems in love with the nazis
Also a weird group of people who simultaneously deny that the Holocaust happen but think it would have been based if it did

[DarrinS]

Death Valley is hot, y'all

https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature

[ChumpDumper]

https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperatureIs this the hill you want to die on, Darrin?

[Thread]

I’m asking you the time and you respond by telling me how you would go about building a clock. Ducking the question. Gave you some time, still acting like a chickenshit

BS. I built a shoe store in your ass and you can't take it.

[DarrinS]

Is this the hill you want to die on, Darrin?

The record being set in 1913 is inconvenient.

[ChumpDumper]

The record being set in 1913 is inconvenient.Inconvenient for whom?

Is Death Valley the only place temperature has been measured this year?

[DarrinS]

Inconvenient for whom?

Is Death Valley the only place temperature has been measured this year?


I agree that a single data point from a single location is not good evidence of any global trend.

That's why I mocked it.

[ChumpDumper]

I agree that a single data point from a single location is not good evidence of any global trend.

That's why I mocked it.So would you say the global trend for average temperature since 1913 has been in the upward, downward or unchanged?

[DarrinS]

So would you say the global trend for average temperature since 1913 has been in the upward, downward or unchanged?

Upward

[ChumpDumper]

Upward:lol congratulations, Darrin

[pgardn]

The record being set in 1913 is inconvenient.

To whom?

If you look at one spot on the planet you find this inconvenient?
I find it likely. I bet you can find another set before WWI.

Do you understand what AVERAGE is? World wide AVERAGE temperature?
Do you understand we will set more record lows and highs but the AVERAGE can go up?

edit: Sorry already discussed

[Winehole23]

DarrinS's soda straw view, though

1413961233712173060

[RandomGuy]

I agree that a single data point from a single location is not good evidence of any global trend.

That's why I mocked it.

You never did answer my question.

When would human caused climate change be a crisis?

[RandomGuy]

Upward

Speaking of upward, sea levels are rising.

Guess how that is about to be made worse?

A 'wobble' in the moon's orbit could result in record flooding in the 2030s, new study finds

Climate change has already increased the frequency and severity of hurricanes and other extreme weather events around the world. — But there's a smaller, less splashy threat on the horizon that could wreak havoc on America's coasts.

High-tide floods, also called "nuisance floods," occur in coastal areas when tides reach about 2 feet (0.6 meters) above the daily average high tide and begin to flood onto streets or seep through storm drains. True to their nickname, these floods are more of a nuisance than an outright calamity, inundating streets and homes, forcing businesses to close and causing cesspools to overflow — but the longer they last, the more damage they can do.

The U.S. experienced more than 600 of these floods in 2019, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). But now, a new study led by NASA warns that nuisance floods will become a much more frequent occurrence in the U.S. as soon as the 2030s, with a majority of the U.S. coastline expected to see three to four times as many high-tide flood days each year for at least a decade.

The study, published June 21 in the journal Nature Climate Change, warns that these extra flood days won't be spread out evenly over the year, but are likely to cluster together over the span of just a few months; coastal areas that now face just two or three floods a month may soon face a dozen or more.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/weather/topstories/a-wobble-in-the-moons-orbit-could-result-in-record-flooding-in-the-2030s-new-study-finds/ar-AAM3qdU

The problem with "it doesn't effect me", is that actually it does, in a lot of ways, even if you don't live on the coast.

[RandomGuy]

Upward

question pending.

You assert there is no crisis.

People who know a lot more than you say there is.

Provide some support for business as usual, "nothing will happen".

[Winehole23]

the basic physics behind climate change was understood in the 19th century

https://phys.org/news/2021-07-physics-climate-1800s-scientist-eunice.html

[RandomGuy]

Upward

And that has been driven by CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.

You trotted out the plateau in the last part of the aughts.

That was just the oceans absorbing the extra heat.

[boutons_deux]

Biden’s Climate Plans Are Stunted After Dejected Experts Fled Trump

Hundreds of scientists and policy experts left the government during the Trump administration.

The jobs remain unfilled six months into President Biden’s term.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/01/climate/biden-scientists-shortage-climate.html

Trash's destruction is so much easier than building, and the oligarchy loves that they can continue fucking over the planet for profit without interference

[Winehole23]

the fucking gulf stream


The study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, focuses on the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which includes the Gulf Stream (https://scijinks.gov/gulf-stream/). As the United Kingdom’s Met Office explains (https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/oceans/amoc), it is “a large system of ocean currents that carry warm water from the tropics northwards into the North Atlantic,” like a conveyor belt.
Previous research has shown AMOC weakening in recent centuries. The author of the new study, Niklas Boers of the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research (PIK), found that this is likely related to a loss of stability.


“The Atlantic Meridional Overturning is one of our planet’s key circulation systems,” Boers, who is also affiliated with universities in the U.K. and Germany, said (https://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/research/title_871393_en.html) in a statement.


“We already know from some computer simulations and from data from Earth’s past, so-called paleoclimate proxy records, that the AMOC can exhibit—in addition to the currently attained strong mode—an alternative, substantially weaker mode of operation,” he continued. “This bi-stability implies that abrupt transitions between the two circulation modes are in principle possible.”


In the absence of long-term data on the current system’s strength, Boers looked at its “fingerprints,” sea-surface temperature and salinity patterns. He said that “a detailed analysis of these fingerprints in eight independent indices now suggests that the AMOC weakening during the last century is indeed likely to be associated with a loss of stability.”


“The findings support the assessment that the AMOC decline is not just a fluctuation or a linear response to increasing temperatures,” he continued, “but likely means the approaching of a critical threshold beyond which the circulation system could collapse.”
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/08/05/unimaginably-catastrophic-researchers-fear-gulf-stream-system-could-collapse

the study the clickbaity, doomy Common Dreams piece is based on: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01097-4

[Winehole23]

AbstractThe Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a major ocean current system transporting warm surface waters toward the northern Atlantic, has been suggested to exhibit two distinct modes of operation. A collapse from the currently attained strong to the weak mode would have severe impacts on the global climate system and further multi-stable Earth system components. Observations and recently suggested fingerprints of AMOC variability indicate a gradual weakening during the last decades, but estimates of the critical transition point remain uncertain. Here, a robust and general early-warning indicator for forthcoming critical transitions is introduced. Significant early-warning signals are found in eight independent AMOC indices, based on observational sea-surface temperature and salinity data from across the Atlantic Ocean basin. These results reveal spatially consistent empirical evidence that, in the course of the last century, the AMOC may have evolved from relatively stable conditions to a point close to a critical transition.

[Winehole23]

another controversial IPCC report. cue the denials and more cheap TINA nihilism

1424725400668758020

[Winehole23]

message seems to be that ecological catastrophe is running ahead of schedule and we're out of time to wait on solutions

[Winehole23]

Twenty commercial firms are responsible for ~ 1/3 of global emissions. Changes in patterns of consumption percolating up from individuals won't do the trick.

https://www.theweek.co.uk/103719/which-are-the-the-20-firms-behind-one-third-of-carbon-emissions

1424739212335648769

[Winehole23]

If the IPCC assessment is correct, incremental change is the essence of irresponsibility. Radical change is needed without delay.

[Winehole23]

Chicxalub (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater)


"To find a time when the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere changed this much this fast, you’d need to rewind 66 million years to the meteor that killed the dinosaurs."

[spurraider21]

while the US emissions per capita is about as low as its been since 1918 or so, the atmosphere doesnt give a fuck about per capita emissions. we squandered the opportunity to be at the forefront of renewables and could have spread that technology around the world. only way to get behemoths like china off fossil fuels is to have a more economically viable alternative, which renewables can be

our aversion to nuclear has also been quite a hindrance. while we have largely shifted from coal to natural gas, leading to decreases in emissions, natural gas is still pretty bad in the scheme of things. nuclear would have been a much better bridge to renewables

[Winehole23]

Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says (https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change)

[Winehole23]

at a certain point degrowth will have to enter the conversation. constant growth in one direction is the ideology of the cancer cell.

[spurraider21]

Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says (https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change)


one of the biggest scams in recent history was trying to pawn this off on people, asking them to carpool, change thermostat settings, etc. this has to be done on an industrial and systemic level. our transition away from coal and toward natural gase, on its own, has contributed to a much larger decrease in emissions than auto fuel standards, for instance.

[Winehole23]

one of the biggest scams in recent history was trying to pawn this off on people, asking them to carpool, change thermostat settings, etc. this has to be done on an industrial level"reducing your carbon footprint"

[spurraider21]

"reducing your carbon footprint"
telling people to reduce their household carbon footprint to tackle climate change is like telling people to go vote third party to send a message to washington

[Winehole23]

Obama was a terrible president in many ways, but they mainly boil down to one thing: his extreme deference to the domination of the status quo by finance and large corporations.

1067746578226704384

[boutons_deux]

message seems to be that ecological catastrophe is running ahead of schedule and we're out of time to wait on solutions

time is up, AGW catastrophe is under way and will get much worse

and nobody is doing anything significant about it. There is no solution.

eg, Biden just permitted BigCarbon to drill on Federal lands. W T F

[Winehole23]

didn't know the 1982 Exxon prediction was so close

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E8W76p6WUAkoIUK?format=jpg&name=large

[Winehole23]

hmm, another projection from the 40-50 yars ago, roughly in line with the actual change

maybe this process is much less mysterious than the deniers have made it out be.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E8WyP62XoAMNKqt?format=jpg&name=large

[DarrinS]

Mild summer

Carry on

[Winehole23]

Mild summer

Carry on"muh zip code" is yr answer to everything

[Winehole23]

sadly, this tankie could be right

1424987177025482757

[Winehole23]

IPCC recap


What are the IPCC report’s most important overall messages in your view?

At the most basic level, the facts about climate change have been clear for a long time, with the evidence just continuing to grow.

As a result of human activities (https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/), the planet is changing at a rate unprecedented for at least thousands of years. These changes are affecting every area of the planet.
https://images.theconversation.com/files/415082/original/file-20210807-123368-v10qvv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip (https://images.theconversation.com/files/415082/original/file-20210807-123368-v10qvv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip)
(https://images.theconversation.com/files/415082/original/file-20210807-123368-v10qvv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip)Humans produce large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, primarily through fossil fuel burning, agriculture, deforestation and decomposing waste. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/)While some of the changes will be irreversible for millennia, some can be slowed and others reversed through strong, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

But time is running out to meet the ambitious goal laid out in the 2015 international Paris Agreement (https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement) to limit warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels (2 C equals 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Doing so requires getting global carbon dioxide emissions on a downward course that reaches net zero around or before 2050.
https://theconversation.com/ipcc-climate-report-profound-changes-are-underway-in-earths-oceans-and-ice-a-lead-author-explains-what-the-warnings-mean-165588

[Winehole23]

Since the previous reports, scientists have made substantial advances in modeling the behavior of ice sheets. At the same time, we’ve been learning more about ice sheet physics, including recognizing the potential ways ice sheets can become destabilized. We don’t well understand the potential speed of these changes, but they have the potential to lead to much more rapid ice sheet loss if greenhouse gas emissions grow unchecked.


These advances confirm that sea level is going to continue to rise (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/)for many centuries to come, creating an escalating threat for coastal communities.


Sea level change through 2050 is largely locked in: Regardless of how quickly nations are able to lower emissions, the world is likely looking at about 15 to 30 centimeters (6 to 12 inches) of global average sea level rise through the middle of the century.


But beyond 2050, sea level projections become increasingly sensitive to the world’s emissions choices. If countries continue on their current paths, with greenhouse gas emissions likely to bring 3-4 C of warming (5.4-7.2 F) by 2100, the planet will be looking at a most likely sea level rise of about 0.7 meters (a bit over 2 feet). A 2 C (3.6 F) warmer world, consistent with the Paris Agreement, would see lower sea level rise, most likely about half a meter (about 1.6 feet) by 2100.
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/00-IPCC-2-1024x517.png

[Winehole23]

One example of a system that might undergo abrupt changes is the large-scale pattern of ocean circulation known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-could-the-atlantic-overturning-circulation-shut-down), or AMOC, of which the Gulf Stream is part. Paleoclimate evidence tells us that AMOC has changed rapidly in the past, and we expect that AMOC will weaken over this century. If AMOC were to collapse, it would make Europe warm more slowly, increase sea level rise along the U.S. Atlantic coast, and shift storm tracks and monsoons. However, most evidence indicates that such a collapse will not happen in this century.


https://images.theconversation.com/files/415083/original/file-20210807-123169-1712b1l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip (https://images.theconversation.com/files/415083/original/file-20210807-123169-1712b1l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip)
(https://images.theconversation.com/files/415083/original/file-20210807-123169-1712b1l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip)The Gulf Stream is part of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. A slowdown would affect temperature in Europe and sea level rise along the U.S. East coast. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/)

There is mixed evidence for abrupt changes in the polar ice sheets, but clear evidence that changes in the ice sheets can be locked in for centuries and millennia.


If the world succeeds in limiting warming to 1.5 C (2.7 F), we expect to see about 2-3 meters (7-10 feet) of sea level rise over the next 2,000 years; if the planet continues to warm and reaches a 5 C (9 F) increase, we expect to see about 20 meters (70 feet) over the next 2,000 years.


Some people also discuss summer Arctic sea ice – which has undergone substantial declines (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZHmS1EPfXY) over the last 40 years and is now smaller than at any time in the past millennium – as a system with a “tipping point.” However, the science is pretty clear that there is no critical threshold in this system. Rather, summer Arctic sea ice area decreases roughly in proportion to the increase in global temperature, and if temperature were stabilized, we would expect sea ice area to stabilize also.

[Winehole23]

Since the last IPCC assessment report in 2013, there has been increasing evidence that hurricanes have grown more intense, and intensified more rapidly, than they did 40 years ago. There’s also evidence that hurricanes in the U.S. are moving more slowly, leading to increased rainfall.


However, it’s not clear that this is due to the effects of greenhouse gases – reductions in particulate pollution have also had important effects.

[Winehole23]

The IPCC uses a transparent process to produce its report – the authors have had to respond to over 50,000 review comments over the three years we’ve spent writing it. The governments also weigh in, having to approve every line of a concise Summary for Policy Makers that accurately reflects the underlying assessment – oftentimes making it clearer in the process.


I’m very pleased that, as with past reports, every participating government has signed off on a summary that accurately reports the current state of climate science.

[Winehole23]

background:

Monday’s IPCC report is a really big deal for climate change. So what is it? And why should we trust it? (https://theconversation.com/mondays-ipcc-report-is-a-really-big-deal-for-climate-change-so-what-is-it-and-why-should-we-trust-it-165614)


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was first established in 1988 (https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/) by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization. Their aim was to provide policymakers with regular and comprehensive scientific assessments on climate change, at a time when (https://theconversation.com/30-years-ago-global-warming-became-front-page-news-and-both-republicans-and-democrats-took-it-seriously-97658) climate change was becoming a more mainstream concern around the world.


These reports assess the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation. They’re required to be policy-relevant yet policy-neutral. They contain findings, and state the confidence with which the finding is made, but do not recommend action.

history: https://www.ipcc.ch/about/history/

[spurraider21]

wait, the intergovernmental panel on CLIMATE CHANGE was established in 1988? i thought they only recently stopped calling it GLOBAL WARMING and moved onto CLIMATE CHANGE because they couldn't prove warming anymore??!??

i'm very smart

[Winehole23]

Adam Tooze parses the US/EU rift over carbon markets


Whilst Trump held the White House, the question of trans-Atlantic climate diplomacy did not arise. The advent of the Biden administration has brought the United States back into the Paris climate agreement. The White House insists that climate is “everywhere” in its program. This is welcome. But, after initial excitement the Biden program has stalled. At home, the wrangling over the infrastructure program has slowed progress . The stand-off with China leaves Washington with no leverage over the largest polluter. At the G20 meeting of environment ministers, John Kerry was a prominent presence, but there was no deal. Even with the Europeans, who might be thought of as climate allies, big differences have emerged. So much so that we are hearing talk of a trans-Atlantic carbon trade war (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/13/europe-climate-tax-trade-biden-499557). That would be a disaster.https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/adam-tooze-chartbook-31-the-mirage

[Thread]

That other mother fucker Gore said we'd all be dead by now. Lo & behold we're still here laying out a dollar a gallon gas increase that mother fucker Biden is responsible for minus the 235k of dead Americans who don't have pay that extra buck.

[Thread]

wait, the intergovernmental panel on CLIMATE CHANGE was established in 1988? i thought they only recently stopped calling it GLOBAL WARMING and moved onto CLIMATE CHANGE because they couldn't prove warming anymore??!??

i'm very smart

Bend over, I'll show you how fuckin' very smart you are.

[Winehole23]

White House must still be digesting the report

1425420240616411137

[Winehole23]

this far-left, Marxist-Leninist extremist nearly destroyed America

1425055884179353606

[Winehole23]

1425481547826798594

[Winehole23]

leftist extremism

1425483451835109379

[Winehole23]

wasn't Biden supposed to ban fracking or something?

1425820466430636032

[RandomGuy]

Millennial_Messiah

Knock yourself out here.

Explain exactly why it is a big giant question mark.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Millennial_Messiah (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=50493)

Knock yourself out here.

Explain exactly why it is a big giant question mark.

While there is definitely an urban heat-island effect, the law of conservation / Newton's 3rd law generally applies. Where you have extra heat in say, Dallas-Fort Worth (good example because you don't have other confounding geographic factors nearby like water, elevation or other nearby big cities) you have an equal cooling effect in towns and rural areas not too far outside the metroplex. The human-caused heat is generated and is contained in DFW and a reverse cooling effect occurs if you live around say Decatur, Waxahachie or north of Denton.

AGW is overstated, there are many more causes to climate change that greatly super-scale out any tiny man made effects of global warming. Total warming is 2 degrees celsius on average over 100 years, it's not worth fussing over... yeah we definitely should scale back on pollution and deforestation (especially), but reforestation and high tech energy-efficiency in the USA and the West is already neutralizing that trend.

Problem is the shitty second world countries in the Middle East and (especially) China continue to be the biggest offenders and producers of not only CO2 but more importantly water pollution and toxic carcinogenic smoke, air pollutants and radiation that wrecks ecosystems and is a threat to nature and humanity. China continues to be humanity's #1 enemy, whether it's creating superbugs in labs or continuing to operate early 20th-century technology factories and lead the world by a light-year in pollution and environmental waste.

[spurraider21]

Millennial_Messiah (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=50493)

Knock yourself out here.

Explain exactly why it is a big giant question mark.
engaging with MM in 2021... cringe

i have him on ignore like derp, and using elnono's tool i dont even see the ignored posts anymore :lol

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E8HA6-zXsAE7qWY?format=jpg&name=medium

[Winehole23]

post-truthism isn't just for Trumpers

1426585658110382085

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E8NFB_RXIAklrQ2?format=jpg&name=medium


1424379536448368641

[Thread]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E8NFB_RXIAklrQ2?format=jpg&name=medium


1424379536448368641

- "Promises, promises."

- Ernie "The Cat" Ladd

[boutons_deux]

The tipping pointd / thresholds, if not already present or passed, will inevitably be reached since nobody is doing anything significant to stop AGW, never mind reverse it.

All Is Lost

Humans Fucked It Up

[Winehole23]

1427176108047298562

[Thread]

The tipping pointd / thresholds, if not already present or passed, will inevitably be reached since nobody is doing anything significant to stop AGW, never mind reverse it.

All Is Lost

Humans Fucked It Up

Now, wait a second, bouts, we're not even supposed to be here getting our shit kicked in by the Taliban. According to Gore we're supposed to all be dead as door nails.

[TSA]

IPCC recap

https://theconversation.com/ipcc-climate-report-profound-changes-are-underway-in-earths-oceans-and-ice-a-lead-author-explains-what-the-warnings-mean-165588

Dr. Ronan Connolly, lead author of the study, at the Center for Environmental Research
and Earth Sciences (CERES):

“The IPCC is mandated to find a consensus on the causes of climate change. I understand the
political usefulness of having a consensus view in that it makes things easier for politicians.
However, science doesn’t work by consensus. In fact, science thrives best when scientists are
allowed to disagree with each other and to investigate the various reasons for disagreement. I fear
that by effectively only considering the datasets and studies that support their chosen narrative,
the IPCC have seriously hampered scientific progress into genuinely understanding the causes of
recent and future climate change. I am particularly disturbed by their inability to satisfactorily
explain the rural temperature trends.”

================================================== ==========================

A diverse expert panel of global scientists finds blaming climate change
mostly on greenhouse gas emissions was premature. Their findings
contradict the UN IPCC’s conclusion, which the study shows, is grounded
in narrow and incomplete data about the Sun’s total solar irradiance.

A new scientific review article has just been published on the role of the Sun in climate change
over the last 150 years. It finds that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) may have been premature in their conclusion that recent climate change is mostly
caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.
The paper by 23 experts in the fields of solar physics and of climate science from 14 different
countries is published in the peer-reviewed journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics
(RAA). The paper, which is the most comprehensive to date, carries out an analysis of the 16 most
prominent published solar output datasets, including those used by the IPCC. The researchers
compared them to 26 different estimates of Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th
century (sorted into five categories), including the datasets used by the IPCC. They focused on the
Northern Hemisphere since the available data for the early 20th century and earlier is much more
limited for the Southern Hemisphere, but their results can be generalized for global temperatures.

The study found that scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate
change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, in the graphs above, the panels
on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have
been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion
reached by the UN IPCC reports.

In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global
temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly
long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and
assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the
urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only
rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability
dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This
implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output
is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-
monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes
are due to natural factors.

http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index.php/raa/article/view/4920/6080

================================================== ==========================


Study Finds Sun—not CO2—May Be Behind Global Warming
New peer-reviewed paper finds evidence of systemic bias in UN IPCC's data selection to support climate-change narrative

The sun and not human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) may be the main cause of warmer temperatures in recent decades, according to a new study with findings that sharply contradict the conclusions of the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The peer-reviewed paper, produced by a team of almost two dozen scientists from around the world, concluded that previous studies did not adequately consider the role of solar energy in explaining increased temperatures.

The new study was released just as the UN released its sixth “Assessment Report,” known as AR6, that once again argued in favor of the view that man-kind’s emissions of CO2 were to blame for global warming. The report said human responsibility was “unequivocal.”

But the new study casts serious doubt on the hypothesis.

Calling the blaming of CO2 by the IPCC “premature,” the climate scientists and solar physicists argued in the new paper that the UN IPCC’s conclusions blaming human emissions were based on “narrow and incomplete data about the Sun’s total irradiance.”

Indeed, the global climate body appears to display deliberate and systemic bias in what views, studies, and data are included in its influential reports, multiple authors told The Epoch Times in a series of phone and video interviews.

“Depending on which published data and studies you use, you can show that all of the warming is caused by the sun, but the IPCC uses a different data set to come up with the opposite conclusion,” lead study author Ronan Connolly, Ph.D. told The Epoch Times in a video interview.

“In their insistence on forcing a so-called scientific consensus, the IPCC seems to have decided to consider only those data sets and studies that support their chosen narrative,” he added.

The implications, from a policy perspective, are enormous, especially in this field where trillions of dollars are at stake and a dramatic re-organization of the global economy is being proposed.

Paper Examines Sun Vs. CO2

Using publicly available data sets from the U.S. government and other sources, it is easy to explain all of the warming observed in recent decades using nothing but changes in solar energy arriving on Earth, according to the new paper.

Indeed, while it agrees that using the data sets chosen by the UN would imply humans are largely to blame, the study includes multiples graphs showing that simply choosing different data sets not used by the UN upends the IPCC’s conclusion.

If confirmed, the study, published in the international scientific journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (RAA) by experts from over a dozen countries, would represent a devastating blow to the UN IPCC and its conclusion that man’s emissions of CO2 are the sole or even primary driver of warming.

While the paper calls for further research to resolve differences between conflicting data sets and studies, the authors show conclusively that, depending on the data sets being used, it is entirely possible that most or even all of the warming has nothing to do with man.

Using 16 different estimates on the amount of solar energy, dubbed “Total Solar Irradiance,” the review compares that data with over 25 estimates of temperatures in the Northern hemisphere stretching back to the 1800s.

When solar data from NASA’s “ACRIM” sun-monitoring satellites are compared to reliable temperature data, for example, virtually all of the warming would be explained by the sun, with almost no role at all for human emissions.

And yet, for reasons that the study authors say are murky at best, the UN chooses to ignore the NASA ACRIM data and other data sets in favor of those that support the hypothesis of human responsibility for climate change.

The UN IPCC reports, including the recently released 6th Assessment Report, have consistently blamed human activities such as the emission of so-called “greenhouse gases” for the observed changes. Many studies in the scientific literature have agreed with the UN IPCC position.

However, the new study, titled “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate,” cites dozens of other studies that have pointed to the sun—not human activity—as the primary driver of climate changes.

According to the study authors, these dissenting scientific views have been deliberately suppressed by the IPCC and have not been reflected in the UN IPCC reports, for reasons that have not been adequately explained.

A spokesman for the IPCC denied wrongdoing by the UN body in comments to The Epoch Times and said the new study had been accepted for publication after the deadline for consideration.

The paper in RAA agrees that the planet has warmed somewhat since the late 19th century, when reliable data collection began in the northern hemisphere.

However, in another challenge to the UN’s influential report, even the temperature data sets used by the IPCC are subjected to criticism in the new paper and others.

Among other concerns, the study highlighted apparent flaws in the approach used by the IPCC for estimating global temperature changes using data from both urban and rural locations.

According to the study’s authors, including urban data sets results in an artificial upward skewing of temperatures due to the well-known “urban heat island” effect that must be taken into account.

Basically, cities tend to be warmer than the countryside due to human activity and structures, so temperature stations that had cities grow up around them will show artificial temperature increases caused by the urbanization rather than global warming.

The IPCC has rejected those concerns, arguing that urbanization only played a very minor role in the estimate temperature increase.

================================================== ================================================== =

Outside Opinions

Even some UN IPCC reviewers have expressed skepticism of the dominant narrative and support for the work of Soon and others.

When contacted by The Epoch Times, accredited UN IPCC reviewer Howard Brady, Ph.D. of Australia praised the work of Soon and other authors behind the study as “probably the best around.”

Acknowledging a lack of expertise regarding the sun specifically, Brady slammed the IPCC and its models.

Among other concerns, he noted that they “still predict more storms even though they are declining,” and “they still report accelerating sea level [rise] when that does not exist.”

Over the years, numerous IPCC scientists have dissented from the views advanced by their colleagues.

For instance, the late Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, who served as an IPCC reviewer on sea-level, frequently accused the UN body of getting it wrong—most likely for political rather than scientific reasons.

Another outside expert contacted by The Epoch Times for insight into the new study and the latest IPCC report also expressed major concerns.

Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, distinguished professor of Atmospheric and Earth Sciences at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, noted that “the IPCC report indicates high confidence in model simulations while at the same time noting in the main body of the report how the models poorly represent the real atmosphere.”

The IPCC claims its models accurately portray the impact of all the forces that affect the climate and that nothing else could have caused the warming over the last 40 years except human emissions, he explained.

“This indicates a bit of hubris and lack of imagination,” said Christy, who also serves as the director of the Earth System Science Center.

Acknowledging that he had not had time to read the new paper or carefully review the latest IPCC report, the world-renowned climatologist told The Epoch Times that the UN’s models cannot even reproduce the natural variations of the last 150 years, such as the natural warming during the first half of the 20th century.

“They also overdo the warming of the last 40 years, again, not matching the real world,” he said.

“So, if they can’t reproduce natural variations with sufficient skill and they overheat the atmosphere over the last 40 years, how are they then endowed with the ability to tell us ‘why’ changes are happening with such ‘unequivocal’ confidence?” he asked.

Dr. Christy was blunt in his conclusions, saying “the models certainly don’t agree with each other regarding the future.”

That limits their results “to the realm of speculative hypotheses, not policy-determining tools.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/challenging-un-study-finds-sun-not-co2-may-be-behind-global-warming_3950089.html?utm_campaign=socialshare_twit ter&utm_source=twitter.com

[Winehole23]

TSA with no take on his long repost.

[Winehole23]

(Falun Gong alert)

[pgardn]

the sources are absolutely hilarious.

And of course the models dont all agree. The one done by real climatologists do agree that the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate and ACCELERATING. And yes its most likely us. Just like acid rain, high level ozone depletion, on and on... Its very difficult to predict how the ocean currents will change (and hell yes they are changing very quickly) and since this is a huge driver of RAINFALL its pretty clear farming and amount of rainfall in different areas will change, and change drastically. Where and how much in each area, very difficult. But CHANGING, hell yes, unprecedented changing of current which we have lots of data on. This is what naysayers forget. Temp change this rapid also affects other things we have had very good measurements on... and its not like its going to take a lot of time like continents sinking rising... plate tectonic level stuff.

Like we have never changed the atmosphere before... funny stuff.

[TSA]

TSA with no take on his long repost.

You had multiple posts in a row on the IPCC report with no take of your own :lol

[TSA]

the sources are absolutely hilarious.

And of course the models dont all agree. The one done by real climatologists do agree that the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate and ACCELERATING. And yes its most likely us. Just like acid rain, high level ozone depletion, on and on... Its very difficult to predict how the ocean currents will change (and hell yes they are changing very quickly) and since this is a huge driver of RAINFALL its pretty clear farming and amount of rainfall in different areas will change, and change drastically. Where and how much in each area, very difficult. But CHANGING, hell yes, unprecedented changing of current which we have lots of data on. This is what naysayers forget. Temp change this rapid also affects other things we have had very good measurements on... and its not like its going to take a lot of time like continents sinking rising... plate tectonic level stuff.

Like we have never changed the atmosphere before... funny stuff.

What is hilarious about the sources?

https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.12126

Ronan Connolly1,2, Willie Soon1, Michael Connolly2, Sallie Baliunas3, Johan
Berglund4, C. J. Butler5, Rodolfo Gustavo Cionco6,7, Ana G. Elias8,9, Valery M.
Fedorov10, Hermann Harde11, Gregory W. Henry12, Douglas V. Hoyt13, Ole
Humlum14, David R. Legates15, Sebastian Lüning16, Nicola Scafetta17, Jan-Erik
Solheim18, László Szarka19, Harry van Loon20, Víctor M. Velasco Herrera21, Richard
C. Willson22, Hong Yan23 and Weijia Zhang24,25
1 Center for Environmental Research and Earth Science (CERES), Salem, MA 01970, USA
2 Independent scientists, Dublin, Ireland
3 Retired, formerly Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
4 Independent researcher, Malmö, Sweden
5 Retired, formerly Armagh Observatory, College Hill, Armagh BT61 9DG, Northern Ireland, UK
6 Comisión de Investigaciones Científicas de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina
7 Grupo de Estudios Ambientales, Universidad Tecnológica Nacional, Colón 332, San Nicolás (2900), Buenos Aires,
Argentina
8 Laboratorio de Física de la Atmósfera, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Tecnología, Universidad Nacional de
Tucumán, Av. Independencia 1800, 4000 Tucumán, Argentina
9 Instituto de Física del Noroeste Argentino (Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas -
Universidad Nacional de Tucumán), 4000 Tucumán, Argentina
10 Faculty of Geography, Lomonosov, Moscow State University, Leninskie Gory St. 1, Moscow 119991, Russia
11 Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg, Germany
12 Center of Excellence in Information Systems, Tennessee State University, Nashville, TN 37209 USA
13 Independent scientist, Berkeley Springs, WV, USA
14 Emeritus Professor in Physical Geography, Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Norway
15 College of Earth, Ocean, and the Environment, University of Delaware, Newark DE 19716-2541, USA
16 Institute for Hydrography, Geoecology and Climate Sciences, Hauptstraße 47, 6315 Ägeri, Switzerland
17 Department of Earth Sciences, Environment and Georesources, University of Naples Federico II, Complesso
Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, via Cinthia, 21, 80126 Naples, Italy
18 Retired, formerly Department of Physics and Technology, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, 9037 Tromsø,
Norway
19 CSFK Geodetic and Geophysical Institute, 9400 Sopron, Csatkai utca 6-8, Hungary
20 Retired, formerly National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
21 Instituto de Geofisica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacán, 04510,
México D.F., México
22 Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM), Coronado, CA 92118, USA
23 State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology, Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Xi’an 710061, China
24 Department of Mathematics and Physics, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing, China
25 Department of AOP Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2105/2105.12126.pdf

[pgardn]

What is hilarious about the sources?

https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.12126

Ronan Connolly1,2, Willie Soon1, Michael Connolly2, Sallie Baliunas3, Johan
Berglund4, C. J. Butler5, Rodolfo Gustavo Cionco6,7, Ana G. Elias8,9, Valery M.
Fedorov10, Hermann Harde11, Gregory W. Henry12, Douglas V. Hoyt13, Ole
Humlum14, David R. Legates15, Sebastian Lüning16, Nicola Scafetta17, Jan-Erik
Solheim18, László Szarka19, Harry van Loon20, Víctor M. Velasco Herrera21, Richard
C. Willson22, Hong Yan23 and Weijia Zhang24,25
1 Center for Environmental Research and Earth Science (CERES), Salem, MA 01970, USA
2 Independent scientists, Dublin, Ireland
3 Retired, formerly Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
4 Independent researcher, Malmö, Sweden
5 Retired, formerly Armagh Observatory, College Hill, Armagh BT61 9DG, Northern Ireland, UK
6 Comisión de Investigaciones Científicas de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina
7 Grupo de Estudios Ambientales, Universidad Tecnológica Nacional, Colón 332, San Nicolás (2900), Buenos Aires,
Argentina
8 Laboratorio de Física de la Atmósfera, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Tecnología, Universidad Nacional de
Tucumán, Av. Independencia 1800, 4000 Tucumán, Argentina
9 Instituto de Física del Noroeste Argentino (Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas -
Universidad Nacional de Tucumán), 4000 Tucumán, Argentina
10 Faculty of Geography, Lomonosov, Moscow State University, Leninskie Gory St. 1, Moscow 119991, Russia
11 Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg, Germany
12 Center of Excellence in Information Systems, Tennessee State University, Nashville, TN 37209 USA
13 Independent scientist, Berkeley Springs, WV, USA
14 Emeritus Professor in Physical Geography, Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Norway
15 College of Earth, Ocean, and the Environment, University of Delaware, Newark DE 19716-2541, USA
16 Institute for Hydrography, Geoecology and Climate Sciences, Hauptstraße 47, 6315 Ägeri, Switzerland
17 Department of Earth Sciences, Environment and Georesources, University of Naples Federico II, Complesso
Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, via Cinthia, 21, 80126 Naples, Italy
18 Retired, formerly Department of Physics and Technology, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, 9037 Tromsø,
Norway
19 CSFK Geodetic and Geophysical Institute, 9400 Sopron, Csatkai utca 6-8, Hungary
20 Retired, formerly National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
21 Instituto de Geofisica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacán, 04510,
México D.F., México
22 Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM), Coronado, CA 92118, USA
23 State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology, Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Xi’an 710061, China
24 Department of Mathematics and Physics, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing, China
25 Department of AOP Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2105/2105.12126.pdf

Your epoch times put the sources up and then makes claims they DONT make.
And some of those sources are again gadflies. You read all of the sources on your own. Because the statement at the end, "the models dont all agree" is just presented by epoch times to imply that climate change induced by human beings is NOT happening. This is how you work, Ive seen it before.

You need to look at the sources that put these all together. Last time you had a computer scientist and some gadfly immunologist who has been discredited numerous times (on all sorts of current work) referring back and forth to each other in an article written by a computer scientist on our current Epidemiology and Corona Virus problem. So you have already shown your hand in this disingenuous behavior.

so you post a big list.

Post the climate change list induced by humans research scientists. You wont get it in one post on one page. Their are people who make their living spreading BS and getting paid for it.

[pgardn]

Post a big list and hope no one goes through it.
Thats your MO.

[spurraider21]

willie soon as the #2 author is something of a red flag... he was the one who had failed to disclose his private funders, koch foundation, exxon, etc

actually degraded himself by co-authoring a paper with christopher monckton :lol

but a peer reviewed paper is a peer reviewed paper. will have to look into it

[spurraider21]

should be noted that the paper itself doesn't reach the conclusion that the epoch times headline claims (shocker!)

link to actual paper

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.12126.pdf

it doesnt reach any strong conclusions, really, mostly offers recommendations for how future studies should consider different data sets

[TSA]

Your epoch times put the sources up and then makes claims they DONT make.
And some of those sources are again gadflies. You read all of the sources on your own. Because the statement at the end, "the models dont all agree" is just presented by epoch times to imply that climate change induced by human beings is NOT happening. This is how you work, Ive seen it before.

You need to look at the sources that put these all together. Last time you had a computer scientist and some gadfly immunologist who has been discredited numerous times (on all sorts of current work) referring back and forth to each other in an article written by a computer scientist on our current Epidemiology and Corona Virus problem. So you have already shown your hand in this disingenuous behavior.

so you post a big list.

Post the climate change list induced by humans research scientists. You wont get it in one post on one page. Their are people who make their living spreading BS and getting paid for it.

Again...what about the sources was hilarious? What claims does the Epoch Times make that the sources don't? That statement at the end? You didn't even read the article. That is just the end of what I quoted.

The title of the the article clearly states what the peer reviewed paper says "Study Finds Sun—not CO2—May Be Behind Global Warming"

You spouted off too quickly about the sources and are now backtracking :lol

It's an interesting study you immediately dismissed without even reading.


Víctor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Professor of Theoretical Physics and Geophysics at the
National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM):
“This paper is very special in that all 23 co-authors set aside our research directions and
specialties to produce a fair and balanced scientific review on the subject of sun-climate
connections that the UN IPCC reports had mostly missed or simply neglected.”

Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Oceanography and Atmospheric Physics at the University of
Naples Federico II (Italy):
“The possible contribution of the sun to the 20th-century global warming greatly depends on the
specific solar and climatic records that are adopted for the analysis. The issue is crucial because
the current claim of the IPCC that the sun has had a negligible effect on the post-industrial climate
warming is only based on global circulation model predictions that are compared against climatic
records, which are likely affected by non-climatic warming biases (such as those related to the
urbanization), and that are produced using solar forcing functions, which are obtained with total
solar irradiance records that present the smallest secular variability (while ignoring the solar
studies pointing to a much larger solar variability that show also a different modulation that better
correlates with the climatic ones). The consequence of such an approach is that the natural
component of climate change is minimized, while the anthropogenic one is maximized. Both solar
and climate scientists will find the RAA study useful and timely, as it highlights and addresses this
very issue.”

Ole Humlum, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Oslo, Norway:
“This study clearly demonstrates the high importance of carefully looking into all aspects of all
available data. Obviously, the old saying ‘Nullius in verba’ is still highly relevant in modern
climate research.”

Gregory Henry, Senior Research Scientist in Astronomy, from Tennessee State University’s
Center of Excellence in Information Systems (U.S.A.):
“During the past three decades, I have acquired highly precise measurements of brightness
changes in over 300 Sun-like stars with a fleet of robotic telescopes developed for this purpose.
The data show that, as Sun-like stars age, their rotation slows, and thus their magnetic activity
and brightness variability decrease. Stars similar in age and mass to our Sun show brightness
changes comparable to the Sun’s and would be expected to affect climate change in their own
planetary systems.”

Valery M. Fedorov, at the Faculty of Geography in Lomonosov Moscow State University,
Russia:
“The study of global climate change critically needs an analytical review of scientific studies of
solar radiation variations associated with the Earth's orbital motion that could help to determine
the role and contributions of solar radiation variations of different physical natures to long-term
climate changes. This paper steers the scientific priority in the right direction.”

Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-
monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.):
“Contrary to the findings of the IPCC, scientific observations in recent decades have demonstrated
that there is no ‘climate change crisis’. The concept that’s devolved into the failed CO2
anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is based on the flawed predictions of imprecise
1980’s vintage global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both since
and prior to their fabrication.
The Earth’s climate is determined primarily by the radiation it receives from the Sun. The amount
of solar radiation the Earth receives has natural variabilities caused by both variations in the
intrinsic amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and by variations in the Earth-Sun geometry
caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. Together these natural variations cause the
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the Earth to vary cyclically on a number of known periodicities
that are synchronized with known past climatic changes.”

WeiJia Zhang, Professor of Physics at Shaoxing University (China) and a Fellow of the Royal
Astronomical Society (UK):
“The quest to understand how the Earth’s climate is connected to the Sun is one of the oldest
science subjects studied by the ancient Greeks and Chinese. This review paper blows open the
mystery and explains why it has been so difficult to make scientific advances so far. It will take the
real understanding of fluid dynamics and magnetism on both the Sun and Earth to find the next
big leap forward.”

Hong Yan (晏宏), Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatology at the Institute of Earth
Environment and Vice Director of the State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary
Geology in Xi’an, China:
“Paleoclimate evidence has long been informing us of the large natural variations of local,
regional and hemispheric climate on decadal, multidecadal to centennial timescales. This paper
will be a great scientific guide on how we can study the broad topic of natural climatic changes
from the unique perspective of external forcings by the Sun’s multi-scale and multi-wavelength
impacts and responses.”

Ana G. Elias, Director of the Laboratorio de Ionosfera, Atmósfera Neutra y Magnetosfera
(LIANM) at the Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Tecnología in the Universidad Nacional de
Tucumán (FACET-UNT), Argentina:
“The importance of this work lies in presenting a broader perspective, showing that all the relevant
long-term trend climate variability forcings, and not just the anthropogenic ones (as has been done
mostly), must be considered. The way in which the role of these forcings is estimated, such as the
case of solar and geomagnetic activity, is also important, without minimizing any one in pursuit
of another. Even the Earth’s magnetic field could play a role in climate.”

Willie Soon, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), who
also has been researching sun/climate relationships at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics (U.S.A.) since 1991:
“We know that the Sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth’s atmosphere. So, it always
was an obvious potential contributor to recent climate change. My own research over the last 31
years into the behavior of stars that are similar to our Sun, shows that solar variability is the norm,
not the exception. For this reason, the Sun’s role in recent climate change should never have been
as systematically undermined as it was by the IPCC’s reports. Hopefully, this systematic review
of the many unresolved and ongoing challenges and complexities of Sun/climate relationships can
help the scientific community return to a more comprehensive and realistic approach to
understanding climate change.”

László Szarka, from the ELKH Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science (Hungary) and
also a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences:
“This review is a crucial milestone on the way to restoring the scientific definition of ‘climate
change’ that has become gradually distorted over the last three decades. The scientific community
should finally realize that in science there is no authority or consensus; only the right to seek the
truth.”

[spurraider21]

.

[pgardn]

willie soon as the #2 author is something of a red flag... he was the one who had failed to disclose his private funders, koch foundation, exxon, etc

actually degraded himself by co-authoring a paper with christopher monckton :lol

but a peer reviewed paper is a peer reviewed paper. will have to look into it

And of course the epoch times is gonna use him.
This is what TSA does. Makes us look this shit up.

[pgardn]

Again...what about the sources was hilarious? What claims does the Epoch Times make that the sources don't? That statement at the end? You didn't even read the article. That is just the end of what I quoted.

The title of the the article clearly states what the peer reviewed paper says "Study Finds Sun—not CO2—May Be Behind Global Warming"

You spouted off too quickly about the sources and are now backtracking :lol

It's an interesting study you immediately dismissed without even reading.


Víctor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Professor of Theoretical Physics and Geophysics at the
National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM):
“This paper is very special in that all 23 co-authors set aside our research directions and
specialties to produce a fair and balanced scientific review on the subject of sun-climate
connections that the UN IPCC reports had mostly missed or simply neglected.”

Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Oceanography and Atmospheric Physics at the University of
Naples Federico II (Italy):
“The possible contribution of the sun to the 20th-century global warming greatly depends on the
specific solar and climatic records that are adopted for the analysis. The issue is crucial because
the current claim of the IPCC that the sun has had a negligible effect on the post-industrial climate
warming is only based on global circulation model predictions that are compared against climatic
records, which are likely affected by non-climatic warming biases (such as those related to the
urbanization), and that are produced using solar forcing functions, which are obtained with total
solar irradiance records that present the smallest secular variability (while ignoring the solar
studies pointing to a much larger solar variability that show also a different modulation that better
correlates with the climatic ones). The consequence of such an approach is that the natural
component of climate change is minimized, while the anthropogenic one is maximized. Both solar
and climate scientists will find the RAA study useful and timely, as it highlights and addresses this
very issue.”

Ole Humlum, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Oslo, Norway:
“This study clearly demonstrates the high importance of carefully looking into all aspects of all
available data. Obviously, the old saying ‘Nullius in verba’ is still highly relevant in modern
climate research.”

Gregory Henry, Senior Research Scientist in Astronomy, from Tennessee State University’s
Center of Excellence in Information Systems (U.S.A.):
“During the past three decades, I have acquired highly precise measurements of brightness
changes in over 300 Sun-like stars with a fleet of robotic telescopes developed for this purpose.
The data show that, as Sun-like stars age, their rotation slows, and thus their magnetic activity
and brightness variability decrease. Stars similar in age and mass to our Sun show brightness
changes comparable to the Sun’s and would be expected to affect climate change in their own
planetary systems.”

Valery M. Fedorov, at the Faculty of Geography in Lomonosov Moscow State University,
Russia:
“The study of global climate change critically needs an analytical review of scientific studies of
solar radiation variations associated with the Earth's orbital motion that could help to determine
the role and contributions of solar radiation variations of different physical natures to long-term
climate changes. This paper steers the scientific priority in the right direction.”

Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-
monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.):
“Contrary to the findings of the IPCC, scientific observations in recent decades have demonstrated
that there is no ‘climate change crisis’. The concept that’s devolved into the failed CO2
anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is based on the flawed predictions of imprecise
1980’s vintage global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both since
and prior to their fabrication.
The Earth’s climate is determined primarily by the radiation it receives from the Sun. The amount
of solar radiation the Earth receives has natural variabilities caused by both variations in the
intrinsic amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and by variations in the Earth-Sun geometry
caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. Together these natural variations cause the
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the Earth to vary cyclically on a number of known periodicities
that are synchronized with known past climatic changes.”

WeiJia Zhang, Professor of Physics at Shaoxing University (China) and a Fellow of the Royal
Astronomical Society (UK):
“The quest to understand how the Earth’s climate is connected to the Sun is one of the oldest
science subjects studied by the ancient Greeks and Chinese. This review paper blows open the
mystery and explains why it has been so difficult to make scientific advances so far. It will take the
real understanding of fluid dynamics and magnetism on both the Sun and Earth to find the next
big leap forward.”

Hong Yan (晏宏), Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatology at the Institute of Earth
Environment and Vice Director of the State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary
Geology in Xi’an, China:
“Paleoclimate evidence has long been informing us of the large natural variations of local,
regional and hemispheric climate on decadal, multidecadal to centennial timescales. This paper
will be a great scientific guide on how we can study the broad topic of natural climatic changes
from the unique perspective of external forcings by the Sun’s multi-scale and multi-wavelength
impacts and responses.”

Ana G. Elias, Director of the Laboratorio de Ionosfera, Atmósfera Neutra y Magnetosfera
(LIANM) at the Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Tecnología in the Universidad Nacional de
Tucumán (FACET-UNT), Argentina:
“The importance of this work lies in presenting a broader perspective, showing that all the relevant
long-term trend climate variability forcings, and not just the anthropogenic ones (as has been done
mostly), must be considered. The way in which the role of these forcings is estimated, such as the
case of solar and geomagnetic activity, is also important, without minimizing any one in pursuit
of another. Even the Earth’s magnetic field could play a role in climate.”

Willie Soon, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), who
also has been researching sun/climate relationships at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics (U.S.A.) since 1991:
“We know that the Sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth’s atmosphere. So, it always
was an obvious potential contributor to recent climate change. My own research over the last 31
years into the behavior of stars that are similar to our Sun, shows that solar variability is the norm,
not the exception. For this reason, the Sun’s role in recent climate change should never have been
as systematically undermined as it was by the IPCC’s reports. Hopefully, this systematic review
of the many unresolved and ongoing challenges and complexities of Sun/climate relationships can
help the scientific community return to a more comprehensive and realistic approach to
understanding climate change.”

László Szarka, from the ELKH Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science (Hungary) and
also a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences:
“This review is a crucial milestone on the way to restoring the scientific definition of ‘climate
change’ that has become gradually distorted over the last three decades. The scientific community
should finally realize that in science there is no authority or consensus; only the right to seek the
truth.”

SR21 just found one.
I guarantee any one of us familiar with your crap could find others.
The sun proposal, the volcano proposal... on and on.
The vast majority of climatologist list you dont post.

And I dont care what individuals have to say about the articles if the individuals are already the gadflys who just wants confusion and funding. And it also fine to have people propose other mechanisms of heating IF they are not beating a dead horse. Its the same old studies that are wrong.

[TSA]

should be noted that the paper itself doesn't reach the conclusion that the epoch times headline claims (shocker!)

link to actual paper

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.12126.pdf

it doesnt reach any strong conclusions, really, mostly offers recommendations for how future studies should consider different data sets

I think the headline of the article is fine.

This is the only part of the article I really have an issue with.

"While the paper calls for further research to resolve differences between conflicting data sets and studies, the authors show conclusively that, depending on the data sets being used, it is entirely possible that most or even all of the warming has nothing to do with man."

The researchers were showing that it was possible by choosing certain data sets that they could show the sun caused the warming, not that these particular data sets were the correct ones to use.

[TSA]

SR21 just found one.
I guarantee any one of us familiar with your crap could find others.
The sun proposal, the volcano proposal... on and on.
The vast majority of climatologist list you dont post.

And I dont care what individuals have to say about the articles if the individuals are already the gadflys who just wants confusion and funding. And it also fine to have people propose other mechanisms of heating IF they are not beating a dead horse. Its the same old studies that are wrong.

This isn't a "same old study" you senile old fart. You'd realize that immediately if you actually took the time to read it instead of whining about me here.

[pgardn]

just one,

"Event the Earth's magnetic field could play a role in climate"

Newsflash: IT DOES PLAY A ROLE IN CLIMATE, so does a butterfly flapping its wings.

How significant is that role? Data please. Link of Earths magnetic field to the fact the Earth is going through unprecedented heating in such a short period of time and accelerating. Show the correlation. present the evidence. Oh, and I just burped. Lets look how every time I burp changes the air quality of the kitchen.

This is pure horseshit.
Yes we need people studying the earth's magnetic field, electrical storms, etc... but then making the leap to our current problems... thats the problem with this shit. Its disingenuous BS.

[Winehole23]

You had multiple posts in a row on the IPCC report with no take of your own :lolcomparative situations not compatible, nobody was curious, you don't have that excuse.

[pgardn]

This isn't a "same old study" you senile old fart. You'd realize that immediately if you actually took the time to read it instead of whining about me here.

Calling me old and senile... professor of child edibles Hillary sells.
You like disingenuous, you got it old geezer.

[TSA]

just one,

"Event the Earth's magnetic field could play a role in climate"

Newsflash: IT DOES PLAY A ROLE IN CLIMATE, so does a butterfly flapping its wings.

How significant is that role? Data please. Link of Earths magnetic field to the fact the Earth is going through unprecedented heating in such a short period of time and accelerating. Show the correlation. present the evidence. Oh, and I just burped. Lets look how every time I burp changes the air quality of the kitchen.

This is pure horseshit.
Yes we need people studying the earth's magnetic field, electrical storms, etc... but then making the leap to our current problems... thats the problem with this shit. Its disingenuous BS.

Just stop. You are making it more clear with each post you haven't taken the time to read the actual study. Maybe see if your phone has the capability to dictate it to you over speakerphone.

[spurraider21]

Just stop. You are making it more clear with each post you haven't taken the time to read the actual study. Maybe see if your phone has the capability to dictate it to you over speakerphone.
i rarely read the full studies, the jargon is usually way above my paygrade. but the abstract, conclusion, and whatever portions of the discussion i find digestible is usually enough

[boutons_deux]

So TSA cherry-picked a sentence throws the entire anthropocene AGW explanation, and the IPCC report, in the garbage.

[TSA]

i rarely read the full studies, the jargon is usually way above my paygrade. but the abstract, conclusion, and whatever portions of the discussion i find digestible is usually enough

It's clear he hasn't even read that.

It's an interesting study.

[TSA]

So TSA cherry-picked a sentence throws the entire anthropocene AGW explanation, and the IPCC report, in the garbage.

Found another who hasn't read it :lol

[TSA]

So TSA cherry-picked a sentence throws the entire anthropocene AGW explanation, and the IPCC report, in the garbage.

In the title of this paper, we asked, “How
much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere
temperature trends?” However, it should now be apparent that,
despite the confidence with which many studies claim to have
answered this question, it has not yet been satisfactorily
answered. Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions
that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to
force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC
reports) on these scientific debates are premature and
ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. We hope that the
analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further
analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is
ongoing.

[pgardn]

Just stop. You are making it more clear with each post you haven't taken the time to read the actual study. Maybe see if your phone has the capability to dictate it to you over speakerphone.

LIke you did and you actually understand it like your other article on vaccines?

Bull shit.

The epoch times put this together, what does that suggest to you?

The Epoch Times is a far-right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right)[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times#cite_note-12) international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong) new religious movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_religious_movement).[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times#cite_note-17) The newspaper, based in New York City (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City), is part of the Epoch Media Group, which also operates New Tang Dynasty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Tang_Dynasty_Television)


​​

continue on and you get... And wonderful. Another strange religious sect in a compound making money off strange people.
I mean this is seriously weird. But they tell you the sun plays a role in climate, great stuff.

Falun Gong (UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_English): /ˌfɑːlʊn ˈɡɒŋ, ˌfæl-, - ˈɡʊŋ/ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English), US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_English): /- ˈɡɔːŋ/ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English))[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong#cite_note-1) or Falun Dafa (/ˈdɑːfə/ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English); Standard Mandarin Chinese: [fàlwə̌n tâfà] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/Mandarin); literally, "Dharma Wheel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmachakra) Practice" or "Law Wheel Practice") is a new religious movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_religious_movement).[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong#cite_note-New_religious_movement-2)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong#cite_note-OWNBY-195-196-3) Falun Gong was founded by its leader Li Hongzhi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Hongzhi) in China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China) in the early 1990s. Falun Gong has its global headquarters in Dragon Springs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Springs), a 400-acre (160 ha) compound around Cuddebackville (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuddebackville,_New_York) in Deerpark, New York (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deerpark,_New_York), near the current residence of Li Hongzhi.


​​

[boutons_deux]

Nearly heat comes from the sun, and vastly overwhelms heat from burning shit like oil and gas and wood

where the fuck else could it come from?

earth surface heat that isn't reflected into space (infrared energy) but is trapped by GHG, warms the atmosphere.

warmed GHG radiates energy in all directions, with some of it essentially reflected back to earth, including GHG heated by the sun

it's the planetary energy balance or equation

left alone, the earth should have been in a cooling trend, eg, the last 30 years, but it has not been left alone, so it's heating up

=============================

Should The Earth Be Cooling?

https://skepticalscience.com/should_earth_be_cooling.html



(https://skepticalscience.com/should_earth_be_cooling.html)



Does the infamously contrarian TSA have any geopolitical recommendations to address AGW?

[TSA]

LIke you did and you actually understand it like your other article on vaccines?

Bull shit.

The epoch times put this together, what does that suggest to you?

The Epoch Times is a far-right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right)[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times#cite_note-12) international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong) new religious movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_religious_movement).[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times#cite_note-17) The newspaper, based in New York City (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City), is part of the Epoch Media Group, which also operates New Tang Dynasty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Tang_Dynasty_Television)


​​

continue on and you get... And wonderful. Another strange religious sect in a compound making money off strange people.
I mean this is seriously weird. But they tell you the sun plays a role in climate, great stuff.

Falun Gong (UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_English): /ˌfɑːlʊn ˈɡɒŋ, ˌfæl-, - ˈɡʊŋ/ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English), US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_English): /- ˈɡɔːŋ/ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English))[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong#cite_note-1) or Falun Dafa (/ˈdɑːfə/ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English); Standard Mandarin Chinese: [fàlwə̌n tâfà] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/Mandarin); literally, "Dharma Wheel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmachakra) Practice" or "Law Wheel Practice") is a new religious movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_religious_movement).[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong#cite_note-New_religious_movement-2)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong#cite_note-OWNBY-195-196-3) Falun Gong was founded by its leader Li Hongzhi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Hongzhi) in China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China) in the early 1990s. Falun Gong has its global headquarters in Dragon Springs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Springs), a 400-acre (160 ha) compound around Cuddebackville (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuddebackville,_New_York) in Deerpark, New York (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deerpark,_New_York), near the current residence of Li Hongzhi.


​​

The Epoch Times didn't put together the peer reviewed study. You're expending a lot of energy doing everything but reading the actual peer reviewed and published study. Grab a Pedialyte and sit down and actually read the study. At this point you are nothing more than old man yelling at clouds.

[pgardn]

The Epoch Times didn't put together the peer reviewed study. You're expending a lot of energy doing everything but reading the actual peer reviewed and published study. Grab a Pedialyte and sit down and actually read the study. At this point you are nothing more than old man yelling at clouds.

The Epoch Times commented on the study you dumb ass.
Is that the problem when I said put together, they commented on a study and then went bonkers.

Did you read what the Epoch Times said idiot?

Indeed, the global climate body appears to display deliberate and systemic bias in what views, studies, and data are included in its influential reports, multiple authors told The Epoch Times in a series of phone and video interviews.

We are supposed to believe this. You want more. I mean not all the authors that deal with climate get their word in so that there is a big collusion effort to exclude GOOD Science. Thats horse shit. The authors of these climate studies always criticize and point out short comings of their own and others data as well as the need for more data. So this automatically means man's role in climate change is bull shit? Because a gadfly get his/her study left out. This is getting to the point of arguing about the nuances of gravity while objects continue to fall to the face of the earth. You have pulled this same crap before.

gtfoh and eat some prunes, you are backed up with bull shit old geezer.

[pgardn]

And there is so much more in that article, keep em coming TSA.

[pgardn]

Tell us more about the study please TSA.
Tell us about the group that wrote the study please.

[TSA]

The Epoch Times commented on the study you dumb ass.
Is that the problem when I said put together, they commented on a study and then went bonkers.

Did you read what the Epoch Times said idiot?

Indeed, the global climate body appears to display deliberate and systemic bias in what views, studies, and data are included in its influential reports, multiple authors told The Epoch Times in a series of phone and video interviews.

We are supposed to believe this. You want more. I mean not all the authors that deal with climate get their word in so that there is a big collusion effort to exclude GOOD Science. Thats horse shit. The authors of these climate studies always criticize and point out short comings of their own and others data as well as the need for more data. So this automatically means man's role in climate change is bull shit? Because a gadfly get his/her study left out. This is getting to the point of arguing about the nuances of gravity while objects continue to fall to the face of the earth. You have pulled this same crap before.

gtfoh and eat some prunes, you are backed up with bull shit old geezer.

Holy shit you're still going on about this without having read the actual peer reviewed study :lmao

You could have just skipped to the conclusions and recommendations to save yourself the time and face arguing against things they never claimed. But since you've proven you are too lazy to do that I'll post them for you.

Conclusions and recommendations.

By reviewing the literature and available data, we identified
16 different estimates of how the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI)
has varied since the 19th century (and earlier) – see Table 1
and Figures 2 and 3. Although some of these estimates are
very similar to each other, others imply quite different trends and hence can lead to different conclusions. The IPCC 5th
Assessment Report (AR5) appears to have tried to overcome
this problem by ignoring those datasets that give conflicting
results. Worryingly, from reading Matthes et al. (2017), it
appears that the CMIP6 modelling groups have been actively
encouraged to consider only one estimate of TSI for the 1850-
present period, i.e., the Matthes et al. (2017) dataset [110]. In
terms of scientific objectivity, this seems to us to have been an
approach that is not compatible with the results already
published in the scientific literature and even unwise relative
to the results highlighted by this paper and of other recently
published works.

Recommendation 1. We urge researchers who are
genuinely interested in trying to answer the question posed by
the title of this paper to consider a wide range of TSI estimates
and not just ones that agree with the researchers’ prior beliefs
or expectations. The 16 TSI estimates described in Figures 2
and 3, as well as the 4 additional estimates in Figure 1, are all
provided in the Supplementary Materials.
—
Even among these 20 different estimates, it appears that
many of the underlying challenges and uncertainties involved
in estimating how solar activity has varied over recent
decades, let alone centuries, have not been satisfactorily
addressed.
Recommendation 2. We urge researchers to pay more
attention to the scientific debate between the rival TSI satellite
composites (see Section 2.2) and to consider the competing
datasets when assessing solar trends during the satellite era. In
particular, many researchers appear to have overlooked the
ongoing scientific debate between the ACRIM and PMOD
groups over the trends during the satellite era. For recent
reviews of the current debate from different perspectives, we
recommend reading/revisiting Zacharias (2014) [164]; de Wit
et al. (2017) [156]; and Scafetta et al. (2019) [60] for instance.
For the pre-satellite era, many researchers appear to have
become over-reliant on the use of simplistic TSI proxy models
based on simple linear regression analysis between sunspots
and faculae records or other proxies for describing solar
activity during the pre-satellite era, while it is evident from
multiple observations that solar luminosity variability is a
much more complex phenomenon. As a starting point, we
suggest readers read or revisit, e.g., Hoyt and Schatten (1993)
[179]; Livingston (1994) [180]; Soon et al. (2015) [56].
—
Another ongoing problem is establishing what the true
Northern Hemisphere temperature trends have been. In
Section 3, we identified multiple different ways of calculating
and estimating temperature trends since the 19th century (or
earlier) – see Table 2. Most of these estimates have several
common features, e.g., a warming from the 1900s to the
1940s; a cooling or plateau from the 1950s to the 1970s; a
warming from the 1980s to the 2000s. However, as discussed in Section 3.6, there are important differences between the
estimates on the exact timings and relative magnitudes of each
of the warming and cooling periods.
Strikingly, it is only in the estimates that use both urban and
rural station records in which the recent warming period
appears particularly unusual. This suggests to us that
urbanization bias does remain a significant problem for
current temperature trend estimates [56,116–118]. However,
we recognize that this disagrees with some researchers who
have claimed that urbanization bias is only a small problem
for global and hemispheric temperature trends, e.g., Jones et
al. (1990) [487], Parker (2006) [488], Wickham et al. (2013)
[489], as well as with a separate set of researchers who argue
that after statistical homogenization techniques (usually
automated) have been applied to the data, most of the non-
climatic biases (including urbanization bias) are removed or
substantially reduced, e.g., Peterson et al. (1999) [490], Menne
and Williams (2009) [491], Hausfather et al. (2013) [492], Li
and Yang (2019) [493], Li et al. (2020) [494].
Recommendation 3. Therefore, we urge researchers to
look more closely at the differences between the various
estimates of Northern Hemisphere temperature trends. In
particular, we caution that despite many claims to the contrary
in the literature, e.g., Refs. [487–494], the urbanization bias
problem does not appear to have been satisfactorily resolved
yet. Although our analysis was explicitly confined to the
Northern Hemisphere because there are much less data
available for the Southern Hemisphere, this recommendation
is also relevant for those looking at global temperature trends.
—
Recommendation 4. In this review, we have mostly
focused on the simple hypothesis that there is a direct linear
relationship between TSI and Northern Hemisphere surface
temperatures. However, in Sections 2.5 and 2.6, we showed
that there is considerable evidence that the sun/climate
relationships are more nuanced and complex. Therefore, we
also encourage further research into the potential sun/climate
relationships reviewed in Sections 2.5-2.6.
—
Recommendation 5. In this paper, we have focused on the
role of the Sun in recent climate change and compared this
with the role of anthropogenic factors. Therefore, other than
in passing, we have not explicitly investigated the possible
role of other non-solar driven natural factors such as internal
changes in oceanic and/or atmospheric circulation. As
discussed throughout Sections 2.5-2.6, such factors may
actually have a solar component, e.g., Refs.
[39,40,61,63,71,93,96,99,111–113,211,234,475]. However,
we encourage further research into the role of other possible
natural factors which do not necessarily have a solar
component on recent climate change, e.g., Refs. [119–123].

Conclusion.

In the title of this paper, we asked, “How
much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere
temperature trends?” However, it should now be apparent that,
despite the confidence with which many studies claim to have
answered this question, it has not yet been satisfactorily
answered. Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions
that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to
force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC
reports) on these scientific debates are premature and
ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. We hope that the
analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further
analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is
ongoing.

[pgardn]

Holy shit you're still going on about this without having read the actual peer reviewed study :lmao

You could have just skipped to the conclusions and recommendations to save yourself the time and face arguing against things they never claimed. But since you've proven you are too lazy to do that I'll post them for you.

Conclusions and recommendations.

By reviewing the literature and available data, we identified
16 different estimates of how the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI)
has varied since the 19th century (and earlier) – see Table 1
and Figures 2 and 3. Although some of these estimates are
very similar to each other, others imply quite different trends and hence can lead to different conclusions. The IPCC 5th
Assessment Report (AR5) appears to have tried to overcome
this problem by ignoring those datasets that give conflicting
results. Worryingly, from reading Matthes et al. (2017), it
appears that the CMIP6 modelling groups have been actively
encouraged to consider only one estimate of TSI for the 1850-
present period, i.e., the Matthes et al. (2017) dataset [110]. In
terms of scientific objectivity, this seems to us to have been an
approach that is not compatible with the results already
published in the scientific literature and even unwise relative
to the results highlighted by this paper and of other recently
published works.

Recommendation 1. We urge researchers who are
genuinely interested in trying to answer the question posed by
the title of this paper to consider a wide range of TSI estimates
and not just ones that agree with the researchers’ prior beliefs
or expectations. The 16 TSI estimates described in Figures 2
and 3, as well as the 4 additional estimates in Figure 1, are all
provided in the Supplementary Materials.
—
Even among these 20 different estimates, it appears that
many of the underlying challenges and uncertainties involved
in estimating how solar activity has varied over recent
decades, let alone centuries, have not been satisfactorily
addressed.
Recommendation 2. We urge researchers to pay more
attention to the scientific debate between the rival TSI satellite
composites (see Section 2.2) and to consider the competing
datasets when assessing solar trends during the satellite era. In
particular, many researchers appear to have overlooked the
ongoing scientific debate between the ACRIM and PMOD
groups over the trends during the satellite era. For recent
reviews of the current debate from different perspectives, we
recommend reading/revisiting Zacharias (2014) [164]; de Wit
et al. (2017) [156]; and Scafetta et al. (2019) [60] for instance.
For the pre-satellite era, many researchers appear to have
become over-reliant on the use of simplistic TSI proxy models
based on simple linear regression analysis between sunspots
and faculae records or other proxies for describing solar
activity during the pre-satellite era, while it is evident from
multiple observations that solar luminosity variability is a
much more complex phenomenon. As a starting point, we
suggest readers read or revisit, e.g., Hoyt and Schatten (1993)
[179]; Livingston (1994) [180]; Soon et al. (2015) [56].
—
Another ongoing problem is establishing what the true
Northern Hemisphere temperature trends have been. In
Section 3, we identified multiple different ways of calculating
and estimating temperature trends since the 19th century (or
earlier) – see Table 2. Most of these estimates have several
common features, e.g., a warming from the 1900s to the
1940s; a cooling or plateau from the 1950s to the 1970s; a
warming from the 1980s to the 2000s. However, as discussed in Section 3.6, there are important differences between the
estimates on the exact timings and relative magnitudes of each
of the warming and cooling periods.
Strikingly, it is only in the estimates that use both urban and
rural station records in which the recent warming period
appears particularly unusual. This suggests to us that
urbanization bias does remain a significant problem for
current temperature trend estimates [56,116–118]. However,
we recognize that this disagrees with some researchers who
have claimed that urbanization bias is only a small problem
for global and hemispheric temperature trends, e.g., Jones et
al. (1990) [487], Parker (2006) [488], Wickham et al. (2013)
[489], as well as with a separate set of researchers who argue
that after statistical homogenization techniques (usually
automated) have been applied to the data, most of the non-
climatic biases (including urbanization bias) are removed or
substantially reduced, e.g., Peterson et al. (1999) [490], Menne
and Williams (2009) [491], Hausfather et al. (2013) [492], Li
and Yang (2019) [493], Li et al. (2020) [494].
Recommendation 3. Therefore, we urge researchers to
look more closely at the differences between the various
estimates of Northern Hemisphere temperature trends. In
particular, we caution that despite many claims to the contrary
in the literature, e.g., Refs. [487–494], the urbanization bias
problem does not appear to have been satisfactorily resolved
yet. Although our analysis was explicitly confined to the
Northern Hemisphere because there are much less data
available for the Southern Hemisphere, this recommendation
is also relevant for those looking at global temperature trends.
—
Recommendation 4. In this review, we have mostly
focused on the simple hypothesis that there is a direct linear
relationship between TSI and Northern Hemisphere surface
temperatures. However, in Sections 2.5 and 2.6, we showed
that there is considerable evidence that the sun/climate
relationships are more nuanced and complex. Therefore, we
also encourage further research into the potential sun/climate
relationships reviewed in Sections 2.5-2.6.
—
Recommendation 5. In this paper, we have focused on the
role of the Sun in recent climate change and compared this
with the role of anthropogenic factors. Therefore, other than
in passing, we have not explicitly investigated the possible
role of other non-solar driven natural factors such as internal
changes in oceanic and/or atmospheric circulation. As
discussed throughout Sections 2.5-2.6, such factors may
actually have a solar component, e.g., Refs.
[39,40,61,63,71,93,96,99,111–113,211,234,475]. However,
we encourage further research into the role of other possible
natural factors which do not necessarily have a solar
component on recent climate change, e.g., Refs. [119–123].

Conclusion.

In the title of this paper, we asked, “How
much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere
temperature trends?” However, it should now be apparent that,
despite the confidence with which many studies claim to have
answered this question, it has not yet been satisfactorily
answered. Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions
that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to
force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC
reports) on these scientific debates are premature and
ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. We hope that the
analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further
analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is
ongoing.

Who wrote the study TSA?
Simple Question.

Why did you put this up. I immediately saw if was from an astrophysics astronomy guy. Which does not disqualify it, so... who wrote this peer reviewed paper? Lets go bud... There are tons of scientists who study the sun and the radiation it gives off. Like this has never been taken into account, complete foolishness.

[TSA]

Who wrote the study TSA?
Simple Question.

Why did you put this up. I immediately saw if was from an astrophysics astronomy guy. Which does not disqualify it, so... who wrote this peer reviewed paper? Lets go bud... There are tons of scientists who study the sun and the radiation it gives off. Like this has never been taken into account, complete foolishness.

Already listed the 23 co-authors on the previous page you senile old fart. You could have also found out who wrote the study by simply clicking any of the links provided and actually reading the study, which you once again prove you haven't done :lol

[spurraider21]

for the people that cry foul over researches supposedly making findings re: climate change because they're financially motivated to in order to receive grants, are there not significant concerns over Willie Soon's sources of funding? he's been one of the prominent climate change contrarians for a while now

[ElNono]

My farts might also contribute to global warming, tbh... clearly casts doubts on CO2 emissions being the primary driver of global warming...

[pgardn]

Already listed the 23 co-authors on the previous page you senile old fart. You could have also found out who wrote the study by simply clicking any of the links provided and actually reading the study, which you once again prove you haven't done :lol

Sorry TSA

Who put the article up for submission dumbass.
Who is the primary author of the article; who put all the other "authors" data together?
cmon TSA, we will get there and you are gonna love it!

And who did He "they" put the article up for submission to.
Your sweet little epoch times got a hold of it, but where was it submitted to as "science" paper?
And while you are at it, who reviewed it?

[pgardn]

If you need help Im now back from biking.
This is gonna be another planet pizza...

[pgardn]

for the people that cry foul over researches supposedly making findings re: climate change because they're financially motivated to in order to receive grants, are there not significant concerns over Willie Soon's sources of funding? he's been one of the prominent climate change contrarians for a while now

Oh just wait on TSA's latest.
You will love this.

[TSA]

Sorry TSA

Who put the article up for submission dumbass.
Who is the primary author of the article; who put all the other "authors" data together?
cmon TSA, we will get there and you are gonna love it!

And who did He "they" put the article up for submission to.
Your sweet little epoch times got a hold of it, but where was it submitted to as "science" paper?
And while you are at it, who reviewed it?

Just got back from playing 18 holes. Shot 1 over with a double bogey. Could have looked for the lost ball more but have seen too many rattlers to really give a shit so took a penalty. Birdied the last two and was a solid back nine.

Currently taking a shit. Shower up after the shit. Then need to check the rack of short ribs that have been smoking since noon. Pairing those with some candied spicy carrots and twice baked potatoes. After dinner I’ll put the kid to bed and either fuck my pregnant wife or get a blowjob…her call…you know how pregnant women can be. :rolleyes

Glad to hear you didn’t crash on your bike ride. Sounds like you’ve got plenty of time tonight to finally read the study you obviously haven’t done yet. Proud of you for finally at least clicking some of the links provided earlier. If reading is too difficult might I suggest the Voice Dream Reader app that will dictate even PDF’s to voice over your phone. Works well on both Apple and Android. :bobo

[pgardn]

So do you want the low down on the author or not?
Its actually quite interesting and shows the anybody can do science and review attitude is quite prevalent. And with very few rules.

https://globalwarmingsolved.com/about-us/


You might want to start with the above so you can take note of the large institution studying this.
I also like the address, "global warming solved..." no, not at all.

And there is a whole bunch more thats pretty... sad. No real sad.
I almost feel sorry for the guy. I got plenty more if you want.

[RandomGuy]

Twenty commercial firms are responsible for ~ 1/3 of global emissions. Changes in patterns of consumption percolating up from individuals won't do the trick.

https://www.theweek.co.uk/103719/which-are-the-the-20-firms-behind-one-third-of-carbon-emissions

1424739212335648769

Always has been the case. We need coordinated action, and a lot of effort at all levels. Not going to happen.

[RandomGuy]

Mild summer

Carry on

Stopped trying to deny the science, I see.

Be sure to talk about how much we are worrying over nothing with your grandkids. Let them know what kind of person you are.

[RandomGuy]

While there is definitely an urban heat-island effect, the law of conservation / Newton's 3rd law generally applies. Where you have extra heat in say, Dallas-Fort Worth (good example because you don't have other confounding geographic factors nearby like water, elevation or other nearby big cities) you have an equal cooling effect in towns and rural areas not too far outside the metroplex. The human-caused heat is generated and is contained in DFW and a reverse cooling effect occurs if you live around say Decatur, Waxahachie or north of Denton.

AGW is overstated, there are many more causes to climate change that greatly super-scale out any tiny man made effects of global warming. Total warming is 2 degrees celsius on average over 100 years, it's not worth fussing over... yeah we definitely should scale back on pollution and deforestation (especially), but reforestation and high tech energy-efficiency in the USA and the West is already neutralizing that trend.

Problem is the shitty second world countries in the Middle East and (especially) China continue to be the biggest offenders and producers of not only CO2 but more importantly water pollution and toxic carcinogenic smoke, air pollutants and radiation that wrecks ecosystems and is a threat to nature and humanity. China continues to be humanity's #1 enemy, whether it's creating superbugs in labs or continuing to operate early 20th-century technology factories and lead the world by a light-year in pollution and environmental waste.

"there are many more causes to climate change that greatly super-scale out any tiny man made effects of global warming"

Natural cycles cannot be the cause of observed global warming because they don't fit the observed fingerprints of global warming. Only increasing greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activities fit the observed fingerprints and explain the observed energy imbalance.

The argument that global warming is due to natural cycle commits single cause fallacy, by assuming there is only one driver of climate change (e.g., natural factors) when there may be others (e.g., human activity). In this case, the myth argues that the same factors, namely internal variability and natural external forcings, that drove past natural cycles must also be the same factors causing current global warming. But the fact is that humans have emitted large amounts of CO2 into atmosphere by burning fossil fuel since the industrial revolution, and it is the main cause of recent global warming.

[pgardn]

So do you want the low down on the author or not?
Its actually quite interesting and shows the anybody can do science and review attitude is quite prevalent. And with very few rules.

https://globalwarmingsolved.com/about-us/


You might want to start with the above so you can take note of the large institution studying this.
I also like the address, "global warming solved..." no, not at all.

And there is a whole bunch more thats pretty... sad. No real sad.
I almost feel sorry for the guy. I got plenty more if you want.

End of story TSA?
Yeah? thought so.

There are a lot of good science people who have looked at the CO2 manmade model and said "hold on a second, this is a weakness, what do we have here" and they hash it out with other groups and discuss what makes the model really good and where there might be holes. AND THEY WRITE ABOUT IT. But this is not one of those groups.

You found another planet pizza. There is more for more laughs, or weeping.
So you think we should just stop researching this altogether now since you have been duped?

[TSA]

So do you want the low down on the author or not?
Its actually quite interesting and shows the anybody can do science and review attitude is quite prevalent. And with very few rules.

https://globalwarmingsolved.com/about-us/


You might want to start with the above so you can take note of the large institution studying this.
I also like the address, "global warming solved..." no, not at all.

And there is a whole bunch more thats pretty... sad. No real sad.
I almost feel sorry for the guy. I got plenty more if you want.

You STILL haven't read the study. You're a lost cause pissing in the wind.

[pgardn]

You STILL haven't read the study. You're a lost cause pissing in the wind.

The study involves a lot of energy shit on the sun he has taken from other people and somehow applied into thinking HE and his MOM and DAD have solved global warming. This has ALREADY been debunked.

So this is a family of 3 living in Ireland who call themselves a research group. AND NOT ONE of the three knows a damn thing. Mom was a teacher, Dad is a washed out engineering type, and the Son wrote the paper.

This research FAMILY is funded by whom TSA?

This "research paper" was submitted to whom TSA and rejected for the simple reason NO ONE, not one of the people listed in that paper would endorse it. The author and leader of the family research would not endorse his own paper!

You want more, it gets sadder from here?

[pgardn]

cmon TSA, more mounds of copy paste you think you understand without even looking into who put the pure shit up!

[TSA]

The study involves a lot of energy shit on the sun he has taken from other people and somehow applied into thinking HE and his MOM and DAD have solved global warming. This has ALREADY been debunked.

So this is a family of 3 living in Ireland who call themselves a research group. AND NOT ONE of the three knows a damn thing. Mom was a teacher, Dad is a washed out engineering type, and the Son wrote the paper.

This research FAMILY is funded by whom TSA?

This "research paper" was submitted to whom TSA and rejected for the simple reason NO ONE, not one of the people listed in that paper would endorse it. The author and leader of the family research would not endorse his own paper!

You want more, it gets sadder from here?

You STILL haven't read the study :lol None of the 23 co-authors claim to have solved global warming.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2105/2105.12126.pdf

Invited Review. Received 7 Dec 2020; Revised 9 Mar 2021; Accepted for publication in Research in
Astronomy and Astrophysics on 14 Apr 2021.

[TSA]

None of the authors endorse it :lol

Víctor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Professor of Theoretical Physics and Geophysics at the
National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM):
“This paper is very special in that all 23 co-authors set aside our research directions and
specialties to produce a fair and balanced scientific review on the subject of sun-climate
connections that the UN IPCC reports had mostly missed or simply neglected.”
Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Oceanography and Atmospheric Physics at the University of

Naples Federico II (Italy):
“The possible contribution of the sun to the 20th-century global warming greatly depends on the
specific solar and climatic records that are adopted for the analysis. The issue is crucial because
the current claim of the IPCC that the sun has had a negligible effect on the post-industrial climate
warming is only based on global circulation model predictions that are compared against climatic
records, which are likely affected by non-climatic warming biases (such as those related to the
urbanization), and that are produced using solar forcing functions, which are obtained with total
solar irradiance records that present the smallest secular variability (while ignoring the solar
studies pointing to a much larger solar variability that show also a different modulation that better
correlates with the climatic ones). The consequence of such an approach is that the natural
component of climate change is minimized, while the anthropogenic one is maximized. Both solar
and climate scientists will find the RAA study useful and timely, as it highlights and addresses this
very issue.”

Ole Humlum, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Oslo, Norway:
“This study clearly demonstrates the high importance of carefully looking into all aspects of all
available data. Obviously, the old saying ‘Nullius in verba’ is still highly relevant in modern
climate research.”

Gregory Henry, Senior Research Scientist in Astronomy, from Tennessee State University’s
Center of Excellence in Information Systems (U.S.A.):
“During the past three decades, I have acquired highly precise measurements of brightness
changes in over 300 Sun-like stars with a fleet of robotic telescopes developed for this purpose.
The data show that, as Sun-like stars age, their rotation slows, and thus their magnetic activity
and brightness variability decrease. Stars similar in age and mass to our Sun show brightness
changes comparable to the Sun’s and would be expected to affect climate change in their own
planetary systems.”


Valery M. Fedorov, at the Faculty of Geography in Lomonosov Moscow State University,
Russia:
“The study of global climate change critically needs an analytical review of scientific studies of
solar radiation variations associated with the Earth's orbital motion that could help to determine
the role and contributions of solar radiation variations of different physical natures to long-term
climate changes. This paper steers the scientific priority in the right direction.”

Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-
monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.):
“Contrary to the findings of the IPCC, scientific observations in recent decades have demonstrated
that there is no ‘climate change crisis’. The concept that’s devolved into the failed CO2
anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is based on the flawed predictions of imprecise
1980’s vintage global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both since
and prior to their fabrication.
The Earth’s climate is determined primarily by the radiation it receives from the Sun. The amount
of solar radiation the Earth receives has natural variabilities caused by both variations in the
intrinsic amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and by variations in the Earth-Sun geometry
caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. Together these natural variations cause the
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the Earth to vary cyclically on a number of known periodicities
that are synchronized with known past climatic changes.”

WeiJia Zhang, Professor of Physics at Shaoxing University (China) and a Fellow of the Royal
Astronomical Society (UK):
“The quest to understand how the Earth’s climate is connected to the Sun is one of the oldest
science subjects studied by the ancient Greeks and Chinese. This review paper blows open the
mystery and explains why it has been so difficult to make scientific advances so far. It will take the
real understanding of fluid dynamics and magnetism on both the Sun and Earth to find the next
big leap forward.”

Hong Yan (晏宏), Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatology at the Institute of Earth
Environment and Vice Director of the State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary
Geology in Xi’an, China:
“Paleoclimate evidence has long been informing us of the large natural variations of local,
regional and hemispheric climate on decadal, multidecadal to centennial timescales. This paper
will be a great scientific guide on how we can study the broad topic of natural climatic changes
from the unique perspective of external forcings by the Sun’s multi-scale and multi-wavelength
impacts and responses.”

Ana G. Elias, Director of the Laboratorio de Ionosfera, Atmósfera Neutra y Magnetosfera
(LIANM) at the Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Tecnología in the Universidad Nacional de
Tucumán (FACET-UNT), Argentina:
“The importance of this work lies in presenting a broader perspective, showing that all the relevant
long-term trend climate variability forcings, and not just the anthropogenic ones (as has been done
mostly), must be considered. The way in which the role of these forcings is estimated, such as the
case of solar and geomagnetic activity, is also important, without minimizing any one in pursuit
of another. Even the Earth’s magnetic field could play a role in climate.”

Willie Soon, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), who
also has been researching sun/climate relationships at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics (U.S.A.) since 1991:
“We know that the Sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth’s atmosphere. So, it always
was an obvious potential contributor to recent climate change. My own research over the last 31
years into the behavior of stars that are similar to our Sun, shows that solar variability is the norm,
not the exception. For this reason, the Sun’s role in recent climate change should never have been
as systematically undermined as it was by the IPCC’s reports. Hopefully, this systematic review
of the many unresolved and ongoing challenges and complexities of Sun/climate relationships can
help the scientific community return to a more comprehensive and realistic approach to
understanding climate change.”

László Szarka, from the ELKH Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science (Hungary) and
also a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences:
“This review is a crucial milestone on the way to restoring the scientific definition of ‘climate
change’ that has become gradually distorted over the last three decades. The scientific community
should finally realize that in science there is no authority or consensus; only the right to seek the
truth.”

[ChumpDumper]

The goalposts moves by Trumptards over the years have to be exhausting.

[pgardn]

You STILL haven't read the study :lol None of the 23 co-authors claim to have solved global warming.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2105/2105.12126.pdf

Invited Review. Received 7 Dec 2020; Revised 9 Mar 2021; Accepted for publication in Research in
Astronomy and Astrophysics on 14 Apr 2021.

uhhh no...

https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.12126

Now go to the bottom and click Which authors of this paper are endorsers? (https://arxiv.org/auth/show-endorsers/2105.12126)No authors of 2105.12126 can endorse.

How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate



Ronan Connolly:
Is registered as an author of this paper.
Not currently an endorser. (why? (https://arxiv.org/help/endorsement))


Willie Soon, Michael Connolly, Sallie Baliunas, Johan Berglund, C. J. Butler, Rodolfo Gustavo Cionco, Ana G. Elias, Valery M. Fedorov, Hermann Harde, Gregory W. Henry, Douglas V. Hoyt, Ole Humlum, David R. Legates, Sebastian Lüning, Nicola Scafetta, Jan-Erik Solheim, László Szarka, Harry van Loon, Víctor M. Velasco Herrera, Richard C. Willson, Hong Yan and Weijia Zhang are not registered as owners of this paper. (why? (https://arxiv.org/help/not-registered.html))

now click on the whys? what does it say TSA?
This is May 2021 with the Cornell group who runs a noted research journal which requires scientists in their field of study to read and endorse. NO ONE did. Why do you think no one, not even the author, would endorse a paper from his family of 3 that has set up their own research group

Keep going TSA.
There is more sadness.
We are Planet Pizza level and now going into the basement!

Should I show the images associated with this family of 3 so we can all have a laugh? They have a home page. And you are allowed to review their paper and endorse thru their journal. Go on, endorse the paper, you are the expert here! You have read it thoroughly. Endorse it and show the board you have done so. It will allow us to be sure that the change in the earth's climate has been solved by this group. Please endorse it TSA.

[pgardn]

This is the biggest bunch of BS.

Look who are the leads in giving credence to this paper based on your pdf.

1 Center for Environmental Research and Earth Science (CERES), Salem, MA 01970, USA
2 Independent scientists, Dublin, Ireland

Guess who these come from?

And look at what is listed below these first two... it is total horse shit.
And you found this article in an ultra religious right wing church from China publication with a camp in the US.
Congrats. Now look back at 1.

[pgardn]

And by all means keep up with your giant copy pastas that strike you as ultra convincing.

[TSA]

uhhh no...

https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.12126

Now go to the bottom and click Which authors of this paper are endorsers? (https://arxiv.org/auth/show-endorsers/2105.12126)No authors of 2105.12126 can endorse.

How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate



Ronan Connolly:
Is registered as an author of this paper.
Not currently an endorser. (why? (https://arxiv.org/help/endorsement))


Willie Soon, Michael Connolly, Sallie Baliunas, Johan Berglund, C. J. Butler, Rodolfo Gustavo Cionco, Ana G. Elias, Valery M. Fedorov, Hermann Harde, Gregory W. Henry, Douglas V. Hoyt, Ole Humlum, David R. Legates, Sebastian Lüning, Nicola Scafetta, Jan-Erik Solheim, László Szarka, Harry van Loon, Víctor M. Velasco Herrera, Richard C. Willson, Hong Yan and Weijia Zhang are not registered as owners of this paper. (why? (https://arxiv.org/help/not-registered.html))

now click on the whys? what does it say TSA?
This is May 2021 with the Cornell group who runs a noted research journal which requires scientists in their field of study to read and endorse. NO ONE did. Why do you think no one, not even the author, would endorse a paper from his family of 3 that has set up their own research group

Keep going TSA.
There is more sadness.
We are Planet Pizza level and now going into the basement!

Should I show the images associated with this family of 3 so we can all have a laugh? They have a home page. And you are allowed to review their paper and endorse thru their journal. Go on, endorse the paper, you are the expert here! You have read it thoroughly. Endorse it and show the board you have done so. It will allow us to be sure that the change in the earth's climate has been solved by this group. Please endorse it TSA.


Your arguments are based off of the link of the preprint on arXiv :lol

"arXiv is a free distribution service and an open-access archive for 1,930,728 scholarly articles in the fields of physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance, statistics, electrical engineering and systems science, and economics. Materials on this site are not peer-reviewed by arXiv"

The link of the preprint even links to the invite of the review :lol

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131

The preprint even says the paper was accepted by the journal :lol

The link of the journal that accepted the peer reviewed paper was in my OP :lol

http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index.php/raa/article/view/4920/6080

You STILL haven't read the actual peer reviewed study :lol

Senile old fart :lol

[SnakeBoy]

Covid dies at 149F

Drill Baby Drill

[Thread]

Your arguments are based off of the link of the preprint on arXiv :lol

"arXiv is a free distribution service and an open-access archive for 1,930,728 scholarly articles in the fields of physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance, statistics, electrical engineering and systems science, and economics. Materials on this site are not peer-reviewed by arXiv"

The link of the preprint even links to the invite of the review :lol

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131

The preprint even says the paper was accepted by the journal :lol

The link of the journal that accepted the peer reviewed paper was in my OP :lol

http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index.php/raa/article/view/4920/6080

You STILL haven't read the actual peer reviewed study :lol

Senile old fart :lol

...you must be following the peeg again. Hey, I know what! Let's go to Arby's for a jamoca shake and talk out of school about the peeg. Eh?

[Thread]

The goalposts moves by Trumptards over the years have to be exhausting.

You all taught us the fine art, Dumps. You've nary room to talk.

[pgardn]

Your arguments are based off of the link of the preprint on arXiv :lol

"arXiv is a free distribution service and an open-access archive for 1,930,728 scholarly articles in the fields of physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance, statistics, electrical engineering and systems science, and economics. Materials on this site are not peer-reviewed by arXiv"

The link of the preprint even links to the invite of the review :lol

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131

The preprint even says the paper was accepted by the journal :lol

The link of the journal that accepted the peer reviewed paper was in my OP :lol

http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index.php/raa/article/view/4920/6080

You STILL haven't read the actual peer reviewed study :lol

Senile old fart :lol

That is research in ASTRONOMY AND PHYSICS
By one research institute run by a family of 3. Thats who he works for. Your man Conally.

CONALLY himself submitted his article to a system run by Cornell that relies on endorsements to get it published and he chose the route under ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC SCIENCE. Its a different type of system because it does rely on the normal route of peer reviewed papers in a specific discipline! This is the way to go because he can get it up, but he cant even get it endorsed. This IS EXACTLY why he tried this. HE also submitted it to HIS OWN JOURNAL RUN BY HIS FAMILY. More on this if you wish.

arXiv is distinct from the web as a whole, because arXiv contains exclusively scientific content. The endorsement system verifies that arXiv contributors belong to the scientific community in a fair and sustainable way that can scale with arXiv's future growth.
arXiv is an openly accessible, moderated repository for scholarly papers in specific scientific disciplines.



So you now can go back to his website, Global Warming Solved and see why he is trying to backdoor a paper on GLOBAL WARMING


Read the peer reviewed study????? Its a study about the Sun and Energy that has does NOT have specific relevance to Global Warming as this part has been DEBUNKED by the scientific community who HAS actually determined the sun cannot be close to providing all the warming we have seen. And he did tried to backdoor it through his research institute of 3! Mom, Dad And Ronan Conally. So you read the peer reviewed study and clearly see that through this paper he HAS SOLVED GLOBAL WARMING LIKE HIS SITE SAYS?

You did not read and understand the study, Because you dont understand the data presented because YOU are not qualified in this area to even see that it is not applicable to anything like SOLVING GLOBAL WARMING. Dont pretend. YOU dont know this stuff.

But the way your chosen man has gone about his business says it all.
You are back to Planet Pizza. Mommy and Daddy give him money to work AT HIS research institute of 3

gtfoh.... you are faking shit again by pretending like you have gone through mounds of evidence, except this one wont make the papers but you HAVE, been called on it.

But please Keep going TSA.
There is more with his association to the weird religious right wing nut job in China that have a compound in the US and their weird obsession with climate change. You like following weird trails? Lets walk this together. BTW there are still about 2 % of the scientists in the area of atmosphere and climate who still dont think this cause by humans. You should try them... or walk this through with me. I say you stay with me and your fake shit.

You call me senile and old... this is fun.

[TSA]

That is research in ASTRONOMY AND PHYSICS
By one research institute run by a family of 3. Thats who he works for. Your man Conally.

CONALLY himself submitted his article to a system run by Cornell that relies on endorsements to get it published and he chose the route under ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC SCIENCE. Its a different type of system because it does rely on the normal route of peer reviewed papers in a specific discipline! This is the way to go because he can get it up, but he cant even get it endorsed. This IS EXACTLY why he tried this. HE also submitted it to HIS OWN JOURNAL RUN BY HIS FAMILY. More on this if you wish.

arXiv is distinct from the web as a whole, because arXiv contains exclusively scientific content. The endorsement system verifies that arXiv contributors belong to the scientific community in a fair and sustainable way that can scale with arXiv's future growth.
arXiv is an openly accessible, moderated repository for scholarly papers in specific scientific disciplines.



So you now can go back to his website, Global Warming Solved and see why he is trying to backdoor a paper on GLOBAL WARMING


Read the peer reviewed study????? Its a study about the Sun and Energy that has does NOT have specific relevance to Global Warming as this part has been DEBUNKED by the scientific community who HAS actually determined the sun cannot be close to providing all the warming we have seen. And he did tried to backdoor it through his research institute of 3! Mom, Dad And Ronan Conally. So you read the peer reviewed study and clearly see that through this paper he HAS SOLVED GLOBAL WARMING LIKE HIS SITE SAYS?

You did not read and understand the study, Because you dont understand the data presented because YOU are not qualified in this area to even see that it is not applicable to anything like SOLVING GLOBAL WARMING. Dont pretend. YOU dont know this stuff.

But the way your chosen man has gone about his business says it all.
You are back to Planet Pizza. Mommy and Daddy give him money to work AT HIS research institute of 3

gtfoh.... you are faking shit again by pretending like you have gone through mounds of evidence, except this one wont make the papers but you HAVE, been called on it.

But please Keep going TSA.
There is more with his association to the weird religious right wing nut job in China that have a compound in the US and their weird obsession with climate change. You like following weird trails? Lets walk this together. BTW there are still about 2 % of the scientists in the area of atmosphere and climate who still dont think this cause by humans. You should try them... or walk this through with me. I say you stay with me and your fake shit.

You call me senile and old... this is fun.

Connelly doesn’t run the RAA nor does his family you senile old fart :lol

arXiv doesn’t peer review shit you senile old fart :lol


Its a study about the Sun and Energy that has does NOT have specific relevance to Global Warming as this part has been DEBUNKED by the scientific community who HAS actually determined the sun cannot be close to providing all the warming we have seen

You one AGAIN prove you haven’t read the fucking study :rollin

If you aren’t senile you’re either lazy, retarded, or both.

[pgardn]

Connelly doesn’t run the RAA nor does his family you senile old fart :lol

arXiv doesn’t peer review shit you senile old fart :lol



You one AGAIN prove you haven’t read the fucking study :rollin

If you aren’t senile you’re either lazy, retarded, or both.

Neither have you.
What does RAA stand for?

And you dont even understand my point you fkn dumb shit.
YOUR MAN submitted it to the Cornell run ATMOSPHERIC and OCEAN section of a site THAT believes that peer review is not the only way. Thats why he submitted. And what happened. Its NOT even ENDORSED for ATMOSPHERE and OCEAN. This is where one would submit global warming. Physics... THEN specifically ATMOSPHERE and or OCEAN. The endorsement is the easy way around your peers and he cant get it done because he has no peers that work legitimately on Global warming research.

The sun energy has already been debunked, he is trying to slide this in under another name and cant even get it done.

And seriously, you have no fkn idea what the data in his paper means. And you know you dont.

[pgardn]

He also posted this in his OWN FAMILY run non peer reviewed journal. It has not done so well as the other journals that use endorsing. Which it is sketchy on anyway.

The real problem is you have not looked into THE MAN and his family. 23 authors... He sites their studies.
And some are in that ultra right religious freak group in NY. So you did find another group of weirdos, just not nearly as popular as you Q anon adventures.

[spurraider21]

Your arguments are based off of the link of the preprint on arXiv :lol

"arXiv is a free distribution service and an open-access archive for 1,930,728 scholarly articles in the fields of physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance, statistics, electrical engineering and systems science, and economics. Materials on this site are not peer-reviewed by arXiv"

The link of the preprint even links to the invite of the review :lol

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131

The preprint even says the paper was accepted by the journal :lol

The link of the journal that accepted the peer reviewed paper was in my OP :lol

http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index.php/raa/article/view/4920/6080

You STILL haven't read the actual peer reviewed study :lol

Senile old fart :lol
bear in mind that this is an "invited review" and not a "research paper" in that its not providing any original date/research but rather is giving a commentary on recent developments in the field, so it's not really a study in that sense

[TSA]

Neither have you.
What does RAA stand for?

And you dont even understand my point you fkn dumb shit.
YOUR MAN submitted it to the Cornell run ATMOSPHERIC and OCEAN section of a site THAT believes that peer review is not the only way. Thats why he submitted. And what happened. Its NOT even ENDORSED for ATMOSPHERE and OCEAN. This is where one would submit global warming. Physics... THEN specifically ATMOSPHERE and or OCEAN. The endorsement is the easy way around your peers and he cant get it done because he has no peers that work legitimately on Global warming research.

The sun energy has already been debunked, he is trying to slide this in under another name and cant even get it done.

And seriously, you have no fkn idea what the data in his paper means. And you know you dont.

RAA—Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics. Journal that accepted and published the peer reviewed study.

http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index.php/raa/article/view/4920/6080

Your so hung up on the endorsement on a site that doesn’t peer review themselves. Have you even looked at what little it takes for an endorsement? Hey prof…endorse me…okay. He submitted a preprint and then had no need to follow through with an “endorsement” because the study was actually peer reviewed and accepted in a journal. Which the arXiv preprint CLEARLY states.

“Sun energy has not been debunked” and if you’d actually READ THE FUCKING STUDY you see how the address exactly that.

[TSA]

bear in mind that this is an "invited review" and not a "research paper" in that its not providing any original date/research but rather is giving a commentary on recent developments in the field, so it's not really a study in that sense

Technically yes. I can swap study/paper/review/research without thinking. It doesn’t really change my point.

At this point I’m just having fun watching him constantly step on his own dick and then back track only to step on his dock again. Easily avoided if he would have just taken the time to actually read it.

[pgardn]

RAA—Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics. Journal that accepted and published the peer reviewed study.

http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index.php/raa/article/view/4920/6080

Your so hung up on the endorsement on a site that doesn’t peer review themselves. Have you even looked at what little it takes for an endorsement? Hey prof…endorse me…okay. He submitted a preprint and then had no need to follow through with an “endorsement” because the study was actually peer reviewed and accepted in a journal. Which the arXiv preprint CLEARLY states.

“Sun energy has not been debunked” and if you’d actually READ THE FUCKING STUDY you see how the address exactly that.

Sure it has

Here is the Authors site:

Global Warming Solved (https://globalwarmingsolved.com/)
Climate Change Research by Connolly Scientific Research Group

https://globalwarmingsolved.com/about-us/

Hell yes he solved it.
Idiot.
This is his families research group.
Look at all of them and read the qualifications.
Wow... experts.

And linked to some weird Chinese ultra right religious group.
That I find very interesting but you probably dont want to go THAT kind of place, again.

[pgardn]

TSA

What is specifically wrong with our view of the Suns role in Global Warming
What specifically have we missed that he has pointed out.

In your own words. No copy paste.

[spurraider21]

Technically yes. I can swap study/paper/review/research without thinking. It doesn’t really change my point.

At this point I’m just having fun watching him constantly step on his own dick and then back track only to step on his dock again. Easily avoided if he would have just taken the time to actually read it.
to be fair, the stuff he has pointed about on Connelly is somewhat damning. i recognized Willie Soon, the second author, because i was familiar with the controversy he had been in and his fossil fuel interests... but had no clue about this connelly character

[TSA]

Sure it has

Here is the Authors site:

Global Warming Solved (https://globalwarmingsolved.com/)
Climate Change Research by Connolly Scientific Research Group

https://globalwarmingsolved.com/about-us/

Hell yes he solved it.
Idiot.
This is his families research group.
Look at all of them and read the qualifications.
Wow... experts.

And linked to some weird Chinese ultra right religious group.
That I find very interesting but you probably dont want to go THAT kind of place, again.

That’s not the paper linked. And not a single author in the paper says GLOBAL WARMING SOLVED.

You STILL haven’t read it :lmao

Log off you senile old fart you’re embarrassing yourself.

[TSA]

to be fair, the stuff he has pointed about on Connelly is somewhat damning. i recognized Willie Soon, the second author, because i was familiar with the controversy he had been in and his fossil fuel interests... but had no clue about this connelly character

He can point out whatever he wants but without addressing the actual paper it means jack shit.

[pgardn]

to be fair, the stuff he has pointed about on Connelly is somewhat damning. i recognized Willie Soon, the second author, because i was familiar with the controversy he had been in and his fossil fuel interests... but had no clue about this connelly character

Somewhat damning...

Holy shit.
There is a whole chinese group involved in this thing with an encampment in NY.

from TSA:

The title of the the article clearly states what the peer reviewed paper says "Study Finds Sun—not CO2—May Be Behind Global Warming"Global Warming Solved (https://globalwarmingsolved.com/)

Global Warming Solved (https://globalwarmingsolved.com/)

There are no maybes... Straight from the authors research foundation.
So its not CO2, it is, our sun. Misbehaving as badly as it ever has I guess.

And Fulong gong

Seriously, this who is behind the Epoch times. Fulong Gong.
Just give us the paper, not Epoch times.

I dont get why all these weird groups want anything to do with global warming.
Just because they wanted to be involved in our politics?
And tbf, I dont know why Connally would even mention some of these experts.


Falun Gong has its global headquarters in Dragon Springs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Springs), a 400-acre (160 ha) compound around Cuddebackville (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuddebackville,_New_York) in Deerpark, New York (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deerpark,_New_York), near the current residence of Li Hongzhi. Falun Gong's performance arts extension, Shen Yun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shen_Yun) ("Divine Rhythm") and two closely connected schools, Fei Tian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsara) ("Flying Sky-Being") College and Fei Tian Academy of the Arts, also operate in and around Dragon Springs.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong#cite_note-JUNKER-2019-33-101-4)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong#cite_note-ZADRONZY-COLLINS-2019-5)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong#cite_note-VAN-DER-MADE-2019-6)

Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and elsewhere, which have received notable media attention for their political involvement and ideological messaging, particularly since the involvement of these extensions in the 2016 United States presidential election (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election).

[pgardn]

TSA

What is specifically wrong with our view of the Suns role in Global Warming
What specifically have we missed that he has pointed out.

In your own words. No copy paste.

Go on old man...

[TSA]

Somewhat damning...

Holy shit.
There is a whole chinese group involved in this thing with an encampment in NY.

from TSA:

The title of the the article clearly states what the peer reviewed paper says "Study Finds Sun—not CO2—May Be Behind Global Warming"Global Warming Solved (https://globalwarmingsolved.com/)

Global Warming Solved (https://globalwarmingsolved.com/)

There are no maybes... Straight from the authors research foundation.

And Fulong gong

Seriously, this who is behind the Epoch times. Fulong Gong.
Just give us the paper,not Epoch times.

I dont get why all these weird groups want anything to do with global warming.
Just because they wanted to be involved in our politics?

Falun Gong has its global headquarters in Dragon Springs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Springs), a 400-acre (160 ha) compound around Cuddebackville (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuddebackville,_New_York) in Deerpark, New York (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deerpark,_New_York), near the current residence of Li Hongzhi. Falun Gong's performance arts extension, Shen Yun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shen_Yun) ("Divine Rhythm") and two closely connected schools, Fei Tian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsara) ("Flying Sky-Being") College and Fei Tian Academy of the Arts, also operate in and around Dragon Springs.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong#cite_note-JUNKER-2019-33-101-4)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong#cite_note-ZADRONZY-COLLINS-2019-5)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong#cite_note-VAN-DER-MADE-2019-6)

Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and elsewhere, which have received notable media attention for their political involvement and ideological messaging, particularly since the involvement of these extensions in the 2016 United States presidential election (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election).




“Just give us the paper”

You were given the fucking paper you senile old fart you’ve just refused to read it :lmao

[pgardn]

Why?

The problem is solved according to your author.
So since your author solved it along with his mom and dad and their research foundation, you tell us how its only the sun and not CO2.

In your own words. no copy paste.
You are the expert now since you clearly believe this stuff.
Teach me you decaying ancient turd.
I dont get it.
Im so old and senile. and I occasionally use the microphone on my cell phone so Im just fried.

[TSA]

Go on old man...

IPCC has only focused on one range of TSI. You’d know that had you read the fucking paper :lmao

[TSA]

Why?

The problem is solved according to your author.
So since your author solved it along with his mom and dad and their research foundation, you tell us how its only the sun and not CO2.

In your own words. no copy paste.
You are the expert now since you clearly believe this stuff.
Teach me.
I dont get it.

No one in the paper says the problem is solved nor do they say the sun is the sole cause of global warming. You’d know that I’d you’d actually read the fucking paper :lmao

[pgardn]

No one in the paper says the problem is solved nor do they say the sun is the sole cause of global warming. You’d know that I’d you’d actually read the fucking paper :lmao

oh

only the author says its solved, but not in the paper, just on his research site?
yeah, sure.

Go on now grandpa.
Teach me how its the sun and not CO2

Cool. Im getting the emoticons now.

[pgardn]

So TSA.
You have read so much about global warming that this paper has convinced you the Sun, not CO2, is the culprit in global warming going against 98% of the research in this area. I know you wanna play gadfly (planet pizza), so explain it. This is a difficult topic. I dont understand all of it. So I need your help.

How many ways are there to ask the might TSA...?

[TSA]

oh

only the author says its solved, but not in the paper, just on his research site?
yeah, sure.

Go on now grandpa.
Teach me how its the sun and not CO2

Cool. Im getting the emoticons now.

No one in the paper says the problem is solved nor do they say the sun is the sole cause of global warming. You’d know that if you’d actually read the fucking paper…which you still haven’t done :lmao

[TSA]

So TSA.
You have read so much about global warming that this paper has convinced you the Sun, not CO2, is the culprit in global warming going against 98% of the research in this area. I know you wanna play gadfly (planet pizza), so explain it. This is a difficult topic. I dont understand all of it. So I need your help.

How many ways are there to ask the might TSA...?

No one in the paper says the problem is solved nor do they say the sun is the sole cause of global warming. You’d know that I’d you’d actually read the fucking paper. Since you’ve proven yourself you be extremely lazy just read the conclusions where none of the authors claim any of what you think they do.

No shit you don’t understand it because you refuse to READ THE FUCKING PAPER :lmao

[pgardn]

No one in the paper says the problem is solved nor do they say the sun is the sole cause of global warming. You’d know that I’d you’d actually read the fucking paper. Since you’ve proven yourself you be extremely lazy just read the conclusions where none of the authors claim any of what you think they do.

No shit you don’t understand it because you refuse to READ THE FUCKING PAPER :lmao

The one who wrote the paper is Ronan Connally.
He said his research group, ma, daddy, and himself have solved the problem.
Dont give me your shit like 23 people wrote this. One person put this together. ONE.

And no I dont understand climate science and solar science near as well as I understand molecular biology.
So, since the whole thing is so clear to you, explain it to me. I am familiar with sun cycles, weather, the basics.
but global warming in itself is a amalgamation of a lot of difficult chemistry, climate, atmosphere, ocean, solar science.

Its pretty clear I need you, to explain it.
Just a paragraph with six sentences or so, just your own words why its the sun and not CO2.

You put up the absolute crap of a researcher. You understand what he is done. Help him to be noticed, be his bulldog, his spokesperson. Explain it to the about to pass on old man and the rest of ST.

And... please keep the emoticons coming. They are like droplets of sweat from your brow.

[RandomGuy]

None of the authors endorse it :lol

Víctor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Professor of Theoretical Physics and Geophysics at the
National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM):
“This paper is very special in that all 23 co-authors set aside our research directions and
specialties to produce a fair and balanced scientific review on the subject of sun-climate
connections that the UN IPCC reports had mostly missed or simply neglected.”
Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Oceanography and Atmospheric Physics at the University of

Naples Federico II (Italy):
“The possible contribution of the sun to the 20th-century global warming greatly depends on the
specific solar and climatic records that are adopted for the analysis. The issue is crucial because
the current claim of the IPCC that the sun has had a negligible effect on the post-industrial climate
warming is only based on global circulation model predictions that are compared against climatic
records, which are likely affected by non-climatic warming biases (such as those related to the
urbanization), and that are produced using solar forcing functions, which are obtained with total
solar irradiance records that present the smallest secular variability (while ignoring the solar
studies pointing to a much larger solar variability that show also a different modulation that better
correlates with the climatic ones). The consequence of such an approach is that the natural
component of climate change is minimized, while the anthropogenic one is maximized. Both solar
and climate scientists will find the RAA study useful and timely, as it highlights and addresses this
very issue.”

Ole Humlum, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Oslo, Norway:
“This study clearly demonstrates the high importance of carefully looking into all aspects of all
available data. Obviously, the old saying ‘Nullius in verba’ is still highly relevant in modern
climate research.”

Gregory Henry, Senior Research Scientist in Astronomy, from Tennessee State University’s
Center of Excellence in Information Systems (U.S.A.):
“During the past three decades, I have acquired highly precise measurements of brightness
changes in over 300 Sun-like stars with a fleet of robotic telescopes developed for this purpose.
The data show that, as Sun-like stars age, their rotation slows, and thus their magnetic activity
and brightness variability decrease. Stars similar in age and mass to our Sun show brightness
changes comparable to the Sun’s and would be expected to affect climate change in their own
planetary systems.”


Valery M. Fedorov, at the Faculty of Geography in Lomonosov Moscow State University,
Russia:
“The study of global climate change critically needs an analytical review of scientific studies of
solar radiation variations associated with the Earth's orbital motion that could help to determine
the role and contributions of solar radiation variations of different physical natures to long-term
climate changes. This paper steers the scientific priority in the right direction.”

Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-
monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.):
“Contrary to the findings of the IPCC, scientific observations in recent decades have demonstrated
that there is no ‘climate change crisis’. The concept that’s devolved into the failed CO2
anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is based on the flawed predictions of imprecise
1980’s vintage global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both since
and prior to their fabrication.
The Earth’s climate is determined primarily by the radiation it receives from the Sun. The amount
of solar radiation the Earth receives has natural variabilities caused by both variations in the
intrinsic amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and by variations in the Earth-Sun geometry
caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. Together these natural variations cause the
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the Earth to vary cyclically on a number of known periodicities
that are synchronized with known past climatic changes.”

WeiJia Zhang, Professor of Physics at Shaoxing University (China) and a Fellow of the Royal
Astronomical Society (UK):
“The quest to understand how the Earth’s climate is connected to the Sun is one of the oldest
science subjects studied by the ancient Greeks and Chinese. This review paper blows open the
mystery and explains why it has been so difficult to make scientific advances so far. It will take the
real understanding of fluid dynamics and magnetism on both the Sun and Earth to find the next
big leap forward.”

Hong Yan (晏宏), Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatology at the Institute of Earth
Environment and Vice Director of the State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary
Geology in Xi’an, China:
“Paleoclimate evidence has long been informing us of the large natural variations of local,
regional and hemispheric climate on decadal, multidecadal to centennial timescales. This paper
will be a great scientific guide on how we can study the broad topic of natural climatic changes
from the unique perspective of external forcings by the Sun’s multi-scale and multi-wavelength
impacts and responses.”

Ana G. Elias, Director of the Laboratorio de Ionosfera, Atmósfera Neutra y Magnetosfera
(LIANM) at the Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Tecnología in the Universidad Nacional de
Tucumán (FACET-UNT), Argentina:
“The importance of this work lies in presenting a broader perspective, showing that all the relevant
long-term trend climate variability forcings, and not just the anthropogenic ones (as has been done
mostly), must be considered. The way in which the role of these forcings is estimated, such as the
case of solar and geomagnetic activity, is also important, without minimizing any one in pursuit
of another. Even the Earth’s magnetic field could play a role in climate.”

Willie Soon, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), who
also has been researching sun/climate relationships at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics (U.S.A.) since 1991:
“We know that the Sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth’s atmosphere. So, it always
was an obvious potential contributor to recent climate change. My own research over the last 31
years into the behavior of stars that are similar to our Sun, shows that solar variability is the norm,
not the exception. For this reason, the Sun’s role in recent climate change should never have been
as systematically undermined as it was by the IPCC’s reports. Hopefully, this systematic review
of the many unresolved and ongoing challenges and complexities of Sun/climate relationships can
help the scientific community return to a more comprehensive and realistic approach to
understanding climate change.”

László Szarka, from the ELKH Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science (Hungary) and
also a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences:
“This review is a crucial milestone on the way to restoring the scientific definition of ‘climate
change’ that has become gradually distorted over the last three decades. The scientific community
should finally realize that in science there is no authority or consensus; only the right to seek the
truth.”

TLDR. You didn't either.

[RandomGuy]

You STILL haven't read the study :lol None of the 23 co-authors claim to have solved global warming.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2105/2105.12126.pdf

Invited Review. Received 7 Dec 2020; Revised 9 Mar 2021; Accepted for publication in Research in
Astronomy and Astrophysics on 14 Apr 2021.


We appreciate that some readers may share the sentiments
of Lean and Zacharias and others and may be tempted to use
these political arguments for helping them to decide their
opinion on this ongoing scientific debate.

Read it, and the author spends a lot of time taking issue with "very likely", and saying how political the other side is. :cry :cry.

From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner

1.The pseudo-scientist considers himself a genius.

2.He regards other researchers as stupid, dishonest or both. By choice or necessity he operates outside the peer review system (hence the title of the original Antioch Review article, "The Hermit Scientist").

3.He believes there is a campaign against his ideas, a campaign compared with the persecution of Galileo or Pasteur.

4.Instead of side-stepping the mainstream, the pseudo-scientist attacks it head-on: The most revered scientist is Einstein so Gardner writes that Einstein is the most likely establishment figure to be attacked.

5.He coins neologisms. ["new words", in this case meant to sound as scientific as possible-RG]


The whole thing reads like a gish-gallop that makes my scam-dar ping.

I am left, as always with the risk calculation.

Reducing CO2 emissions costs a lot less than the risk of disaster, and appears to be economically beneficial, given the cost slopes of renewables.

[pgardn]

Read it, and the author spends a lot of time taking issue with "very likely", and saying how political the other side is. :cry :cry.

From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner



The whole thing reads like a gish-gallop that makes my scam-dar ping.

I am left, as always with the risk calculation.

Reducing CO2 emissions costs a lot less than the risk of disaster, and appears to be economically beneficial, given the cost slopes of renewables.

I am left with what the vast majority of the scientific community thinks, whose life work involves this subject. TSA brings up doubt with the most disreputable sources possible. People looking to scam. This paper and its author have claimed political bias and then go totally political and get paid for taking the other side for various reasons, some as bad as what SR21 claimed about one of the contributing papers by willie soon.

So now we are just supposed to read the paper(s) about sun cycles and energy and it will all be cleared up and SOLVED. TSA thinks the paper is totally detached from the author (we, my mom, dad and I, have solved the global warming issue) and then cant explain it even though he says he understands it. TSA picks a guy working with his dad and mom in Ireland in their own institute, just look at that site. That reads horribly slanted all over, exactly what the author says he is trying to avoid in his writings. TSA put up BS again, got called, and cant defend it.

[RandomGuy]

I am left with what the vast majority of the scientific community thinks, whose life work involves this subject. TSA brings up doubt with the most disreputable sources possible. People looking to scam. This paper and its author have claimed political bias and then go totally political and get paid for taking the other side for various reasons, some as bad as what SR21 claimed about one of the contributing papers by willie soon.

So now we are just supposed to read the paper(s) about sun cycles and energy and it will all be cleared up and SOLVED. TSA thinks the paper is totally detached from the author (we, my mom, dad and I, have solved the global warming issue) and then cant explain it even though he says he understands it. TSA picks a guy working with his dad and mom in Ireland in their own institute, just look at that site. That reads horribly slanted all over, exactly what the author says he is trying to avoid in his writings. TSA put up BS again, got called, and cant defend it.

Pretty much.

I don't think TSA cares about the subject, to be honest. It is a way of "owning the libs" to him.

His fellow cult members have decided this is A Thing, so he buys into it. I have read one or two sections of that paper, and the more one digs in, the more obvious that the authors goal was obfuscation.

The press release that accompanied it confirms that.

[Thread]

Pretty much.

I don't think TSA cares about the subject, to be honest. It is a way of "owning the libs" to him.

His fellow cult members have decided this is A Thing, so he buys into it. I have read one or two sections of that paper, and the more one digs in, the more obvious that the authors goal was obfuscation.

The press release that accompanied it confirms that.

Though that (one or two sections) had ya snortin' eh, RG?
tee, hee.

[TSA]

The one who wrote the paper is Ronan Connally.
He said his research group, ma, daddy, and himself have solved the problem.
Dont give me your shit like 23 people wrote this. One person put this together. ONE.

And no I dont understand climate science and solar science near as well as I understand molecular biology.
So, since the whole thing is so clear to you, explain it to me. I am familiar with sun cycles, weather, the basics.
but global warming in itself is a amalgamation of a lot of difficult chemistry, climate, atmosphere, ocean, solar science.

Its pretty clear I need you, to explain it.
Just a paragraph with six sentences or so, just your own words why its the sun and not CO2.

You put up the absolute crap of a researcher. You understand what he is done. Help him to be noticed, be his bulldog, his spokesperson. Explain it to the about to pass on old man and the rest of ST.

And... please keep the emoticons coming. They are like droplets of sweat from your brow.

23 people co-authored the paper the peer reviewed paper. It accepted and published in the Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics journal.

Víctor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Professor of Theoretical Physics and Geophysics at the
National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM):
“This paper is very special in that all 23 co-authors set aside our research directions and
specialties to produce a fair and balanced scientific review on the subject of sun-climate
connections that the UN IPCC reports had mostly missed or simply neglected.”

I never claimed it was the sun and not CO2, and neither did any of the 23 co-authors. You'd have known this off the bat if you actually read the fucking paper....which you STILL haven't done :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

Hey TSA, has all the adrenochrome harvested in the past twenty years influencing global warming?

[boutons_deux]

https://nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/solar_radiation_ceres_data.png?itok=ieMtFD3f

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3072/direct-observations-confirm-that-humans-are-throwing-earths-energy-budget-off-balance/

it's not the euphemistic LIE of Luntz-ian "climate change",

but AGW, anthropogenic global warming. words count

(or Luntz wouldn't have bothered to LIE

[boutons_deux]

https://gml.noaa.gov/outreach/behind_the_scenes/images/12.Carbon_Cycle_IPCC_7.3.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Hey TSA, has all the adrenochrome harvested in the past twenty years influencing global warming?

:lol

[RandomGuy]

. We urge researchers who are
genuinely interested in trying to answer the question posed by
the title of this paper to consider a wide range of TSI estimates
and not just ones that agree with the researchers’ prior beliefs
or expectations

"we just have questions"... standard conspiracy bullshit language.

But questioning is part of science and not inherently bad. It should raise the radar when it comes to being a tad more skeptical of conclusions.

My thoughts:

They didn't address satellite data adequately.
They didn't address ocean warming much, focusing on "urban and rural stations". No real original research.
They think sun variability is more important than CO2, but didn't explain why night time warming is accelerating faster than daytime temps. CO2 explains this, "the sun did it" does not, and isn't addressed anywhere in the paper.

In short, cherry-picking data, just like all the other paid diatribes.

All three of the main authors appear to suck money out of a non-profit that accepts all sorts of anonymous donations, and all three have had papers soundly destroyed in the peer-review process. This looks just like something to gin up controversy to get more donations, IMO.

I imagine this will end up in the same bin. Fun reading for the science parts though. :tu