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
post-truthism isn't just for Trumpers
- "Promises, promises."
- Ernie "The Cat" Ladd
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 ed It Up
Now, wait a second, bouts, we're not even supposed to be here getting our kicked in by the Taliban. According to Gore we're supposed to all be dead as door nails.
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...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, led “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/challe...ce=twitter.com
TSA with no take on his long repost.
(Falun Gong alert)
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 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, 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.
You had multiple posts in a row on the IPCC report with no take of your own
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
Tu án, Av. Independencia 1800, 4000 Tu án, Argentina
9 Ins uto de Física del Noroeste Argentino (Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas -
Universidad Nacional de Tu án), 4000 Tu án, 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 Ins ute 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 Ins ute, 9400 Sopron, Csatkai utca 6-8, Hungary
20 Retired, formerly National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
21 Ins uto 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, Ins ute 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.
Post a big list and hope no one goes through it.
Thats your MO.
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
but a peer reviewed paper is a peer reviewed paper. will have to look into it
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
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 le 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
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 Ins ute 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
Tu án (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 Ins ute 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.”
.
And of course the epoch times is gonna use him.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
but a peer reviewed paper is a peer reviewed paper. will have to look into it
This is what TSA does. Makes us look this up.
SR21 just found one.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 le 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
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 Ins ute 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
Tu án (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 Ins ute 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.”
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.
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.
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.
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 horse .
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 . Its disingenuous BS.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
