Reply With Quote
Calling me old and senile... professor of child edibles Hillary sells.
You like disingenuous, you got it old geezer.
comparative situations not compatible, nobody was curious, you don't have that excuse.You had multiple posts in a row on the IPCC report with no take of your own
Calling me old and senile... professor of child edibles Hillary sells.
You like disingenuous, you got it old geezer.
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
So TSA cherry-picked a sentence throws the entire anthropocene AGW explanation, and the IPCC report, in the garbage.
It's clear he hasn't even read that.
It's an interesting study.
Found another who hasn't read it
In the le 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.
LIke you did and you actually understand it like your other article on vaccines?
Bull .
The epoch times put this together, what does that suggest to you?
The Epoch Times is a far-right[12] international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement.[17] The newspaper, based in New York City, is part of the Epoch Media Group, which also operates New Tang Dynasty
​​
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: /ˌfɑːlʊn ˈɡɒŋ, ˌfæl-, - ˈɡʊŋ/, US: /- ˈɡɔːŋ/)[1] or Falun Dafa (/ˈdɑːfə/; Standard Mandarin Chinese: [fàlwə̌n tâfà]; literally, "Dharma Wheel Practice" or "Law Wheel Practice") is a new religious movement.[2][3] Falun Gong was founded by its leader Li Hongzhi in China in the early 1990s. Falun Gong has its global headquarters in Dragon Springs, a 400-acre (160 ha) compound around Cuddebackville in Deerpark, New York, near the current residence of Li Hongzhi.
​​
Last edited by pgardn; 08-17-2021 at 12:37 PM.
Nearly heat comes from the sun, and vastly overwhelms heat from burning like oil and gas and wood
where the 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
Does the infamously contrarian TSA have any geopolitical recommendations to address AGW?
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 . 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 ? 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 old geezer.
And there is so much more in that article, keep em coming TSA.
Tell us more about the study please TSA.
Tell us about the group that wrote the study please.
Holy you're still going on about this without having read the actual peer reviewed study
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 le 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 genization 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 le 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?Holy you're still going on about this without having read the actual peer reviewed study
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 le 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 genization 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 le 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.
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
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
My farts might also contribute to global warming, tbh... clearly casts doubts on CO2 emissions being the primary driver of global warming...
Sorry TSAAlready 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
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?
If you need help Im now back from biking.
This is gonna be another planet pizza...
Oh just wait on TSA's latest.
You will love this.
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 so took a penalty. Birdied the last two and was a solid back nine.
Currently taking a . Shower up after the . Then need to check the rack of short ribs that have been smoking since noon. Pairing those with some candied y carrots and twice baked potatoes. After dinner I’ll put the kid to bed and either my pregnant wife or get a blowjob…her call…you know how pregnant women can be.
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.
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 at ude 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 ins ution 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.
Last edited by pgardn; 08-17-2021 at 08:22 PM.
Always has been the case. We need coordinated action, and a lot of effort at all levels. Not going to happen.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
