Did climate change cause the flooding in Tennessee and Henri?

[Crick]

We have tens of thousands of PhD scientists looking back at the last 150 years and blaming humanity for global warming. They're not idiots. That term is reserved for those who like to pretend everything is just hunky dory, like you.

 

[ding]

We have tens of thousands of PhD scientists looking back at the last 150 years and blaming humanity for global warming. They're not idiots. That term is reserved for those who like to pretend everything is just hunky dory, like you.

And apparently using cherry picked datasets to ignore natural factors and the effect urbanization has on skewing the temperature datasets.

From a recently published paper peer reviewed scientific paper:

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS By reviewing the literature and available data, we identified 16 different estimates of how the 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 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 modeling 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 (Matthes et al. 2017). 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 four 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 Sect. 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); Dudok de Wit et al. (2017); and Scafetta et al. (2019) 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 & Schatten (1993); Livingston (1994); Soon et al. (2015). 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 consider 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 (McKitrick & Nierenberg 2010; Soon et al. 2015; Soon et al. 2018, 2019b; Scafetta & Ouyang 2019; Scafetta 2021; Zhang et al. 2021). 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), Parker (2006), Wickham et al. (2013), 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), Menne & Williams (2009), Hausfather et al. (2013), Li & Yang (2019), Li et al. (2020b).

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. (Jones et al. 1990; Parker 2006; Wickham et al. 2013; Peterson et al. 1999; Menne & Williams 2009; Hausfather et al. 2013; Li & Yang 2019; Li et al. 2020b), 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. (Singer & Avery 2008; Shaviv 2008; Le Mouel¨ et al. 2019a; Morner et al. ¨ 2020; Ruzmaikin & Feynman 2002; van Loon et al. 2012; Roy 2018; Pan et al. 2020; Christoforou & Hameed 1997; Dima & Lohmann 2009; Soon 2009; Labitzke & Kunze 2012; Meehl et al. 2009; Mazzarella & Scafetta 2018). 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. (Wyatt & Curry 2014; Kravtsov et al. 2014; Lindzen & Choi 2011; Spencer & Braswell 2014; Mauritsen & Stevens 2015).

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.

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

 

[Crick]

Download "The Physical Science Basis" from www.ipcc.ch. Do a search for terms like "solar irradiance", "warming", "forcing factors" and other relevant terms and then tell us that you honestly come away with the opinion that the IPCC's examination of the issues briefly addressed in your reference article were treated lightly, dismissively or with an eye to a specific outcome or finding. The examination of global temperature records, both instrumental and proxy go orders of magnitude further in depth and scope than do your authors. Their scope of the IPCC's examination of forcing factors makes your reference article look like the work of a lazy 9th grader.

The full author's list from your reference piece has a number of noteworthy names: Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Valery M. Fedorov and David R. Legates. I haven't bothered looking up any of the other dozen authors listed, but Soon and Baliunas are well known from having both published multiple papers that were absolutely shredded by mainstream climate scientists and some actually withdrawn by their publishers. Soon in particular, is infamous for taking oil industry money to publish articles denying the role of CO2 in global warming. Fedorov is a sociologist and bureaucrat. Legates is a professor of geography and is, of course, famous for his truly pathetic attempt to refute the consensus supporting the IPCC's conclusions in published climate research.

There are more than a few technical and logical failings when attempting to credit TSI with a significant role in global warming, to wit:
1) There is very close to ZERO correlation between TSI trends and temperature trends over the past 150 years.
2) The magnitude of the most generous estimate of TSI increase is grossly inadequate to have caused any but a trivial portion of the observed warming.

But I do appreciate your efforts to use better sources. It was a wash, but you did make the effort.

 

[ding]

Download "The Physical Science Basis" from www.ipcc.ch. Do a search for terms like "solar irradiance", "warming", "forcing factors" and other relevant terms and then tell us that you honestly come away with the opinion that the IPCC's examination of the issues briefly addressed in your reference article were treated lightly, dismissively or with an eye to a specific outcome or finding. The examination of global temperature records, both instrumental and proxy go orders of magnitude further in depth and scope than do your authors. Their scope of the IPCC's examination of forcing factors makes your reference article look like the work of a lazy 9th grader.

The full author's list from your reference piece has a number of noteworthy names: Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Valery M. Fedorov and David R. Legates. I haven't bothered looking up any of the other dozen authors listed, but Soon and Baliunas are well known from having both published multiple papers that were absolutely shredded by mainstream climate scientists and some actually withdrawn by their publishers. Soon in particular, is infamous for taking oil industry money to publish articles denying the role of CO2 in global warming. Fedorov is a sociologist and bureaucrat. Legates is a professor of geography and is, of course, famous for his truly pathetic attempt to refute the consensus supporting the IPCC's conclusions in published climate research.

There are more than a few technical and logical failings when attempting to credit TSI with a significant role in global warming, to wit:
1) There is very close to ZERO correlation between TSI trends and temperature trends over the past 150 years.
2) The magnitude of the most generous estimate of TSI increase is grossly inadequate to have caused any but a trivial portion of the observed warming.

But I do appreciate your efforts to use better sources. It was a wash, but you did make the effort.

You crack me up with your character assaults. This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the unraveling.

Here is a summary of the findings.

Connolly

Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics

www.raa-journal.org

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.

Most of the energy in the Earth’s atmosphere comes from the Sun. It has long been recognized that changes in the so-called “total solar irradiance” (TSI), i.e., the amount of energy emitted by the Sun, over the last few centuries, could have contributed substantially to recent climate change. However, this new study found that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only considered a small subset of the published TSI datasets when they were assessing the role of the Sun in climate change and that this subset only included “low solar variability” datasets. As a result, the IPCC was premature in ruling out a substantial role for the Sun in recent climate change.

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.

Here is the link to the full paper.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131/pdf

 

[Crick]

That you should pin your hopes on the likes of Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas doesn't surprise me in the least. What else have you got? There aren't a lot of actual scientists putting out anything anywhere near the nonsense you're spewing. You quite obviously don't understand the references you're using. You see a few keywords and think "this must be the one". Your fixation on polar glaciation potential was the perfect demonstration.

 

[ding]

That you should pin your hopes on the likes of Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas doesn't surprise me in the least. What else have you got? There aren't a lot of actual scientists putting out anything anywhere near the nonsense you're spewing. You quite obviously don't understand the references you're using. You see a few keywords and think "this must be the one". Your fixation on polar glaciation potential was the perfect demonstration.

I see you don't have any data to dispute them.

Or did I miss that?

 

[Crick]

I gave you a link that overwhelmingly refutes them. www.ipcc.ch. You haven't even looked at it, have you.

 

[ding]

I gave you a link that overwhelmingly refutes them. www.ipcc.ch. You haven't even looked at it, have you.

What exactly was the refutation? Can you explain it in a simple sentence or two?

 

[Crick]

God you're a fucking idiot. As I have repeatedly suggested, go find the Summary for Policy Makers in AR6. That is the briefest and least technical summation of the latest report. Stop looking for some fool to spoon feed you what you should have learned ten years ago. READ THE GODDAMNED REPORT

 

[ding]

God you're a fucking idiot. As I have repeatedly suggested, go find the Summary for Policy Makers in AR6. That is the briefest and least technical summation of the latest report. Stop looking for some fool to spoon feed you what you should have learned ten years ago. READ THE GODDAMNED REPORT

Can you state it in two paragraphs like this?

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.​

​

​

 

[Crick]

Are you afraid to read it because it will refute the lies you've been holding so close to your chest or because you suspect you won't be able to understand it?

Or have you already tried and found that, yes, you cannot understand it?

 

[elektra]

You cant change the climate so what is the point?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Think about it....if you can. You deniers will not believe environmental scientist. You won't believe infectious disease doctors. Rather...you believe a serial liar. But more than that. You send your money to the serial liar. You really need a shot of reality

Concensus is not part of the scientific method

 

[ding]

Are you afraid to read it because it will refute the lies you've been holding so close to your chest or because you suspect you won't be able to understand it?

Or have you already tried and found that, yes, you cannot understand it?

I'm afraid of wasting my time looking for something that isn't there. Can you not state it?

It's very convenient for you to say it's been addressed and leave it up to me to find it but extremely disingenuous of you. I don't believe the urban heat effect or their cherry picking of TSI data sets has been addressed. Prove it.

 

[Crick]

Reading is never a waste of time for any of us.

 

[ding]

Reading is never a waste of time for any of us.

It is when the thing you are looking for isn't in there.