A Climate Hero.

[haveatit]

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, 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.
ShieldSquare Captcha

You are wrong. Dead wrong. The problem is that your views are going to cause just about everything else to be dead too. The sun's output has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. And as far as natural changes go, we should be heading toward another ice age. But the opposite is happening.

 

[ding]

Willie Soon has been pushing Solar for years now. He is among the tiny minority in the field who remains a skeptic.

But I noted that the paper you cite says: "The standard estimates which use urban as well as rural stations were somewhat anomalous as they implied a much greater warming in recent decades than the other estimates, suggesting that urbanization bias might still be a problem in current global temperature datasets – despite the conclusions of some earlier studies. Nonetheless, all five estimates confirm that it is currently warmer than the late 19th century, i.e.,


there has been some “global warming” since the 19th century."

At least they are noting that their findings do NOT agree with earlier findings which show NO statistical effect from the urban heat island effect (Peterson) and I'm glad that they AGREED there HAS BEEN WARMING since the 19th century.

So we can drop this cannard that somehow the UHIE alters the results in some meaningful way. Clearly even Soon et al. feel there has been some warming.

Obviously Willie Soon prefers the SUN to be the cause of climate change. But, unfortunately, time and again, the folks who actually work with space-things (like, you know, THE SUN) at NASA have a rather different view on the topic.

Is the Sun causing global warming? warming/#:~:text=No.,goings%20of%20the%20ice%20ages.

That's nice but it doesn't address the use of urban temperature station readings and low variability solar output dataset. Because you can't. Because that's what they are using.

If that's not bad enough they tune their climate models to not produce natural climate change. If a 100-year run of the model produces change, the model is adjusted to removed the “drift”.

 

[ding]

Nobody would set themselves on fire to protest human caused global warming unless they were damn sure they were right. Damn sure! A lot more sure than you are that human caused global warming is a fraud.

By your logic anyone who sets themselves on fire must be right, right?

So if I made some outrageous claim about you and then set myself on fire to protest it, I would necessarily be correct about what I said about you?

Personally I think he set himself on fire because of the ridiculous amount of rhetoric building up an impending gloom and doom the likes of which have never been seen by man before.

Dude, it's just weather. No need to set yourself on fire over it.

 

[haveatit]

Which are used by models for the purpose of history matching so that they can tell you what they think caused it.

The problem is the climate models are “tuned” to not produce natural climate change. If a 100-year run of the model produces change, the model is adjusted to removed the “drift”. The models do not produce global energy balance from “first physical principles”, because none of the processes controlling that balance are known to sufficient accuracy. Instead, the models are “fudged” to produce energy balance, based upon the modelers’ assumption of no natural climate change. Then, the models are used as “proof” that only increasing CO2 has caused recent warming.​

​

This is circular reasoning.​

​

Dr. Roy Spencer​

​

GW 101 « Roy Spencer, PhD

You are full of shit. "Dr" Spencer is full of shit. You really think we can have no effect on the Earth? I was watching a show once where they said that if you ever looked at one of the older globes of the Earth that had a coating of shellac on it, the coat of shellac would be about right in representing the thickness of the earth's atmosphere. Each year all the volcanoes on Earth release about 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere. Each year the activities of humans release about 32.3 BILLION tons of CO2 into the biosphere.

 

[ding]

You are wrong. Dead wrong. The problem is that your views are going to cause just about everything else to be dead too. The sun's output has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. And as far as natural changes go, we should be heading toward another ice age. But the opposite is happening.

What am I wrong about? That they are using different datasets? Nope, that's been confirmed. That the different datasets don't yield different conclusions? Nope, they yield opposite conclusions.

 

[ding]

The sun's output has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nice way to change the subject. Nobody is denying that for most of Earth's history it was warmer. But then there was a long period of cooling. Though now there is sharply increasing warming. And it is created by humans.

I think advancing glaciers would be a bad thing.
What do you think?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is those who produce energy and the pollution that goes along with it who make all the money.

Oh no, producing a vital good that everyone needs is just awful!
And they make a profit?
Unforgivable.

 

[ding]

And as far as natural changes go, we should be heading toward another ice age. But the opposite is happening.

Incorrect. The last eccentricity cycle was nearly circular, so no. Every 4th eccentricity cycle is nearly circular. It's a 400,000 year cycle.

 

[haveatit]

This is pretty simple... there is a greenhouse gas effect. The IPCC models overestimate that effect by a factor of 2 to 3 times because they add in positive feedback of water vapor. Their simple-minded assumption is that warming caused by increasing CO2 causes more water vapor, which will enhance the radiative warming which roughly doubles the amount of warming from the CO2 increase alone in climate models.

Water vapor feedback on the long time scales are not positive. If it were the planet would never have cooled.

Increasing cloud reflection, decreasing water vapor in the upper troposphere, an increase in ocean mixing or some combination of the three are reasons why water vapor feedback is not positive.

If you stuck a thermometer into a glass of water, would you go by a model to estimate what the water temperature is? Or would you look at the thermometer.

 

[ding]

You are full of shit. "Dr" Spencer is full of shit. You really think we can have no effect on the Earth? I was watching a show once where they said that if you ever looked at one of the older globes of the Earth that had a coating of shellac on it, the coat of shellac would be about right in representing the thickness of the earth's atmosphere. Each year all the volcanoes on Earth release about 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere. Each year the activities of humans release about 32.3 BILLION tons of CO2 into the biosphere.

What did he say that you believe was wrong?

 

[haveatit]

By your logic anyone who sets themselves on fire must be right, right?

So if I made some outrageous claim about you and then set myself on fire to protest it, I would necessarily be correct about what I said about you?

Personally I think he set himself on fire because of the ridiculous amount of rhetoric building up an impending gloom and doom the likes of which have never been seen by man before.

Dude, it's just weather. No need to set yourself on fire over it.

I am speaking to you. In that, I am speaking to a dead person. If you are planning on living past about 30 years from now, make other plans. Because you and most of the life on Earth is going to be dead. That inescapable fact is something worth setting yourself on fire to bring attention to.

 

[ding]

If you stuck a thermometer into a glass of water, would you go by a model to estimate what the water temperature is? Or would you look at the thermometer.

The thermometer of course. But that's not what is happening here. What is happening here is explaining why the thermometer reads what it does. And for that they use models. Models which depending upon which datasets are used yield opposite conclusions. Your guys include urban station temperature data and use the low variability solar output dataset. My guys exclude urban station temperature data and use the high variability solar output dataset.

 

[ding]

I am speaking to you. In that, I am speaking to a dead person. If you are planning on living past about 30 years from now, make other plans. Because you and most of the life on Earth is going to be dead. That inescapable fact is something worth setting yourself on fire to bring attention to.

They have really fucked you up.

If it is truly an inescapable fact that is worth setting yourself on fire to bring attention to, why haven't you set yourself on fire? Is it possible that the reason you haven't already set yourself on fire is because deep down even you don't believe the Earth will be dead in 30 years?

 

[haveatit]

Oh no, producing a vital good that everyone needs is just awful!
And they make a profit?
Unforgivable.

Most of "what you need" you need because the media tells you that's what you need. Because those who make the "things you need" control the media. I have a video for you on that topic. And as for making a profit, I have a meme for that too.

 

[ding]

“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.”
Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.)

 

[ding]

“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.”
Gregory Henry, Senior Research Scientist in Astronomy, from Tennessee State University’s Center of Excellence in Information Systems (U.S.A.)

 

[westwall]

Would it be against the rules for me to say you suck? It is those who produce energy and the pollution that goes along with it who make all the money. So if anybody has millions to spend denying human caused global warming, it is them. You also say that you don't get paid to spread your filth. Well you're lying about human caused global warming. So what makes you think I would believe that you don't get paid to do so.

The producers of energy have made it possible for there to be a middle class. Your solution is to return mankind to serfdom. Fuck that. The claims that fossil fuels are causing global warming are false. There is no evidence to support the claim. Thus, the pushers of this scam rely on fraud.

Listen to a fact that you might find hard to handle, there is not one draconian measure that has been proposed to deal with climate change. Not one. If the claims were so fucking dire you would think that the world would be under lockdown. But no. The "solution" is for every man woman and child to pay a carbon tax. So......you can still pollute, you just have to pay rich bankers for the privilege. Go ahead. Look it up. I dare you.

 

[westwall]

Most of "what you need" you need because the media tells you that's what you need. Because those who make the "things you need" control the media. I have a video for you on that topic. And as for making a profit, I have a meme for that too.



View attachment 650674

Limiting yourself to a merely sustainable existence is a recipe for extinction. The societies that were merely sustainable in the past, were destroyed when the first big catastrophe came along. The only societies that have a chance to survive are those who are capable of creating enough excess to take them through dark times.

 

[ding]

You guess you may be evil? Let's not skip over the stupid part.

I think you should just assume I'm not very intelligent. I'm cool with that.