What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Atmospheric science again shows climate hysteria unfounded. We're supposed to wreck the world over this?

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
53,305
Reaction score
37,920
Points
3,645
Location
Florida
1653358104561.png
 

Maxdeath

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
7,200
Reaction score
5,821
Points
2,050
Are you not aware that the worlds most accomplished and eminent scientist Al Gore proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Global warming was taking place not only because of the millions of dollars he made on speaking engagements but also on a movie deal? Are you unaware that he taught most scientists how they too could own mansions and use private jets if they followed his simple mantra?
But as everyone knows all too well him and 44 fixed the climate issue. All you have to do is look at the area where they bought multi million dollar mansions. If they had not fixed the climate problem those mansions would be under water by now according to the predictions
 

donttread

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
388
Reaction score
250
Points
193
The magnetic field of the planet has more to do with the climate than CO2.
CO 2 is not the main driver of climate but possibly not even a main driver of climate. AND plants love higher concentrations of CO 2 in the air.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,528
Reaction score
2,506
Points
290
Location
N/A
CO 2 is not the main driver of climate but possibly not even a main driver of climate. AND plants love higher concentrations of CO 2 in the air.
The conclusion of almost all published climate scientists is that CO2 is the primary driver of the observed warming. Can you explain why you disagree with them?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
98,100
Reaction score
14,635
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
CO 2 is not the main driver of climate but possibly not even a main driver of climate. AND plants love higher concentrations of CO 2 in the air.
You are spot on. 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)).​

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.



1632186412722.png



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
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,528
Reaction score
2,506
Points
290
Location
N/A
You are spot on. 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)).​

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.



1632186412722.png



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 Captch

You are spot on. 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)).​

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.



1632186412722.png



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
If you'd like to see a dissenting opinion on this topic to those of Soon and Bailunas, check out https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0605064103 from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

From the Abstract:

" Smaller, rather than larger, long-term trends in solar irradiance appear more plausible and produced modeled climates in better agreement with the range of Northern Hemisphere temperature proxy records both with respect to phase and magnitude. Despite the direct response of the model to solar forcing, even large solar irradiance change combined with realistic volcanic forcing over past centuries could not explain the late 20th century warming without inclusion of greenhouse gas forcing. Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,528
Reaction score
2,506
Points
290
Location
N/A
You are spot on. 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)).​

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.



1632186412722.png



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
What ought to be required reading about Dr Willie Soon. Includes information about Sallie Baliunas, with whom he has co-authored 9 papers. In particular, read the Career section paying some attention to the amount and frequency with which Soon and Baliunas are paid, generously, for their work by the oil industry.

and
 

Deplorable Yankee

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Messages
12,914
Reaction score
10,486
Points
2,265
Location
DIXIE
I truly feel sorry for anybody who believes the "man-made climate change/global warming" BS. You were either indoctrinated so early in life that you had no true frame of reference or you've bought this BS from way back.
I remember when they called it the coming new ice age. Sounded alarming at first but that fizzled out quickly once the sun started doing it's thing & temps started rising again.
So they switched over to global warming because it had warmed slightly from almost ice age conditions. I was getting skeptical to say the least, so I started questioning the narrative.
Well, global warming morphed to climate change before long as temps didn't rise fast enough to keep up with the predicted disasters.
Climate change is great & what they should have gone with from the beginning. Hot or cold, wet or dry, calm or storm, everything could be twisted to fit whatever they thought the public would buy.
Now atmospheric temperature measurements, or real science as I call it, once again shows there is no rise in temps, at least for the past 20+ years & what there was before that was minimal.
True scientists admit the Earth's atmosphere & the climate it produces is far too complex with still unknown variables for their minimal knowledge & data points to say anything but "we don't know".
True science does not need paid hacks changing or omitting actual data to fit a preferred narrative.
This whole thing is about control & I truly feel bad for those who still don't realize this yet.
Further scientific evidence that global warming starting to run out of steam over two decades ago has been presented by an international group of leading scientists. In a major re-evaluation of data from meteorology balloons rising through the troposphere, the scientists confirmed that temperatures have mostly paused since around 1998.
Humlum notes that the changes in annual values are often quite substantial, ranging from about +0.15°C to −0.15°C. He goes on to note that the temperature difference between 1915 and 2000 increased from 0.45°C to 0.67°C. “This represents an increase of about 49% over this period, meaning that about half of the apparent global temperature increase from January 1910 to January 2000 is due to administrative adjustments to the original data made since May 2008,” he writes.
Cricket is gonna blow up your thread trying to convince himself he hasn't been being lied to for the last 30 years
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
98,100
Reaction score
14,635
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
If you'd like to see a dissenting opinion on this topic to those of Soon and Bailunas, check out https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0605064103 from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

From the Abstract:

" Smaller, rather than larger, long-term trends in solar irradiance appear more plausible and produced modeled climates in better agreement with the range of Northern Hemisphere temperature proxy records both with respect to phase and magnitude. Despite the direct response of the model to solar forcing, even large solar irradiance change combined with realistic volcanic forcing over past centuries could not explain the late 20th century warming without inclusion of greenhouse gas forcing. Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."

That's because they are including urban stations which capture the UHI effect and are not using the high variability solar out dataset that NASA uses.

1653442758928.png
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
98,100
Reaction score
14,635
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
What ought to be required reading about Dr Willie Soon. Includes information about Sallie Baliunas, with whom he has co-authored 9 papers. In particular, read the Career section paying some attention to the amount and frequency with which Soon and Baliunas are paid, generously, for their work by the oil industry.

and
How about Richard C. Willson?

“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.)
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,528
Reaction score
2,506
Points
290
Location
N/A
How about Richard C. Willson?

“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.)
Does that refute the greenhouse effect?
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,528
Reaction score
2,506
Points
290
Location
N/A
That's because they are including urban stations which capture the UHI effect and are not using the high variability solar out dataset that NASA uses.

View attachment 649161
I can guarantee you that TSI data is unaffected by the urban heat island effect.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,528
Reaction score
2,506
Points
290
Location
N/A
What ought to be required reading about Dr Willie Soon. Includes information about Sallie Baliunas, with whom he has co-authored 9 papers. In particular, read the Career section paying some attention to the amount and frequency with which Soon and Baliunas are paid, generously, for their work by the oil industry.

and
Ding, did you read the Career section in Willie Soon's Wikipedia article? Did you note that Soon and Baliunas have been repeatedly refuted by multiple researchers.
 

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
18,120
Reaction score
3,769
Points
280
As with every issue, there are only two sides allowed and they both churn out confusing propaganda.
The pollution of the planet on so many levels is an embarrassment to our race (human). Measures are necessary to redress stupidity. This is not to save the planet. It is to increase our enjoyment of it.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
98,100
Reaction score
14,635
Points
2,220
Location
Houston

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
98,100
Reaction score
14,635
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
As with every issue, there are only two sides allowed and they both churn out confusing propaganda.
The pollution of the planet on so many levels is an embarrassment to our race (human). Measures are necessary to redress stupidity. This is not to save the planet. It is to increase our enjoyment of it.
Truth is arrived at through a conflict and confusion process. Diversity of thought is key to discovering truth. Don't knock the conflict and confusion process. It's how progress is achieved. If you don't like watching how sausage is made, don't look.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
98,100
Reaction score
14,635
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
I can guarantee you that TSI data is unaffected by the urban heat island effect.
I can too. They are totally different issues. Including urban heat station data falsely attributes the UHI effect to CO2.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
98,100
Reaction score
14,635
Points
2,220
Location
Houston
Ding, did you read the Career section in Willie Soon's Wikipedia article? Did you note that Soon and Baliunas have been repeatedly refuted by multiple researchers.
You mean they had dissenting opinions that you were able to read. Gee what a novel idea. Given the fact that the geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that weren't driven by CO2 or orbital forcing, TSI and albedo are the only forces which could have caused multi-decadal climate fluctuations.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,528
Reaction score
2,506
Points
290
Location
N/A
You mean they had dissenting opinions that you were able to read. Gee what a novel idea. Given the fact that the geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that weren't driven by CO2 or orbital forcing, TSI and albedo are the only forces which could have caused multi-decadal climate fluctuations.
Did you read it, yes or no?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
98,100
Reaction score
14,635
Points
2,220
Location
Houston

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$240.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top