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!

Peer reviewed study: Its the sun you morons!!!

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
36,084
Reaction score
4,612
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
6,630
Reaction score
2,938
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
Going to have to go with FAKE NEWS on this one .. I'm sorry ... allow me to explain ...

The piece is behind the paywall at Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics ... only the absract is available for free ... and this clearly states the piece is debate ... not research ... it passes RAA's standards for published opinion, but is in no way, shape or form a "peer-reviewed scientific paper" ...

It just more statistical gymnastics ... urban forestry is a thing ...
 
OP
skookerasbil

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
36,084
Reaction score
4,612
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
Going to have to go with FAKE NEWS on this one .. I'm sorry ... allow me to explain ...

The piece is behind the paywall at Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics ... only the absract is available for free ... and this clearly states the piece is debate ... not research ... it passes RAA's standards for published opinion, but is in no way, shape or form a "peer-reviewed scientific paper" ...

It just more statistical gymnastics ... urban forestry is a thing ...
Sammy-14-1.jpg
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
44,207
Reaction score
15,266
Points
2,250
AGM can't be caused by solar activity ... because science has yet to come up with a practical way to tax the sun.

View attachment 530799

Although, research in that area continues apace.
Agreed. As with all things pushed by our corrupt elites, it’s always all about the money.
 

Weatherman2020

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
72,500
Reaction score
36,514
Points
2,605
Location
Left Coast, Classified
How funny is this? Just released...........


NTERNATIONAL

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.


https://www.theepochtimes.com/challenging-un-study-finds-sun-not-co2-may-be-behind-global-warming_3950089.html


Identifies "systemic bias" :abgg2q.jpg:

ghey
That still doesn’t prove that George Washington didn’t end the Little Ice Age with his illegal wag the tail war.
1630248503594.jpeg
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
124,428
Reaction score
40,924
Points
2,290
Look, it's Willie "I took $1.2 million in the last decade from fossil fuel companies" Soon.

He write what he's paid to write. None of it makes any sense.
LOL!

What kind of idiot thinks the Sun has any influence on Earth's climate, right?
 

elektra

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
10,785
Reaction score
2,206
Points
255
Location
Temecula California
The IPCC ignores all that disagrees with their preconceived political notions.

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.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
89,501
Reaction score
10,646
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Going to have to go with FAKE NEWS on this one .. I'm sorry ... allow me to explain ...

The piece is behind the paywall at Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics ... only the absract is available for free ... and this clearly states the piece is debate ... not research ... it passes RAA's standards for published opinion, but is in no way, shape or form a "peer-reviewed scientific paper" ...

It just more statistical gymnastics ... urban forestry is a thing ...
Are you sure?

 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
89,501
Reaction score
10,646
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Going to have to go with FAKE NEWS on this one .. I'm sorry ... allow me to explain ...

The piece is behind the paywall at Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics ... only the absract is available for free ... and this clearly states the piece is debate ... not research ... it passes RAA's standards for published opinion, but is in no way, shape or form a "peer-reviewed scientific paper" ...

It just more statistical gymnastics ... urban forestry is a thing ...
Here's the link to the pdf of the paper. Looks legit to me.

 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
89,501
Reaction score
10,646
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
From the published 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.

 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
89,501
Reaction score
10,646
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
I am glad to see that there are scientists out there that have not kowtowed to peer pressure and are willing to argue against the so-called overwhelming consensus.

Here is a summary of the findings.


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.

1630685934965.png


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.

1630686157946.png


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.
 

TroglocratsRdumb

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2017
Messages
22,311
Reaction score
16,536
Points
2,415
AGW is the politics of FFEEEEEEARRRRR
Liberals are foolish.
Conservatives are wise.
milankovitch-cyclesjgjgjfj.png
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
89,501
Reaction score
10,646
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Here are the comments from the authors of the paper.

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.” The 72 page review (18 figures, 2 tables and 544 references) explicitly avoided the IPCC’s consensus-driven approach in that the authors agreed to emphasize where dissenting scientific opinions exist as well as where there is scientific agreement. Indeed, each of the co-authors has different scientific opinions on many of the issues discussed, but they agreed for this paper to fairly present the competing arguments among the scientific community for each of these issues, and let the reader make up their own mind. Several co-authors spoke of how this process of objectively reviewing the pros and cons of competing scientific arguments for the paper has given them fresh ideas for their own future research. The authors also spoke of how the IPCC reports would have more scientific validity if the IPCC started to adopt this non-consensus driven approach.

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 Institute 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 Tucumán (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 Institute 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.”

 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
89,501
Reaction score
10,646
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Look, it's Willie "I took $1.2 million in the last decade from fossil fuel companies" Soon.

He write what he's paid to write. None of it makes any sense.
Here's the full paper. Read it and weep.

 
Last edited:

TroglocratsRdumb

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2017
Messages
22,311
Reaction score
16,536
Points
2,415
Since by the Milankovitch Cycles we should be in a cooling period, and were for the 6000 years prior to the Industrial Revolution, I will just have to assume you are pretty ignorant of recent history.
View attachment 534510

Your graph is only looking at tiny space of time in earth's 4 billion year existence, and temperatures from the past are only calculated guesses.

  1. A short history of measuring temperature

    For temperature since about 1850, scientists can refer to the "instrumental record." This is a world wide record based on standardized thermometer readings from thousands of meteorological stations around the world.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
61,805
Reaction score
8,781
Points
2,040
Location
Portland, Ore.
Here's the full paper. Read it and weep.

Weep that 22 other scientists would sully their reputation working with the shill Soon. Statistical juggling. Geological record shows that CO2 correlates with global temperature. From a scientist with a world class reputation, unlike those fellows;


 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top