Reply With Quote
That’s not the paper linked. And not a single author in the paper says GLOBAL WARMING SOLVED.
You STILL haven’t read it
Log off you senile old fart you’re embarrassing yourself.
to be fair, the stuff he has pointed about on Connelly is somewhat damning. i recognized Willie Soon, the second author, because i was familiar with the controversy he had been in and his fossil fuel interests... but had no clue about this connelly character
That’s not the paper linked. And not a single author in the paper says GLOBAL WARMING SOLVED.
You STILL haven’t read it
Log off you senile old fart you’re embarrassing yourself.
He can point out whatever he wants but without addressing the actual paper it means jack .
Somewhat damning...
Holy .
There is a whole chinese group involved in this thing with an encampment in NY.
from TSA:
The le of the the article clearly states what the peer reviewed paper says "Study Finds Sun—not CO2—May Be Behind Global Warming"Global Warming Solved
Global Warming Solved
There are no maybes... Straight from the authors research foundation.
So its not CO2, it is, our sun. Misbehaving as badly as it ever has I guess.
And Fulong gong
Seriously, this who is behind the Epoch times. Fulong Gong.
Just give us the paper, not Epoch times.
I dont get why all these weird groups want anything to do with global warming.
Just because they wanted to be involved in our politics?
And tbf, I dont know why Connally would even mention some of these experts.
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. Falun Gong's performance arts extension, Shen Yun ("Divine Rhythm") and two closely connected schools, Fei Tian ("Flying Sky-Being") College and Fei Tian Academy of the Arts, also operate in and around Dragon Springs.[4][5][6]
Falun Gong administers a variety of extensions in the United States and elsewhere, which have received notable media attention for their political involvement and ideological messaging, particularly since the involvement of these extensions in the 2016 United States presidential election.
Last edited by pgardn; 08-18-2021 at 09:35 PM.
Go on old man...
“Just give us the paper”
You were given the ing paper you senile old fart you’ve just refused to read it
Why?
The problem is solved according to your author.
So since your author solved it along with his mom and dad and their research foundation, you tell us how its only the sun and not CO2.
In your own words. no copy paste.
You are the expert now since you clearly believe this stuff.
Teach me you decaying ancient turd.
I dont get it.
Im so old and senile. and I occasionally use the microphone on my cell phone so Im just fried.
IPCC has only focused on one range of TSI. You’d know that had you read the ing paper
No one in the paper says the problem is solved nor do they say the sun is the sole cause of global warming. You’d know that I’d you’d actually read the ing paper
ohNo one in the paper says the problem is solved nor do they say the sun is the sole cause of global warming. You’d know that I’d you’d actually read the ing paper
only the author says its solved, but not in the paper, just on his research site?
yeah, sure.
Go on now grandpa.
Teach me how its the sun and not CO2
Cool. Im getting the emoticons now.
So TSA.
You have read so much about global warming that this paper has convinced you the Sun, not CO2, is the culprit in global warming going against 98% of the research in this area. I know you wanna play gadfly (planet pizza), so explain it. This is a difficult topic. I dont understand all of it. So I need your help.
How many ways are there to ask the might TSA...?
No one in the paper says the problem is solved nor do they say the sun is the sole cause of global warming. You’d know that if you’d actually read the ing paper…which you still haven’t done
No one in the paper says the problem is solved nor do they say the sun is the sole cause of global warming. You’d know that I’d you’d actually read the ing paper. Since you’ve proven yourself you be extremely lazy just read the conclusions where none of the authors claim any of what you think they do.
No you don’t understand it because you refuse to READ THE ING PAPER
The one who wrote the paper is Ronan Connally.No one in the paper says the problem is solved nor do they say the sun is the sole cause of global warming. You’d know that I’d you’d actually read the ing paper. Since you’ve proven yourself you be extremely lazy just read the conclusions where none of the authors claim any of what you think they do.
No you don’t understand it because you refuse to READ THE ING PAPER
He said his research group, ma, daddy, and himself have solved the problem.
Dont give me your like 23 people wrote this. One person put this together. ONE.
And no I dont understand climate science and solar science near as well as I understand molecular biology.
So, since the whole thing is so clear to you, explain it to me. I am familiar with sun cycles, weather, the basics.
but global warming in itself is a amalgamation of a lot of difficult chemistry, climate, atmosphere, ocean, solar science.
Its pretty clear I need you, to explain it.
Just a paragraph with six sentences or so, just your own words why its the sun and not CO2.
You put up the absolute crap of a researcher. You understand what he is done. Help him to be noticed, be his bulldog, his spokesperson. Explain it to the about to pass on old man and the rest of ST.
And... please keep the emoticons coming. They are like droplets of sweat from your brow.
TLDR. You didn't either.None of the authors endorse it
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 Ins ute 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
Tu án (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 Ins ute 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.”
You STILL haven't read the studyNone of the 23 co-authors claim to have solved global warming.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2105/2105.12126.pdf
Invited Review. Received 7 Dec 2020; Revised 9 Mar 2021; Accepted for publication in Research in
Astronomy and Astrophysics on 14 Apr 2021.Read it, and the author spends a lot of time taking issue with "very likely", and saying how political the other side is.We appreciate that some readers may share the sentiments
of Lean and Zacharias and others and may be tempted to use
these political arguments for helping them to decide their
opinion on this ongoing scientific debate.
From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
The whole thing reads like a gish-gallop that makes my scam-dar ping.
I am left, as always with the risk calculation.
Reducing CO2 emissions costs a lot less than the risk of disaster, and appears to be economically beneficial, given the cost slopes of renewables.
I am left with what the vast majority of the scientific community thinks, whose life work involves this subject. TSA brings up doubt with the most disreputable sources possible. People looking to scam. This paper and its author have claimed political bias and then go totally political and get paid for taking the other side for various reasons, some as bad as what SR21 claimed about one of the contributing papers by willie soon.Read it, and the author spends a lot of time taking issue with "very likely", and saying how political the other side is.
From Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner
The whole thing reads like a gish-gallop that makes my scam-dar ping.
I am left, as always with the risk calculation.
Reducing CO2 emissions costs a lot less than the risk of disaster, and appears to be economically beneficial, given the cost slopes of renewables.
So now we are just supposed to read the paper(s) about sun cycles and energy and it will all be cleared up and SOLVED. TSA thinks the paper is totally detached from the author (we, my mom, dad and I, have solved the global warming issue) and then cant explain it even though he says he understands it. TSA picks a guy working with his dad and mom in Ireland in their own ins ute, just look at that site. That reads horribly slanted all over, exactly what the author says he is trying to avoid in his writings. TSA put up BS again, got called, and cant defend it.
Pretty much.
I don't think TSA cares about the subject, to be honest. It is a way of "owning the libs" to him.
His fellow cult members have decided this is A Thing, so he buys into it. I have read one or two sections of that paper, and the more one digs in, the more obvious that the authors goal was obfuscation.
The press release that accompanied it confirms that.
Though that (one or two sections) had ya snortin' eh, RG?
tee, hee.
23 people co-authored the paper the peer reviewed paper. It accepted and published in the Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics journal.
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.”
I never claimed it was the sun and not CO2, and neither did any of the 23 co-authors. You'd have known this off the bat if you actually read the ing paper....which you STILL haven't done
Hey TSA, has all the adrenochrome harvested in the past twenty years influencing global warming?
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3072/d...t-off-balance/
it's not the euphemistic LIE of Luntz-ian "climate change",
but AGW, anthropogenic global warming. words count
(or Luntz wouldn't have bothered to LIE
"we just have questions"... standard conspiracy bull language.. 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
But questioning is part of science and not inherently bad. It should raise the radar when it comes to being a tad more skeptical of conclusions.
My thoughts:
They didn't address satellite data adequately.
They didn't address ocean warming much, focusing on "urban and rural stations". No real original research.
They think sun variability is more important than CO2, but didn't explain why night time warming is accelerating faster than daytime temps. CO2 explains this, "the sun did it" does not, and isn't addressed anywhere in the paper.
In short, cherry-picking data, just like all the other paid diatribes.
All three of the main authors appear to suck money out of a non-profit that accepts all sorts of anonymous donations, and all three have had papers soundly destroyed in the peer-review process. This looks just like something to gin up controversy to get more donations, IMO.
I imagine this will end up in the same bin. Fun reading for the science parts though.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
