Blinded by the Light

[Sunsettommy]

The IPCC of course strongly ignore the sun's awesome power because it would destroy their climate change scamming. Caution the article is based on real science since it is the Sun/Ocean dynamo that dominantly drives weather.....

===============

Irrational Fear

Blinded by the Light

Written by Dr. Matthew Wielicki

March 28, 2025

Excerpt:

I’ve spent most of my career in earth science, working alongside thoughtful, rigorous, and principled scientists, people I deeply respect.

I don’t believe most are dishonest or driven by ideology. Indeed, much of the foundational science in IPCC’s Working Group I, which addresses climate data, physical mechanisms, and processes, appears careful and credible. But even there, there’s a troubling gap: natural variability is consistently underexplored, overlooked, or simply not taken seriously.

But something happens between the technical findings and the public narrative. By the time it reaches policymakers, media, and the general public, nuance disappears. Uncertainty becomes certainty. Debate becomes denial. And science becomes storytelling.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in how the IPCC treats Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), the literal energy source for Earth’s entire climate system.

LINK

 

[toobfreak]

The IPCC of course strongly ignore the sun's awesome power because it would destroy their climate change scamming.

No legitimate theory on climate change can be taken seriously without taking into account the Sun!

Caution the article is based on real science since it is the Sun/Ocean dynamo that dominantly drives weather.....

The Sun is the source, and the ocean is the battery, the main repository of solar energy upon which all weather and climate is driven.

But something happens between the technical findings and the public narrative. By the time it reaches policymakers, media, and the general public, nuance disappears. Uncertainty becomes certainty. Debate becomes denial. And science becomes storytelling.

Obviously, the problem here is that while the scientists are fact-driven, our media and politicians are /politically/ driven.

 

[1srelluc]

The big ball of nuclear fusion in the sky determines everything.

Want to worship something? Then worship the Sun.

Solar deities of one flavor or another have been around a lot longer than what we have foisted upon us today.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Leftist democrats avoiding this thread because it destroys their climate change fantasy.

It is why they are ignorant of the topic as they run on ideology and preprogramming, it is why they are deficient in their argumentation and usually behave like a 5 year old.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The IPCC of course strongly ignore the sun's awesome power because it would destroy their climate change scamming. Caution the article is based on real science since it is the Sun/Ocean dynamo that dominantly drives weather.....

===============

Irrational Fear

Blinded by the Light

Written by Dr. Matthew Wielicki

March 28, 2025

Excerpt:

I’ve spent most of my career in earth science, working alongside thoughtful, rigorous, and principled scientists, people I deeply respect.

I don’t believe most are dishonest or driven by ideology. Indeed, much of the foundational science in IPCC’s Working Group I, which addresses climate data, physical mechanisms, and processes, appears careful and credible. But even there, there’s a troubling gap: natural variability is consistently underexplored, overlooked, or simply not taken seriously.

But something happens between the technical findings and the public narrative. By the time it reaches policymakers, media, and the general public, nuance disappears. Uncertainty becomes certainty. Debate becomes denial. And science becomes storytelling.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in how the IPCC treats Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), the literal energy source for Earth’s entire climate system.

LINK

The AGWCult calls it Total Solar Irrelevance, because the Sun has no effect on Earth's climate

 

[ReinyDays]

If the Sun doesn't vary ... how can she be responsible for weather variables? ... the math is simple ... the Sun isn't responsible ... this supposed "Earth Scientist" is wrong ... because they don't have the training in meteorology ... or training no better than Ground School ...

We don't measure temperatures here on Earth's surface close enough ... using the Solar Constant of 1,360 (±5) W/m^2 is close enough ... the Sun is constant, why we call that value the "Solar Constant" ... cute eh? ... vector addition, not for the faint of heart ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

If the Sun doesn't vary ... how can she be responsible for weather variables? ... the math is simple ... the Sun isn't responsible ... this supposed "Earth Scientist" is wrong ... because they don't have the training in meteorology ... or training no better than Ground School ...

We don't measure temperatures here on Earth's surface close enough ... using the Solar Constant of 1,360 (±5) W/m^2 is close enough ... the Sun is constant, why we call that value the "Solar Constant" ... cute eh? ... vector addition, not for the faint of heart ...

There is indeed some variance as the article points out, but which dataset are you going to use ACRIM or PMOD (IPCC favorite) ......

"ACRIM (Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor) is a series of instruments launched on NASA satellites that provided direct, largely unadjusted TSI measurements. When combined into a long-term record, they show an upward trend in solar output from 1980 to around 2000."

PMOD so called corrections doesn't account for albedo/cloud or internal energy shifts of energy output.

Solar surface radiation since 1980 has increased due to decrease in cloud cover all this the IPCC ignores.

 

[luiza]

The IPCC of course strongly ignore the sun's awesome power because it would destroy their climate change scamming. Caution the article is based on real science since it is the Sun/Ocean dynamo that dominantly drives weather.....

===============

Irrational Fear

Blinded by the Light

Written by Dr. Matthew Wielicki

March 28, 2025

Excerpt:

I’ve spent most of my career in earth science, working alongside thoughtful, rigorous, and principled scientists, people I deeply respect.

I don’t believe most are dishonest or driven by ideology. Indeed, much of the foundational science in IPCC’s Working Group I, which addresses climate data, physical mechanisms, and processes, appears careful and credible. But even there, there’s a troubling gap: natural variability is consistently underexplored, overlooked, or simply not taken seriously.

But something happens between the technical findings and the public narrative. By the time it reaches policymakers, media, and the general public, nuance disappears. Uncertainty becomes certainty. Debate becomes denial. And science becomes storytelling.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in how the IPCC treats Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), the literal energy source for Earth’s entire climate system.

LINK

Only partly true as the Galaxy centre also is the other contributor .
Further , nobody publicly takes into account the two different light sources —- ordinary and isodual .

 

[ReinyDays]

There is indeed some variance as the article points out, but which dataset are you going to use ACRIM or PMOD (IPCC favorite) ......

"ACRIM (Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor) is a series of instruments launched on NASA satellites that provided direct, largely unadjusted TSI measurements. When combined into a long-term record, they show an upward trend in solar output from 1980 to around 2000."

PMOD so called corrections doesn't account for albedo/cloud or internal energy shifts of energy output.

Did you not do the math? ... we have a satellite up in space, profoundly outside the atmosphere ... and we get the reading of 1,362.836 247 W/m^2 ... which in turn causes temperatures on the surface to rise 0.0000036245ºC ...

... except we only measure surface temperature to the nearest whole degree ... how would we confirm these ridiculously small values are true? ... thus my rhetorical question: do you know how to read a scientific instrument? ...

Solar surface radiation since 1980 has increased due to decrease in cloud cover all this the IPCC ignores.

Are you moving the goalposts here? ... the OP is about "Total Solar Irradiance" ... the "S" term in SB ... here you've shifted to "Solar surface radiation" ... those are two different things, related, but different ...

Earth's albedo is given as 0.3 (±0.05) ... which gives a 10ºC spread for an error margin ... [giggle] ... "do you know how to read a scientific instrument?" ... that's a rhetorical question, you don't have to answer ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Did you not do the math? ... we have a satellite up in space, profoundly outside the atmosphere ... and we get the reading of 1,362.836 247 W/m^2 ... which in turn causes temperatures on the surface to rise 0.0000036245ºC ...

... except we only measure surface temperature to the nearest whole degree ... how would we confirm these ridiculously small values are true? ... thus my rhetorical question: do you know how to read a scientific instrument? ...



Are you moving the goalposts here? ... the OP is about "Total Solar Irradiance" ... the "S" term in SB ... here you've shifted to "Solar surface radiation" ... those are two different things, related, but different ...

Earth's albedo is given as 0.3 (±0.05) ... which gives a 10ºC spread for an error margin ... [giggle] ... "do you know how to read a scientific instrument?" ... that's a rhetorical question, you don't have to answer ...

LOL, the article doesn't agree with you and you have COMPLTELY ignored the Albedo/Cloud changes since 1980.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Several published papers covers this about the changing cloud and albedo changes over time,

New Study: Recent ‘Unprecedented’ Cloud Cover Decline Driving Modern (And Past) Climate Change
By Kenneth Richard on 25. March 2025
Excerpt:

“[T]he increase in absorbed solar radiation is primarily due to natural variations in cloudiness and surface albedo, which have served as the main forcing factors of the flux above the atmosphere over the last 2 decades​

It is commonly accepted that there has been a satellite-observed (CERES) cloud cover albedo decline that has led to an increase in solar radiation absorbed by the Earth’s oceans.

LINK

 

[Sunsettommy]

No Tricks Zone​

​

Studies: Cloud Cover Changes Driving Greenland Ice Melt Trends Since ’90s​

LINK

============

Cloud Cover has been in decline for some time a factor in the current warming trend, the Sun does change and also change in the energy output in bandwidth as well which you seem unaware of.

 

[ReinyDays]

LOL, the article doesn't agree with you and you have COMPLTELY ignored the Albedo/Cloud changes since 1980.

Which set of goalposts are you speaking to? ... because albedo doesn't effect irradiation ...

I disagree with an Earth Scientists about radiative physics? ... what math did they use? ... Earth's albedo is 0.3 with an margin of error of 0.05 ... did the article plug these values into Stefan-Boltzmann ... does the article even mention SB ... no ... it doesn't ...

Your math is wrong ... the Sun is constant ... you're back to Billy-Bob's stupidity that the color green no longer exists ...

Do we need to review what a Blackbody Radiator is? ... or are you going to trust a zicron specialist? ... or someone who's never heard of Wein's Displacement Law? ... remember, crime doesn't pay and neither does botony ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Which set of goalposts are you speaking to? ... because albedo doesn't effect irradiation ...

I disagree with an Earth Scientists about radiative physics? ... what math did they use? ... Earth's albedo is 0.3 with an margin of error of 0.05 ... did the article plug these values into Stefan-Boltzmann ... does the article even mention SB ... no ... it doesn't ...

Your math is wrong ... the Sun is constant ... you're back to Billy-Bob's stupidity that the color green no longer exists ...

Do we need to review what a Blackbody Radiator is? ... or are you going to trust a zicron specialist? ... or someone who's never heard of Wein's Displacement Law? ... remember, crime doesn't pay and neither does botony ...

LOL, you apparently ignored a dozen published papers about cloud cover changes that effects how much solar radiation reaches the surface over time which does influence how much changes in the heat budget over time. which is the main point of the article that you keep ignoring.

The Scientist has a PHD in Earth Sciences.

"Earth science professor-in-exile. Formerly an assistant professor in the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Alabama and a post-doctoral research scientist in the Department of Earth, Planetary, and Space Sciences and the Institute for Planets and Exoplanets at the University of California, Los Angeles. Research interests include climate change and the implications of warming on severe weather and the overall human condition, energy transition, conditions of early Earth during the initiation of life, constraining the amount of continental lithosphere through time, understanding the flux and timing of asteroids impacting the Earth-Moon system and the association with major extinction events, medical mineralogy, and the evolution of the Himalaya and the Tibetan Plateau. "

LINK

I think he is more qualified than YOU are.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Too Funny;

Ignore clouds... Ignore internal changes on the sun... Ignore how those changes affect energy uptake in our oceans.

This paper calls this idiocy out...

ALL OF THE SOLAR CHANGES and CLOUD VARIATIONS explain all warming, in the last 180 years, without the aid of CO2 and other GHG's.

I see the left-wing idiocy continues here.

 

[ReinyDays]

I think he is more qualified than YOU are.

Then let's see the math ...

I ask again ... which set of goalposts are you using? ... is it irradiation, like we use in Atmospheric Science, or is it pixie fairy dust units in what you're talking about ... in the first case, we use Stefan-Boltzmann Law ... which alone refutes catastrophic climate change ... albedo notwithstanding ...

Albedo:

How are you measuring this? ... your article doesn't say ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If the Sun doesn't vary ... how can she be responsible for weather variables? ... the math is simple ... the Sun isn't responsible ... this supposed "Earth Scientist" is wrong ... because they don't have the training in meteorology ... or training no better than Ground School ...

We don't measure temperatures here on Earth's surface close enough ... using the Solar Constant of 1,360 (±5) W/m^2 is close enough ... the Sun is constant, why we call that value the "Solar Constant" ... cute eh? ... vector addition, not for the faint of heart ...

The Sun doesn't vary?????

 

[ReinyDays]

The Sun doesn't vary?????

What are we measuring? ...

If we're talking about average temperature here on Earth's surface ... then the Sun is considered constant ... 1,360 W/m^2 is number we put into our math formulas ... with 5 W/m^2 margin of error ... that's way close enough when we're only measuring to whole degrees ...

That's the math part ... use 1,365, then 1,360, and finally 1,355 in Stefan-Boltzmann equation and you get less than a degree difference ... things get worse using albedo at 0.3 ± 0.05 ...

Any calculated average can never be more accurate than the raw data used to average ... it's called instrumentation error and it's a fact of science ... so the one degree over 20th Century average is just at the limit of our ability to measure ... nothing to stress about ...

Marge N. O'Hara ... ha ha ... get it ... Margin of Error ... that's an old Click and Clack joke ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What are we measuring? ...

If we're talking about average temperature here on Earth's surface ... then the Sun is considered constant ... 1,360 W/m^2 is number we put into our math formulas ... with 5 W/m^2 margin of error ... that's way close enough when we're only measuring to whole degrees ...

That's the math part ... use 1,365, then 1,360, and finally 1,355 in Stefan-Boltzmann equation and you get less than a degree difference ... things get worse using albedo at 0.3 ± 0.05 ...

Any calculated average can never be more accurate than the raw data used to average ... it's called instrumentation error and it's a fact of science ... so the one degree over 20th Century average is just at the limit of our ability to measure ... nothing to stress about ...

Marge N. O'Hara ... ha ha ... get it ... Margin of Error ... that's an old Click and Clack joke ...

5/1,360 > 120/1000000

 

[ReinyDays]

5/1,360 > 120/1000000

What are we measuring? ... you didn't answer ...