Will Greta Thunberg go the way of so many other child stars?

[ding]

I'm curious why you've obsessively linked to a 69 page paper with dozens of data graphics but only present one of those graphics and speak as if the entire work is contained in two paragraphs. Your endlessly repeated assertion, that climate scientists come to different conclusions based on which dataset they are shown, is not the conclusion of this paper but part of its premise. The paper's title is "How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate".

Among its list of authors may be found a 'veritable who's who' of AGW deniers: Ronan Connolly, Willie Soon, Michael Connolly, Sallie Baliunas, Johan Berglund, C. John Butler, Rodolfo Gustavo Cionco, Ana G. Elias, Valery M. Fedorov, Hermann Harde, Gregory W. Henry, Douglas V. Hoyt, Ole Humlum, David R. Legates, Sebastian Luning, Nicola Scafetta, Jan-Erik Solheim, Laszlo Szarka, Harry van Loon, Vıctor M. Velasco Herrera, Richard C. Willson, Hong Yan and Weijia Zhang. The inclusion of Legates, who has no climatological, astronomical or statistical background at all and whose most famous paper should have gotten him thrown out of whatever professional or academic institutions were blind enough to have admitted him, is simply an insult to the reader. Legates and Connolly have worked together on several other papers

Abstract In order to evaluate how much Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has influenced Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature trends, it is important to have reliable estimates of both quantities. Sixteen different estimates of the changes in TSI since at least the 19th century were compiled from the literature. Half of these estimates are “low variability” and half are “high variability”. Meanwhile, five largely-independent methods for estimating Northern Hemisphere temperature trends were evaluated using: 1) only rural weather stations; 2) all available stations whether urban or rural (the standard approach); 3) only sea surface temperatures; 4) tree-ring widths as temperature proxies; 5) glacier length records as temperature proxies. 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. For each of the five estimates of Northern Hemisphere temperatures, the contribution from direct solar forcing for all sixteen estimates of TSI was evaluated using simple linear least-squares fitting. The role of human activity on recent warming was then calculated by fitting the residuals to the UN IPCC’s recommended “anthropogenic forcings” time series. For all five Northern Hemisphere temperature series, different TSI estimates suggest everything from no role for the Sun in recent decades (implying that recent global warming is mostly human-caused) to most of the recent global warming being due to changes in solar activity (that is, that recent global warming is mostly natural). It appears that previous studies (including the most recent IPCC reports) which had prematurely concluded the former, had done so because they failed to adequately consider all the relevant estimates of TSI and/or to satisfactorily address the uncertainties still associated with Northern Hemisphere temperature trend estimates. Therefore, several recommendations on how the scientific community can more satisfactorily resolve these issues are provided.

I'm no climate scientist, but drawing the potential conclusion that ubanization bias might still be present because rural and urban weather stations show more warming than SST, glacier length and tree-ring widths seems a clear case of apples and oranges. The instantaneous nature of the former vs the severe lags of the latter are a blatant conflict they don't mention. Several of these authors: Connolly, Soon, Bailunas (who have put out numerous papers together) and others have argued for years that global warming is not anthropogenic but due to increases in TSI not reflected in its most widely accepted measures. Soon and Bailunas, in particular, are famous for the oil industry funding for their work. I'm not foolish enough to think that any scientist begins a study tabula rasa, but most of this crew had formed these conclusions long before this study was even imagined. A strong majority of climate scientists disagree with this contention that previous studies and the IPCC had "prematurely concluded" that global warming is mostly human-caused.

I would guess that this paper is where your preference for Northern Hemisphere temperature data begins. If so, you failed to note that what drove the author's choice was simply the relative paucity of data from the Southern Hemisphere, not any superiority in representation. I also failed to see any comments supporting your claim that it was best to restrict your analysis to temperature outliers.

This paper finshes by concluding it has no conclusion at all and that its authors could not agree on a singular answer to the title's question. Your contention all along, has been that "climate scientists" come to different conclusions about global warming when looking at different datasets. What this paper actually shows is that the authors of this paper, with differing preferences for TSI and temperature data, come to different conclusions. You have no survey of climate scientists looking at different datasets. And since you never seem to venture beyond that initial claim but have linked to this study at least eleven times, I will have to state what it appears to me that you are attempting to say: that the resolution of TSI centered on Matthes 2017 is unwarranted, that distinct possibilities exist that TSI has been far greater than commonly held, particularly during the ACRIM gap, that actual global warming trends have not been accurately determined, that urbanization bias may still be present in commonly used temperature data and thus that common conclusions about the reality of AGW are unjustified. If you disagree, please explain what it is you are actually attempting to take from this paper.

From the study

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 R. Connolly et al.: How Much has the Sun Influenced Northern Hemisphere Temperature Trends? 131–59 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.

Acknowledgements The main analysis and first draft of the manuscript were carried out by the first three authors (RC, WS and MC). All other co-authors are listed in alphabetical order. As explained in the Introduction, the approach we have taken in this review is to explicitly acknowledge the many dissenting scientific perspectives on a lot of the issues reviewed. As a result, the co-authors have not reached a mutual consensus on all issues. Rather, we have endeavored to present all competing scientific perspectives as fairly and open-mindedly as possible. With that in mind, all co-authors have approved of the text, even though most of us have definite opinions on many of the debates which have been described, and those opinions vary between co-authors.

Because it succinctly explains why the models the IPCC relies upon are flawed and has yet to be refuted.

1. They include temperatures from urban temperature stations which blames the UHI effect on CO2.
2. They use the low variability solar output dataset instead of the high variability dataset.

Garbage in equals garbage out. And don't even get me started on how they routinely tune out natural variations.

 

[Crick]

Because it succinctly explains why the models the IPCC relies upon are flawed and has yet to be refuted.

Succinct is not a term I would have used describing that document. And you've got a couple things turned around. The viewpoint of your article is the distinct minority. The failing here is that, in the view of the vast majority of climate scientists, Connolly's report fails to cast the slightest doubt on Matthes 2017 or the conclusion that TSI has had very close to no effect whatsoever on global warming.

1. They include temperatures from urban temperature stations which blames the UHI effect on CO2.

Once again, Connolly et al have failed to cast doubt on the common understanding among climate scientists that the UHI effect has been properly dealt with in current temperature datasets.

2. They use the low variability solar output dataset instead of the high variability dataset.

Here's why. From The Physical Science Basis (AR6) Pg 297

2.2.1 Solar and Orbital Forcing The AR5 assessed solar variability over multiple time scales, concluding that total solar irradiance (TSI) multi-millennial fluctuations over the past 9 kyr were <1 W m–2, but with no assessment of confidence provided. For multi-decadal to centennial variability over the last millennium, AR5 emphasized reconstructions of TSI that show little change (<0.1%) since the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715) when solar activity was particularly low, again without providing a confidence level. The AR5 further concluded that the best estimate of radiative forcing due to TSI changes for the period 1750–2011 297 Changing State of the Climate System Chapter 2 2 was 0.05–0.10 W m–2 (medium confidence), and that TSI very likely changed by –0.04 [–0.08 to 0.00] W m–2 between 1986 and 2008. Potential solar influences on climate due to feedbacks arising from interactions with galactic cosmic rays are assessed in Section 7.3.4.5. Slow periodic changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun mainly cause variations in seasonal and latitudinal receipt of incoming solar radiation. Precise calculations of orbital variations are available for tens of millions of years (Berger and Loutre, 1991; Laskar et al., 2011). The range of insolation averaged over boreal summer at 65°N was about 83 W m−2 during the past million years, and 3.2 W m−2 during the past millennium, but there was no substantial effect upon global average radiative forcing (0.02 W m–2 during the past millennium). A new reconstruction of solar irradiance extends back 9 kyr based upon updated cosmogenic isotope datasets and improved models for production and deposition of cosmogenic nuclides (Poluianov et al., 2016), and shows that solar activity during the second half of the 20th century was in the upper decile of the range. TSI features millennial-scale changes with typical magnitudes of 1.5 [1.4 to 2.1] W m–2 (C.-J. Wu et al., 2018). Although stronger variations in the deeper past cannot be ruled out completely (Egorova et al., 2018; Reinhold et al., 2019), there is no indication of such changes having happened over the last 9 kyr. Recent estimates of TSI and spectral solar irradiance (SSI) for the past millennium are based upon updated irradiance models (e.g., Egorova et al., 2018; C.-J. Wu et al., 2018) and employ updated and revised direct sunspot observations over the last three centuries (Clette et al., 2014; Chatzistergos et al., 2017) as well as records of sunspot numbers reconstructed from cosmogenic isotope data prior to this (Usoskin et al., 2016). These reconstructed TSI time series (Figure 2.2a) feature little variation in TSI averaged over the past millennium. The TSI between the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715) and second half of the 20th century increased by 0.7–2.7 W m–2 (Jungclaus et al., 2017; Egorova et al., 2018; Lean, 2018; C.-J. Wu et al., 2018; Lockwood and Ball, 2020; Yeo et al., 2020). This TSI increase implies a change in ERF of 0.09–0.35 W m–2 (Section 7.3.4.4). Estimation of TSI changes since 1900 (Figure 2.2b) has further strengthened, and confirms a small (less than about 0.1 W m–2) contribution to global climate forcing (Section 7.3.4.4). New reconstructions of TSI over the 20th century (Lean, 2018; C.-J. Wu et al., 2018) support previous results that the TSI averaged over the solar cycle very likely increased during the first seven decades of the 20th century and decreased thereafter (Figure 2.2b). TSI did not change significantly between 1986 and 2019. Improved insights (Krivova et al., 2006; Yeo et al., 2015, 2017; Coddington et al., 2016) show that variability in the 200–400 nm UV range was greater than previously assumed. Building on these results, the forcing proposed by Matthes et al. (2017) has a 16% stronger contribution to TSI variability in this wavelength range compared to the forcing used in the 5th Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). To conclude, solar activity since the late 19th century was relatively high but not exceptional in the context of the past 9 kyr (high confidence). The associated global mean ERF is in the range of –0.06 to +0.08 W m–2 (Section 7.3.4.4).

Garbage in equals garbage out. And don't even get me started on how they routinely tune out natural variations.

I guess I won't

 

[ding]

Succinct is not a term I would have used describing that document. And you've got a couple things turned around. The viewpoint of your article is the distinct minority. The failing here is that, in the view of the vast majority of climate scientists, Connolly's report fails to cast the slightest doubt on Matthes 2017 or the conclusion that TSI has had very close to no effect whatsoever on global warming.

Once again, Connolly et al have failed to cast doubt on the common understanding among climate scientists that the UHI effect has been properly dealt with in current temperature datasets.

Here's why. From The Physical Science Basis (AR6) Pg 297

2.2.1 Solar and Orbital Forcing The AR5 assessed solar variability over multiple time scales, concluding that total solar irradiance (TSI) multi-millennial fluctuations over the past 9 kyr were <1 W m–2, but with no assessment of confidence provided. For multi-decadal to centennial variability over the last millennium, AR5 emphasized reconstructions of TSI that show little change (<0.1%) since the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715) when solar activity was particularly low, again without providing a confidence level. The AR5 further concluded that the best estimate of radiative forcing due to TSI changes for the period 1750–2011 297 Changing State of the Climate System Chapter 2 2 was 0.05–0.10 W m–2 (medium confidence), and that TSI very likely changed by –0.04 [–0.08 to 0.00] W m–2 between 1986 and 2008. Potential solar influences on climate due to feedbacks arising from interactions with galactic cosmic rays are assessed in Section 7.3.4.5. Slow periodic changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun mainly cause variations in seasonal and latitudinal receipt of incoming solar radiation. Precise calculations of orbital variations are available for tens of millions of years (Berger and Loutre, 1991; Laskar et al., 2011). The range of insolation averaged over boreal summer at 65°N was about 83 W m−2 during the past million years, and 3.2 W m−2 during the past millennium, but there was no substantial effect upon global average radiative forcing (0.02 W m–2 during the past millennium). A new reconstruction of solar irradiance extends back 9 kyr based upon updated cosmogenic isotope datasets and improved models for production and deposition of cosmogenic nuclides (Poluianov et al., 2016), and shows that solar activity during the second half of the 20th century was in the upper decile of the range. TSI features millennial-scale changes with typical magnitudes of 1.5 [1.4 to 2.1] W m–2 (C.-J. Wu et al., 2018). Although stronger variations in the deeper past cannot be ruled out completely (Egorova et al., 2018; Reinhold et al., 2019), there is no indication of such changes having happened over the last 9 kyr. Recent estimates of TSI and spectral solar irradiance (SSI) for the past millennium are based upon updated irradiance models (e.g., Egorova et al., 2018; C.-J. Wu et al., 2018) and employ updated and revised direct sunspot observations over the last three centuries (Clette et al., 2014; Chatzistergos et al., 2017) as well as records of sunspot numbers reconstructed from cosmogenic isotope data prior to this (Usoskin et al., 2016). These reconstructed TSI time series (Figure 2.2a) feature little variation in TSI averaged over the past millennium. The TSI between the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715) and second half of the 20th century increased by 0.7–2.7 W m–2 (Jungclaus et al., 2017; Egorova et al., 2018; Lean, 2018; C.-J. Wu et al., 2018; Lockwood and Ball, 2020; Yeo et al., 2020). This TSI increase implies a change in ERF of 0.09–0.35 W m–2 (Section 7.3.4.4). Estimation of TSI changes since 1900 (Figure 2.2b) has further strengthened, and confirms a small (less than about 0.1 W m–2) contribution to global climate forcing (Section 7.3.4.4). New reconstructions of TSI over the 20th century (Lean, 2018; C.-J. Wu et al., 2018) support previous results that the TSI averaged over the solar cycle very likely increased during the first seven decades of the 20th century and decreased thereafter (Figure 2.2b). TSI did not change significantly between 1986 and 2019. Improved insights (Krivova et al., 2006; Yeo et al., 2015, 2017; Coddington et al., 2016) show that variability in the 200–400 nm UV range was greater than previously assumed. Building on these results, the forcing proposed by Matthes et al. (2017) has a 16% stronger contribution to TSI variability in this wavelength range compared to the forcing used in the 5th Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). To conclude, solar activity since the late 19th century was relatively high but not exceptional in the context of the past 9 kyr (high confidence). The associated global mean ERF is in the range of –0.06 to +0.08 W m–2 (Section 7.3.4.4).

I guess I won't

Again... you aren't refuting their claims that the models relied upon by the IPCC include temperature readings from urban stations or that their models use the low variability solar output dataset.

 

[Crick]

Again... you aren't refuting their claims that the models relied upon by the IPCC include temperature readings from urban stations or that their models use the low variability solar output dataset.

I had no intention of doing so. I did, however, demonstrate that there are a large number of studies - ones that DO come to conclusions - supporting the IPCC's choices in those regards.

 

[ding]

I had no intention of doing so. I did, however, demonstrate that there are a large number of studies - ones that DO come to conclusions - supporting the IPCC's choices in those regards.

That makes it even more weird that you questioned it in first place. Seems like if you had known that your last post would have been your first response.

 

[Crick]

That makes it even more weird that you questioned it in first place. Seems like if you had known that your last post would have been your first response.

Our disagreement regards your contention that the IPCC is suppressing dissenting opinions. They have no obligation to publish every whack job who can write a paper. They DO have an obligation to make their best assessment of the what is getting published in refereed, peer-reviewed journals and by a large majority, those sources state that UHI has been properly dealt with and that the low variability TSI dataset is the most accurate. That you should attach yourself to a single study by a rather disreputable set of authors that cannot itself come to a conclusion does NOT give you much basis on which to criticize the IPCC.

 

[ding]

Our disagreement regards your contention that the IPCC is suppressing dissenting opinions. They have no obligation to publish every whack job who can write a paper. They DO have an obligation to make their best assessment of the what is getting published in refereed, peer-reviewed journals and by a large majority, those sources state that UHI has been properly dealt with and that the low variability TSI dataset is the most accurate. That you should attach yourself to a single study by a rather disreputable set of authors that cannot itself come to a conclusion does NOT give you much basis on which to criticize the IPCC.

They are a political organization doing what political organizations do... tamp down opposition to their political goals.

 

[Crick]

They are a political organization doing what political organizations do... tamp down opposition to their political goals.

And what do you believe are their political goals having just told us that the UN's goal is to increase political cooperation?

 

[ding]

And what do you believe are their political goals having just told us that the UN's goal is to increase political cooperation?

To reduce or slow world population growth.

 

[Crick]

To reduce or slow world population growth.

I'm terribly sorry, but that is NOT a political goal, not that I buy that for one instant.

 

[ding]

I'm terribly sorry, but that is NOT a political goal, not that I buy that for one instant.

It's the thing that keeps bleeding heart liberals like yourself up at night.

 

[Crick]

It's the thing that keeps bleeding heart liberals like yourself up at night.

Aren't you ever alarmed at how conflicted and wispy thin are all your arguments?

 

[ding]

Aren't you ever alarmed at how conflicted and wispy thin are all your arguments?

But they aren't. They are well thought out as evidenced by the emotional responses they illicit from you. If what you say is true your responses would be factual and address the content of my statements rather than a personal attack like you are doing now. It seems you would very much like for me to get into the gutter with you and make personal attacks against you too. I don't operate that way. I use logic and facts to punch my opponents for me.

You should test every post you make with this graphic to see where it falls and then ask yourself why you lower your standards when your post doesn't meet the standard for intelligent debate.

 

[Crick]

But they aren't. They are well thought out as evidenced by the emotional responses they illicit from you. If what you say is true your responses would be factual and address the content of my statements rather than a personal attack like you are doing now. It seems you would very much like for me to get into the gutter with you and make personal attacks against you too. I don't operate that way. I use logic and facts to punch my opponents for me.

You should test every post you make with this graphic to see where it falls and then ask yourself why you lower your standards when your post doesn't meet the standard for intelligent debate.


View attachment 747040

I feel fine about myself and my posts. I think you've utterly failed to make your case. This is the usual outcome when someone has all of mainstream science leading them and someone else has nothing.

 

[ding]

I feel fine about myself and my posts. I think you've utterly failed to make your case. This is the usual outcome when someone has all of mainstream science leading them and someone else has nothing.

Says the guy who routinely makes personal attacks when people don't agree with him.

 

[Crick]

Says the guy who routinely makes personal attacks when people don't agree with him.

View attachment 747042

I still feel fine about myself and my posts.

 

[Mac-7]

Here John Kerry is questioned about Thundbergs dismissal of the latest climate Palooza for wealthy and Powerful private jet owners. Of course Carrie expresses her respect and thanks to Greta. But notice it is all in the past tense.



Many famous young girls have grown up to become lost and pathetic adults. I'm talking young women with actual talent. Greta has none. She is nothing more than a child with the disability of autism who has been used by her parents and the activists Who convinced her parents to let her be used in this way.

Now that she is developing a mind of her own, she will likely be quickly cast aside. The main rule of being a climate activist is don't annoy John kerry.

Dana Plato was not the best actress in The world. But she had a bright future ahead of her until she became an adult and lost it all. She wound up in rehab working whatever job she could find and sleeping with multiple sugar daddies. I doubt that last option will be open to Greta.

I doubt that last option will be open to Greta

Agreed

Men with enough money to support a mistress go for pretty girls

Which she aint

 

[ding]

I still feel fine about myself and my posts.

Of course you would. You can't be objective about something you have a preference for.

 

[psikeyhackr]

If the "climate alarmists" turn out to be correct over the next 20 years then Greta will become more famous with her ability to say, "I told you so!"

 

[ding]

If the "climate alarmists" turn out to be correct over the next 20 years then Greta will become more famous with her ability to say, "I told you so!"

Sure but it's not likely. Their catastrophic projections are based upon positive feedback in their model which is 2 to 3 times the effect of the GHG of CO2 alone. While in reality the net feedback is negative.