I’m driving down the road, and the news on the radio hits us with this.

“The Sun, Not CO2, is to Blame for Global Warming ! “

Yet, the UN just claimed it was our human based CO2 influences with it’s latest weather warming threats? This is almost as bad as the maskers vs. no maskers, and the vaxers vs. the anti vaxers advice givers...

I think we’re doomed, but not by covid or the sun.

Here ya go:

The Sun, Not CO2, to Blame for Global Warming: Study
By Charlie McCarthy | Monday, 16 August 2021 01:23 PM


Warmer temperatures in recent decades might be caused mainly by the sun and not carbon dioxide emissions, according to a new study by a team of international scientists. The study's findings sharply contradict the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, The Epoch Times reported Monday.
The new peer-reviewed findings, released just as the UN released its sixth "Assessment Report" (AR6), was published in the international scientific journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics. Nearly two dozen scientists concluded that previous studies did not adequately consider the role of solar energy in explaining increased temperatures.

AR6 again argued that human emissions of CO2 unequivocally were to blame for global warming. However, scientists and solar physicists said the IPCC was "premature" in blaming CO2. They added the UN body's conclusions were based on "narrow and incomplete data about the Sun’s total irradiance."

The study, if confirmed, could deal a devastating blow to the IPCC 's conclusion that human emissions of CO2 are the primary cause of global warming.

Based on several people who took part in the new study, The Epoch Times said the IPCC appears to display deliberate and systemic bias in what views, studies, and data are included in its reports.
"Depending on which published data and studies you use, you can show that all of the warming is caused by the sun, but the IPCC uses a different data set to come up with the opposite conclusion," Ronan Connolly, Ph.D. told The Epoch Times.

"In their insistence on forcing a so-called scientific consensus, the IPCC seems to have decided to consider only those data sets and studies that support their chosen narrative." The implications, from a policy perspective, are enormous, especially in a field where trillions of dollars are at stake and a dramatic re-organization of the global economy is being proposed, The Epoch Times said. The new study said that by using publicly available data sets from the U.S. government and other sources, it easily can explain that changes in solar energy account for all of the warming observed in recent decades.

While agreeing that the data sets used by the UN would imply humans are largely to blame, the scientists said that simply choosing different data sets not used by the UN upends the IPCC's conclusion.
The new paper calls for further research to resolve differences between conflicting data sets and studies.

An IPCC spokesman denied wrongdoing by the UN body, and said the new study had been accepted for publication after the deadline for consideration, The Epoch Times said.



From the cheap seats the planets weather is controlled by the sun, earths orbit which is elliptical not a circle, and the planets tilt on its axis. Yes the planet does wobble as we go around and around. Take the Sahara in a few thousand years the Sahara will be wet and the rivers in the Sudan will run and the ancient lakes fill. In other words from ice ages to warm times our weather has long cycles. Then you have the wild card of volcanoes which have altered human history time and time again. In our times our love of carbon has to have an effect but if one thinks you can alter the natural processes, nope.

Ummm.... I'm no climatologist, but I've figured out that solar radiation is, indeed, "hot." So yeah, it's easy for me to agree the sun is what is warming up the planet. I thought the assumed reason we are getting hit with more solar radiation in recent years than before is that CO2 emissions have greatly reduced the ozone layer in our atmosphere that protects us from said radiation. Is that no longer a prevailing theory?

Whatever the answer, I agree with 20 Gage's assessment that we're doomed either way. The article above clearly states that the UN and this group of other scientists are using different datasets to draw their conclusions. For me, it begs the question of why these other scientists saw fit to create their own datasets. A look into what entities funded the study might explain that. Anyone notice how many pro-oil and gas ads are on TV these days?

Can someone post a link to the article above or a link to the study's report? If it raises new considerations, I'd be interested in learning about them. I can't find anything recent. Last mention of the sun causing warming theory I can find is a series of 2019 articles that seek to debunk it....

No it's not the Ozone depletion, this was fixed when we banned CFC's and hasn't been a problem since the early 1980's. This was unrelated to global warming because decreased ozone caused a cooling of temperature. Remember the snowball Earth panic in the 1970's before the hysterical bedwetters changed to global warming? Ozone depletion was still a problem because it would cause skin cancer in humans.

Ozone hole shrinks to lowest size since 1982, unrelated to climate change: NASA - https://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro...ated-to-climate

You won't find any studies newer than 2019. All studies on every topic was suspended in March 2020, only studies on COVID are allowed. The debunking is just correlation is not causation, yadda yadda. So why are we accepting as fact the correlation between CO2 and temperature? The correlation between solar output and global warming has been made in studies published since at least 1987 as far as I know. Global warming has always been fake and gay.

There is no study, just a scientific review of the data. It's here: http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index.php/raa/article/download/4920/6080

As for begging the question, the UN scientists are begging the question. The reason their data is faulty is two reasons. First, 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. Which is a pretty bad assumption and demonstrably false, concrete does absorb and radiate heat so throws off the temperatures and they are ignoring this effect. So the alternate dataset uses rural weather stations only to avoid this distortion.

The second is that the UN's data uses a solar output model using the low variability dataset, which presupposes that the sun's output only varies slightly so are ignoring this effect. They can't be testing for a variable they ignore, so the UN is literally begging the question. They base their data on a limited series of weather ballon measurements in 1960 then use a simple model, to reconstruct data back until 1660. So in other word's it's mostly made up. The alternate dataset uses only actual data from NASA’s ACRIMSAT sun monitoring satellites from it's launch in 1999 to the satellite's failure in 2014 that shows a higher variability.

I'm no climatologist but anyone who thinks global warming has been proven or is even plausible is a shill, dumber than a box of rocks or both.

Here is simple but good read on the subject.

https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/earth...the-ice-age-end

This also puts a long term look at things.

https://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-...at-causes-them/


Trying to get different views and here is Princeton

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/12/10/what-caused-ice-ages-tiny-ocean-fossils-offer-key-evidence

CO2...

the earths CO2 levels are just north of 400 PPM..

optimal plant growth levels are double to triple that...

CO2 is needed for photosynthesis, and for plants to produce oxygen...

we need oxygen to breath..

it was also warmer 90 million years ago than it is today...

gerbil worming...

Thanks. Understanding why they changed the dataset helps.

So, looking at NASA's data, solar irradiation has been trending down since the 1960s, with temperatures steadily rising. How could less solar irradiation produce more heat? Even if periodic heat waves could potentially be explained by variability, an overall trend of steady decrease should mean dropping temperatures overall if the sun is indeed the culprit, right?

I cannot find it again but an Indonesian scientist wrote a paper on that. From memory the jest was that the sun is at a low cycle and we should be cooling but carbon from human activity is slowing the process. His thoughts were that this will be temporary as eventually the process will catch up and cooling continue. Always remember in the human learning curve science has always been about 100% wrong but as knowledge increases so does our knowledge of a subject move to be correct.

Now if you want a real puzzle tell me what dark matter is as it holds the universe together but cannot be seen, smelled, or measured but science says the gravitational force it creates is greater than that of all the suns and other masses such as planets in the universe.

We humans have barely touched on what makes the planet work let alone some idiot enviro politician proclaim the end is at hand.

Another thing about science is that it takes data, which is in the past, and then makes projections. The assumption is that what happened in the past will continue. If it doesn't, a new theory is needed. The science isn't wrong, there were just not enough data points.

ive always had this thought on temps going up a little...

its not CO2 for one, and while it is the cycle of our earth, there is 1 thing that can possibly be causing a discrepancy...

its well known that the recorded "hottest temperature" on earth is in Death Valley, well that is air temp that they use...

the actual hottest surface tempurature on earth is in Iran, in the Lut desert, and it has reached over 175 degrees...

so...

here we are in the world, evolving, taking out forests, and laying down concrete and houses and huge buildings, cities, towns, ect...

anyone every think about the after effects of that?

concrete roads and highways, will get blasted with sun, and retain the heat, houses will as well on comp roofing and even concrete shingle roofing..

then what do you have?

radiant heaters for the most part, getting up to extremely high numbers, after baking in the sun all day, and radiating that heat throughout until cooled off... which will then increase the air temperature surrounding it... the Lut desert is in between 2 mountain ranges, so its higher elevation will allow it to cool quicker than Death Valley, which is a tan concrete like substance that gets baked with sun all day then releases heat increasing the temperature in the air, but since its not higher in elevation, night temps dont get low enough to drop the air temp as drastically as Lut...

just one of my thoughts on the subject...

Good points. I definitely agree that science is limited (pretty severely) by our limited understanding of how the real cool stuff (like dark matter) works, and of course it's not always right (or even that close). And to think I recently trusted that most theoretical of institutions as the basis for my decision to get vaccinated....

Burning coal has been problematic of air pollution and climate change for centuries:

=68.ARAVtP8cmEL4MaeLKy04u6DgxVg5Yj0NncC1...ns and climate

From the reel weather person, Mr. Cliff Mass -

Another La Niña coming, What Does It Imply?

There is a good chance that La Nina--cooler than normal waters in the central tropical Pacific-- will return this fall. And the reprise of La Nina has major implications for the weather of the upcoming winter.

During La Nina years, the Northwest tends to be cooler and wetter than normal. Typically more snowpack in the mountains. And increased chances of lowland snow.

Good news for the fish here..

Good news for everyone if it materializes.

Flying along the mountains a couple of weeks ago it was pretty disheartening to see how little snow there is this summer...this heat wave has really done a number on it.

We can use it!

Fish on...

Todd

After skiing into June with this last season’s deep snow pack, maybe we’ll be having another great ski season again this winter and next spring , with a little help from La Niña.

Cup half full and all......

Isn't this warm dry weather great? Odfw implemented a hoot owl regulation to stop fishing from 2 PM until 1 hour before sunrise. Probably have the logging road gated off for fire protection.

Cliff Mass is in climate denial. We'll see if his La Nina prediction becomes reality.

Meanwhile record numbers of forest fires this year. Colorado river is running low and Lake Mead is at it's lowest level.

Well, it’s spitting and raining here this am ! Cliff may be wrong, or right, butt today the poly ticks don’t mean shrit, as this rain keeps me from staining the back deck today as planned.

So with the wife in Spokane at the dog field trials, a bit of rain on the deck, and no one looking, I’m backing the boat out of the driveway and heading to MA 11...

Fish On !

Good call.

I'll hold down the fort here.

....dammit.

DCC,

Thanx for covering the fort !

After closing down the deck staining project, we took the racing skiff out for a go at salmon. Launched at Redondo, and then froze our ass off as we zooted over to the point.

We saw lotsa fish jumping as we headed over. We hit the point for kings, and hit one mooching cutplugs. We screwed up that opportunity as we had a hard time seeing a fin right by the boat, and we lost it. Nice fish, maybe 15 or 16 lbs. After a couple more non productive drifts over the point, we gave up and went Pink Hunting.

That warmed us up as we hit two big schools of jumpers with 1/4 oz jigs. We caught and released 6 or 7 fish from each spot and kept two nice brite Pinks for some smoking.

Now back to the slightly warmer weather today, and deck staining...