The sun is dead!! Mini iceage???

Another study that concludes that the sun is the most significant contributor to climate change mainly due to flawed temperature readings used by climate scientists.

"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. "

the link does work, it is to a PDF file that can be downloaded, not a web page.

copy of article (minus images) below

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.

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.

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.

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.

The full citation for the study is:

R. Connolly, W. Soon, M. Connolly, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, C. J. Butler, R. G. Cionco, A.

G. Elias, V. M. Fedorov, H. Harde, G. W. Henry, D. V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D. R. Legates, S.

Luning, N. Scafetta, J.-E. Solheim, L. Szarka, H. van Loon, V. M. Velasco Herrera, R. C.

Willson, H. Yan (晏宏) and W. Zhang (2021). How much has the Sun influenced Northern

Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate. Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics,

doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131

Quotes from some of the other co-authors

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.”

For further information contact:

• Dr. Ronan Connolly, Ireland (ronan@ceres-science.com)

• Dr. Richard C. Willson, U.S.A. (rwillson@acrim.com)

• Dr. Ana G. Elias, Argentina (aelias@herrera.unt.edu.ar)

• Dr. Valery Fedorov, Russia (fedorov.msu@mail.ru)

• Dr. Ole Humlum, Norway (ole.humlum@geo.uio.no)

• Dr. László Szarka, Hungary (szarka@ggki.hu)

• Dr. Willie Soon, U.S.A. (willie@ceres-science.com)

You've already lost the argument when you diss the contributors as opposed to the data & their analysis of same.

You may now leave the big brother house!

David Ike = strawman,

So, No, I don't waste time debunking his claims.