There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The sun is dead!! Mini iceage???
Comments
-
Very quiet in here.
We've had the first proper earth directed CME impact of this sunspot cycle. It was a small one and not expected to induce much of Geomagnetic Storm if one at all. If it it did reach Storm levels then perhaps it was predicted to be no more than Kp 5. However, when it hit yesterday a Geomagnetic Storm magnitude of Kp 7 was reached.
Edit: Just to add there was no coronal hole boost to the solar Wind so the storm was almost entirely attributable to the CME.0 -
It's happened again. Except with just the solar wind this time, not a CME. A weak wind was expected to impact a day or so ago but never arrived, suggesting it was a weak wind with low speed. A weak wind usually doesn't register much on the Kp index and so this is what was forecast by NOAA (forecast.jpg).
They have had to revise their forecast. Updated since this morning. (forecast revised.jpg).
Basically small scale and normal solar events have had slightly larger than expected geomagnetic impacts. Two recent occurrences does not make a trend but keep an eye.0 -
Latest CMEs didn't impact as hard as predicted so no, no trend yet it seems.
Cycle 25 is starting to ramp up now anyway in the last couple of months.0 -
Major solar flare ongoing. First x-flare of solar cycle 25 I believe.
https://twitter.com/_SpaceWeather_/status/1411332929708494849?s=20Photography site - https://www.sryanbruenphoto.com/
Weather photo portfolio - https://sryanbruen.myportfolio.com/weather-1
-1 -
Another Geomagnetic Storm as a result of a very weak CME.
2 -
Advertisement
-
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. "
2 -
Link doesn't work, but then again, am I surprised?
0 -
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)
3 -
A diverse panel of disgraced scientists and lunatics you mean?
1 -
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!
1 -
Advertisement
-
Eh, You tried to introduce them with an argument from Authority by stating they were a 'diverse group of climate experts'
I merely challenged their expertise and credibility
You don't need to debunk every last murmer of Andrew Wakefield or his cultists
Do you waste your time debunking Davide Icke's claims about lizard people?
0 -
David Ike = strawman,
So, No, I don't waste time debunking his claims.
1 -
Ronan Connolly = Not a climate scientist who set up his own fake peer reviewed journal to self publish his daft ideas
Willie Soon, = a disgraced scientist who was found taking more than a million dollars in funding from the oil industry for paid research and never declared any of these payments as potential conflict of interest
So no, I won't waste time debunking his claims.
0