[Birdnuts]

Originally Posted by Coles

No. It's not population. It's consumption.

1% of the World's population has more CO2e emmissions than half of the World's population.

The 99% aspire to reach that level of lifestyle so population growth is indeed the key - especially as it already is the main driver of habitat destruction etc. across the planet

[Birdnuts]

My view from working in the area in the past(Environmental science) is that humans are altering regional climates for the worse via deforestation,drainage, urbanisation ie. CO2 levels are only a minor part of that story. A prime example of this is what is currently happening in the Amazon - as the rainforest is removed the cooling and transpiration function of the trees is lost leading to higher temps and less rainfall, nothing to do with CO2!! Similar things have occurred in other parts of the world in the distant pass eg, historical deforestation and overgrazing in the Middle East lead to the spread of manmade deserts and lower rainfall in the Levant. Australia's bush fires are made all the worst due to intensive farming sucking the land dry via irrigation etc - same in California, the list goes on and on. Faffing about with CO2 levels will do FA to address any of these problems which are indeed a major threat to the planet!!

[Danno]

Originally Posted by Coles

...and no, we don't really need an alternative theory about it. The IPCC has the best minds in the World working on it.

I've read this thread with interest, and it didn't take long for the globalists to stick their oar in with one-line pot shots to discredit MTC.

Originally Posted by Coles

AGW is not "augmenting natural warming". Over the last 25-30 years the World should have been naturally cooling. That's an important point, and yes, we do need to do more to reverse the process, and no...

I ask, in great anticipation of your answer, of what "we" need to do more of?

[Tuisceanch]

Originally Posted by SeaBreezes

Google Valentina zharkova. It was her science (and she was only one of 2 people world wide who predicted the last solar cycle being half the strength of previous ones, even NASA got it wrong, now they are following her lead)

Then check if the IPCC takes solar forcing into account in their models.

Then google the medieval and roman warming phases.

That's what got me interested in natural warming/cooling cycles. Valentina had been spot on so far.

Also, if we are the only culprit, and CO2 levels are at record highs. Why have global temps been dropping since 2016?
Unless something else is influencing temps? Like the sun?

But I'm with MT on this. Why does it have to be either/or? Why not both?

And his reasoning is sound. What if we can't stop it? What are we doing to mitigate it?

Valentina is warning of food shortages by 2028 due to shorter growing seasons.
It's happening already. The hunger stones were seen in Central Europe in 2018. They are inscribed with dates as far back as the 12th century. What caused the warming/weather pattern
Change then?

We are grasping at the edge of it all. But I do feel zharkova has forced the IPCC to include solar forcing in their models from 2020. Incidentally, they tried to stop the publishing of her work in Nature magazine with a sly email to the publishers. She found out when she was cc'ed on the magazines reply.

That's just nasty. What are they afraid of?

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...tific-reports/

Michael Brown made me aware of a new paper in Scientific Reports by Valentina Zharkova called Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale.

This is the report he is referring to:

https://researchportal.northumbria.a...escale_AAM.pdf

What this paper focusses on is the motion of the Sun around the barycentre of the Solar System, commonly referred to as the Solar Inertial Motion (SIM).

Here is a link which elaborates on SIM

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/p...oPh..110..191F

In the rather scathing article I linked the author summarizes

So, Scientific Reports appears to have published a paper that makes a claim about the Earth’s orbit around the Sun that violates some pretty basic orbital dynamics and that then uses this to suggest that most of our warming is natural.

Here is a thread where Valentina Zharkova attempts to defend her findings with other scientists.

https://pubpeer.com/publications/341...E6A44847C24#72

It begins

This is a rather confusing paper, that seems to be suggesting that most of the recent warming is natural and that we will see continued warming due to the motion of the Sun around the Solar System's barycentre leading to increased Solar irradiation at the Earth. This seems to be implying that the motion of the Sun around the barycentre can substantially influence the distance from the Sun to the Earth. This, however, seems to violate basic orbital dynamics.

It is well known that the other planets in the Solar System can perturb the orbit of the earth leading to changes in the Earth's eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession. This is known as Milankovitch cycles and they have periods of 10s of thousands of years and are associated with the glacial cycles. However, the semimajor axis of the Earth's orbit remains essentially constant, and so these cycles do not substantially change the average solar irradiation received by the Earth; they do change where it is deposited and it is thought that large changes in solar irradiation at high Northern Latitudes can trigger the switch from a glacial, to an inter-glacial. Even in this scenario, albedo changes due to ice sheet retreat/advance and changes in atmospheric CO2 due to ocean outgassing and vegetation changes, play a key role in moving the system from a glacial to an inter-glacial, or from an inter-glacial to a glacial.

She repeatedly states:

The facts we found in the paper (and I repeat them) :
1. The summary curve showed us the regular oscillations of the baseline of magnetic field with a period of 2000-2100 years.
2. In the past 120 000 years there were about 60 full period of these oscillations.
3. To understand a nature of these oscillations we tested the current cycle of 2000 years and discovered that its minimum was during a Maunder Minimum and it is growing now until 2600.
4. The current 2000 year cycle correlate very closely with Solanki curve (which in our plot we simply divided by factor 5 to separate it from our curve as they are virtually inseparable.
5. Furthermore, this 2000 current curve correlate very closely with Akasofu's baseline temperature increase.
6. Only after we established the items 1-5 above we started looking what can cause them. This is when our attention came to SIM and the numerous papers on it from80s till recently. we did not calculate SIM, we used their calculations.
7. And we discovered from the papers who did SIM calculations that the Sun moves within a circle of 4.3 solar radius (695 000 km), that results in the magnitude of about 0.02 AU. Again we used what people calculated decades before us.
8. The only thing we did is evaluation how would change the solar irradiance if the Sun moves closer or further from different parts of the Earth orbit. This is also valid for orbits of other planets, though they seasons are different.
9. Given the correlation between irradiance curve and temperature increase on the Earth this links all 5 items with 7 and 8.

and is repeatedly asked

Do you claim that the position of the Sun with respect to the solar system barycentre results in a commensurate change in the Sun-Earth distance?

The discussion gets rather heated and is not helped by her poor command of english. however I find her to be quite evasive and unconvincing. Since you probably have read all of her papers, you probably have a better angle on her viewpoint which I would be greatly interested to hear.

Actually could you link to where she makes claims about food shortages as that would be interesting.

Also in terms of 'solar forcing' not being included in models I refer you to the following paper from 2010
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7b8...333.1574660104

To investigate the influence of a new grand minimum of solar activity during the 21st century on future climate,scenarios for the evolution of the various climate forcings until 2100 are required. These future forcings were set up as follows: Anthropogenic forcing follows emission paths corresponding to the A1B and A2 scenarios from the IPCC SRES (Bern‐CC model (reference) output from Appendix II of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [2001]),
and volcanic forcing is constructed by randomly distributing the forcings of 20th‐century eruptions over the 21st to avoid artificial drift of the model resulting from an unnatural lack of volcanic forcing. Three simulation experiments with different solar forcing have been performed: One with the last 11‐year solar activity cycle repeated until 2100, and two with the Sun entering a new grand minimum

It concludes

Results for the evolution of the global mean temperature until the year 2100 show only a small temperature decrease of a future grand minimum of solar activity compared to standard scenarios

[SeaBreezes]

Originally Posted by Tuisceanch

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...tific-reports/



This is the report he is referring to:

https://researchportal.northumbria.a...escale_AAM.pdf



Here is a link which elaborates on SIM

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/p...oPh..110..191F

In the rather scathing article I linked the author summarizes


Here is a thread where Valentina Zharkova attempts to defend her findings with other scientists.

https://pubpeer.com/publications/341...E6A44847C24#72

It begins



She repeatedly states:



and is repeatedly asked





The discussion gets rather heated and is not helped by her poor command of english. however I find her to be quite evasive and unconvincing. Since you probably have read all of her papers, you probably have a better angle on her viewpoint which I would be greatly interested to hear.

Actually could you link to where she makes claims about food shortages as that would be interesting.

Also in terms of 'solar forcing' not being included in models I refer you to the following paper from 2010
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7b8...333.1574660104



It concludes

Loads of info there thank you!

It's going to take me some time to get through it all.
Do you work in the field that you understood and read it all yourself in such time? Or is it natural talent?

She mentions food shortages in this presentation: https://youtu.be/M_yqIj38UmY

Now I agree with you all science should be queried. And robust enough to withstand such query.

So, do you think she got lucky with her equation and solar cycle prediction when everyone else failed? She has been predicting it since before 2010. When NASA got it wrong?

I will need time to go through the queries and rebuttals though, not having your natural talents :-)

[Tuisceanch]

Originally Posted by SeaBreezes

Loads of info there thank you!

It's going to take me some time to get through it all.
Do you work in the field that you understood and read it all yourself in such time? Or is it natural talent?

She mentions food shortages in this presentation: https://youtu.be/M_yqIj38UmY

Now I agree with you all science should be queried. And robust enough to withstand such query.

So, do you think she got lucky with her equation and solar cycle prediction when everyone else failed? She has been predicting it since before 2010. When NASA got it wrong?

I will need time to go through the queries and rebuttals though, not having your natural talents :-)

No I'm just working my way through exploring different angles. My initial post was just my first impressions. I was aware of the media reports on her modelling of the Grand Minimum and Maximum cycle but I don't think I have the actual report. If you could provide a link to that then that would be appreciated. In terms of the current paper I found this comment in the linked article which further elaborates on the major bone of contention:

The Earth orbits the Sun-Earth two-body barycentre, which is close to the centre of the Sun because of the enormous mass ratio. The Sun-Earth system orbits the SS barycentre, mostly affected by Jupiter with a period of 12 years – effectively a three-body system. The Sun-Earth system has an orbital period of 1 year, the (Sun-Earth) – Jupiter system has an orbital period of 12 years, and since the Sun-Jupiter mass ratio is about 1000 it is only a perturbation on the Sun-Earth two-body system. So the Earth’s distance from the Sun does not change with an orbital period of 12 years, as your Mercury6 calculation showed correctly. It is incorrect for that paper to claim that since the Earth orbits the SS barycentre, whilst the Sun also does so, and then claim that because the Sun’s motion exhibits changes in position of up to 0.02 AU relative to the SS barycentre, this must lead to changes in solar radiation received at Earth. The Earth travels around the SS barycentre with the Sun, not independently of the Sun.

I'm currently going through the material in more detail so as to get a better grasp of the subject matter as I would imagine that the OP assertions have some correlation to her findings.

[Coles]

Originally Posted by Danno

I've read this thread with interest, and it didn't take long for the globalists to stick their oar in with one-line pot shots to discredit MTC.



I ask, in great anticipation of your answer, of what "we" need to do more of?

Globalists! Communists! Grrrr!

We need to restructure our economies so that our way of life is sustainable and no longer dependent on resource extraction for economic growth.

[Coles]

@GaothLaidir, you don't appear to understand your own charts?

[Gaoth Laidir]

Originally Posted by Coles

@GaothLaidir, you don't appear to understand your own charts?

Really? Care to elaborate?

[SeaBreezes]

Originally Posted by Tuisceanch

No I'm just working my way through exploring different angles. My initial post was just my first impressions. I was aware of the media reports on her modelling of the Grand Minimum and Maximum cycle but I don't think I have the actual report. If you could provide a link to that then that would be appreciated. In terms of the current paper I found this comment in the linked article which further elaborates on the major bone of contention:



I'm currently going through the material in more detail so as to get a better grasp of the subject matter as I would imagine that the OP assertions have some correlation to her findings.

jeepers don't be assuming anything.

Read MTs article and then you will know what he based his assertions on.

I was only trying to help, you asked for scientific papers on why people were interested in natural warming/cooling cycles and I gave you the path that got my attention.
Including the historic warming, the hunger stones in the Elbe, we've been on this cycle before..

MT is WAY out of my league scientifically. Why you would conflate us is beyond me.

[Coles]

Originally Posted by Birdnuts

The 99% aspire to reach that level of lifestyle so population growth is indeed the key - especially as it already is the main driver of habitat destruction etc. across the planet

So there's the choice:

Reduce the population by 5 billion people (how? who?), or...
Change our culture so that people no longer aspire to live unsustainable lifestyles (this is happening slowly).

[Tuisceanch]

Originally Posted by SeaBreezes

jeepers don't be assuming anything.

Read MTs article and then you will know what he based his assertions on.

I was only trying to help, you asked for scientific papers on why people were interested in natural warming/cooling cycles and I gave you the path that got my attention.
Including the historic warming, the hunger stones in the Elbe, we've been on this cycle before..

MT is WAY out of my league scientifically. Why you would conflate us is beyond me.

Well it was an assumption but apparently not baseless as he is quoted as stating:

The current warming seems to indicate a change in air mass frequency more than a warming up of air masses. This is the conclusion drawn when comparing temperatures in each air mass — these have shown much less upward shift than the average temperature. X remains skeptical of claims that human modification is causing a change in the circulation patterns. He feels that as-yet-undocumented external drivers such as solar system magnetic field variations are driving changes in the circulation, combined with shifts in the earth’s magnetic field.

X says that his money is on natural variability rather than human influence, although he assumes that it’s a blend, perhaps on the order of three parts natural, one part human.

This is not a quote from boards.ie so I won't use his name as it's not appropriate.

So there does seem some correlation between the two viewpoints. It also is in line with my query regarding the dissidents mentioned in the OP. Anyway I'm hoping that this thread will throw some more light on the subject.

[Coles]

Originally Posted by Gaoth Laidir

Really? Care to elaborate?

The Arctic sea ice volume has decreased by 75% since the 1980's. It is melting rapidly.

Greenland melt has increased by 20% in the same period and over the last 20 years has lost 4 trillion tonnes of ice. This is happening. Greenland is melting faster. It is not stable. The rate of melting in Antarctica has tripled. Posting selective charts about sea ice extent, melt area or terminal morraines suggests that you don't fully understand what they mean.

Sea ice extent says nothing about multi year ice volume. Sea ice forms every year. Melt area also doesn't tell anything about melt volume.

From the portions of charts you have posted it's clear that you either don't understand them or you are being deliberately misleading.

Check out what NASA and the IPCC has to say about melt rates.

[Gaoth Laidir]

Originally Posted by M.T. Cranium

If you raise valid concerns about the IPCC theories, you just get a torrent of abuse and hostility (how dare you squared).

Boy were you right.

[Tuisceanch]

Originally Posted by Coles

The Arctic sea ice volume has decreased by 75% since the 1980's. It is melting rapidly.

Greenland melt has increased by 20% in the same period and over the last 20 years has lost 4 trillion tonnes of ice. This is happening. Greenland is melting faster. It is not stable. The rate of melting in Antarctica has tripled. Posting selective charts about sea ice extent, melt area or terminal morraines suggests that you don't fully understand what they mean.

Sea ice extent says nothing about multi year ice volume. Sea ice forms every year. Melt area also doesn't tell anything about melt volume.

From the portions of charts you have posted it's clear that you either don't understand them or you are being deliberately misleading.

Check out what NASA and the IPCC has to say about melt rates.

Yes I have to agree. That is what I understood too so I'm finding assertions to the contrary troubling.