Challenging UN, Study Finds Sun –not CO2 — May Be Behind Global Warming

Posted: August 17, 2021 by oldbrew in climate, IPCC, research, Temperature
Tags: , ,

.

Finding the Sun the main player in climate would be the default position in any normal world, but now it gets billed as the challenger.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

The sun and not human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) may be the main cause of warmer temperatures in recent decades, according to a new study with findings that sharply contradict the conclusions of the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The peer-reviewed paper, produced by a team of almost two dozen scientists from around the world, concluded that previous studies did not adequately consider the role of solar energy in explaining increased temperatures.

The new study was released just as the UN released its sixth “Assessment Report,” known as AR6, that once again argued in favor of the view that man-kind’s emissions of CO2 were to blame for global warming. The report said human responsibility was “unequivocal.”

But the new study casts serious doubt on the hypothesis.

View original post 642 more words

Comments
  1. pochas94 says:

    Who’d have thunk it.

  2. JB says:

    Well, the perspicacious individual recognizes that most of what is passed off as science is little more than confirmation bias exercises. This has been so for at least the last two centuries, if not back to the beginning of the Renaissance.

    Those down in the trenches of solid scientific testing seldom receive acknowledgement and kudos for their intellectual honesty and diligence. To them I am indebted.

  3. oldbrew says:

    Noting that most so-called ‘greenhouse’ gas is water vapour not CO2, we can guess what the right answer is to ‘no one knows which absorbs the most’.

  4. Paul Vaughan says:

    the strategy seems to be:
    1. permanently ignore exploration that got it right.
    2. design and release endless streams of studies getting it wrong.

    so the error here is being a follower of #2, ignorance of which is bliss

  5. Chaswarnertoo says:

    That hot yellow thing in the sky affects our weather? Cor!

  6. tom0mason says:

    The UN-IPCC (and the climate models) make mathematical assumptions that are the equivalent to saying there is only one set of equations that can give the required numbers; therefore this method must be correct. The UN-IPCC willfully ignore all the other variables and events that affect many other parameters of the climate, for they would make all this theory so much less certain, or very probably wrong.
    Can they answer the elementary question of why Death Valley has a higher average and maximum temperature than the top of Mt. Ranier? It’s not because of CO2.

  7. oldbrew says:

    AUGUST 17, 2021
    Majority of climate change news coverage now accurate: study
    — by University of Colorado at Boulder

    Even though outlets around the world are becoming increasingly less biased when it comes to climate news—there’s one place it still continues to fail, the team found: conservative media. Canada’s National Post, Australia’s Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph, and the U.K.’s Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, all historically conservative outlets, had significantly less accurate coverage of climate change.

    https://phys.org/news/2021-08-majority-climate-news-coverage-accurate.html
    – – –
    ‘now accurate’ — what was it before now? And who gets to define its accuracy?

    ‘increasingly less biased’ – promoting doom and gloom rates as unbiased now.

  8. stpaulchuck says:

    but Mann and the others said the solar variability was not a factor

    https://dilbert.com/strip/2017-5-14

    https://assets.amuniversal.com/97ed9410fd89013486fb005056a9545d

  9. fgsjr2015 says:

    Meanwhile, stupid-sounding catchphrases are uttered and regurgitated, like “It’s the economy, stupid!”

  10. fgsjr2015 says:

    Regardless, far too many people still recklessly behave as though throwing non-biodegradable garbage down a dark chute, or pollutants emitted out of exhaust and drainage pipes, or spewed from sky-high jet engines and very tall smoke stacks — or even the largest contamination events — can somehow be safely absorbed into the air, sea, and land (i.e. out of sight, out of mind); like we’re inconsequentially dispensing of that waste into a black-hole singularity, in which it’s compressed into nothing.

    For dangerously too long, collective human existence has been analogous to a cafeteria lineup consisting of diversely societally represented people, all adamantly arguing over which identifiable person should be at the front and, conversely, at the back of the line. Many of them further fight over to whom amongst them should go the last piece of quality pie and how much they should have to pay for it — all the while the interstellar spaceship on which they’re all permanently confined, owned and operated by (besides the wealthiest passengers) the fossil fuel industry, is on fire and toxifying at locations not normally investigated.

    [reply] throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not the best way forward

  11. oldbrew says:

    Today’s sunspot number is 16.
    https://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=23&month=08&year=2021
    – – –
    Still waiting for SC 25 to liven up.

  12. dolphinwrite says:

    Here’s a poser. If a person creates water flow down a slide, as with three hoses, equidistant from one another, share what you understand about how the water flows. I would ask a few questions to be answered: 1) If the flow rate (and you’ll have to determine what that rate is, then give data on changes) is constant, what forces exist within each hose and what forces are there interacting between the three? What slide materials increase flow, and what are the reasons for this? Does the flow from each hose increase or decrease if we move the other hoses away? Why? What forces within each hose increase or decrease flow as pressure increases? What about slide and hose temperatures? 2) With the given data, should a pool be at the end of the slide, how fast would the pool fill up given flow rates, evaporation, temperatures, wind, and other interactions, and name those other interactions. 3) Demonstrate your understanding on spread sheets and show all elements.
    **Here’s the purpose of the question. Certainly, anyone with common sense can see the above question is extremely easy compared to making claims about man-made global anything or knowing the ramifications of a new, but unknown MRNA vaccine, which has never before been used population-wide. If a propagandist can explain the paragraph above, demonstrating numbers, flow rates, resistance, and include all factors involved, with incredible accuracy, then we might consider you have some understanding regarding the Earth, but we’ll still know you’re so far away. However, in attempting to run the numbers regarding flow rates and slide materials, including a filling pool and things like evaporation, splash, and other creatures drinking, you might discover real science is far beyond the capability of people making gigantic claims. You see, it’s always easier to believe something no one can prove, then to prove something far easier. Try the above. If you can, then we might believe you are sincere in your efforts to understand larger concepts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s