And then my last comment really boils down to:

How can Soon et al and Connolly et al be so confident with their accounting of UHI, if the avoid looking at 2/3 of the northern hemisphere landmasses

Select to expand quote

D3 said..
If the sun was driving the warming, we'd see it in the stratospheric temperatures (which are cooling in line with expectations from the impact of CO2, not warming due to the supposed increase in solar activity).

If the land data was contaminated by urban heating effects, we wouldn't see similar warming in the ocean.

If the surface temperature data sets were corrupted, why do they line up with the satellite data from the independe AIRS and MSU instruments?



Like I said, if you want to prove your theory is more accurate representation of reality, you need to do good science to back it up.
I'm sure there is a proper review of this paper that would give more precise details as to where it falls short.


I was initially curious, if this paper was supposed to upset current theory and prove the climate change cult scam, why was it published in an off topic journal?

" In a study that attempted to relate solar and human activity to Earth's recent temperature change, Connolly et al. committed a basic error in the choice of statistical methods and so over-reported the effect of the Sun.... "

Erroneous use of Statistics behind Claims of a Major Solar Role in Recent Warming Mark T. Richardson and Rasmus E. Benestad Published 16 November 2022 ? ? 2022. National Astronomical Observatories, CAS and IOP Publishing Ltd.
Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, Volume 22, Number 12
Citation Mark T. Richardson and Rasmus E. Benestad 2022 Res. Astron. Astrophys. 22 125008
DOI 10.1088/1674-4527/ac981c

These fellas have an issue with the research paper mentioned. Given the recent publishing dates, it might be a bit early for peer reviews to flow through. Arguments over statistical regression analysis errors are way over my head, but it will be interesting to see where the consensus falls.

Here's a quite recent paper on cloud formation possibly being influenced by Galactic Cosmic Radiation. They don't make any firm conclusions but of course " more research needs to be done". At least they got funding for research into something that may moderate the catastrophic predictions for climate change. I'd think it doesn't take much of a change in cloud cover to moderate the effect of increased CO2. I think I've read somewhere that clouds are the biggest source of uncertainty in climate modelling.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117724005246

^ thanks for that. I learned new stuff.

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..

Oh Dr Soon's team has produced some great science. Dr Soon is a top Astro-physicist and his numerous colleagues would probably laugh at your assertions.

Soon admits his research was funded by the fossil fuel industry.

Indeed, a very interesting discussion.

I learned several things.

I specifically liked how they talked about scepticism and necessity of rigorous testing for hypothesis.

Select to expand quote

remery said..

peacenlove said..

Oh Dr Soon's team has produced some great science. Dr Soon is a top Astro-physicist and his numerous colleagues would probably laugh at your assertions.

Soon admits his research was funded by the fossil fuel industry.

Being funded by the fossil fuel industry doesn't disprove the research.

Same as the tendency for scientists to back themselves into the same corner due to funding and peer group pressure doesn't prove that they've backed into the wrong corner.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

remery said..

peacenlove said..

Oh Dr Soon's team has produced some great science. Dr Soon is a top Astro-physicist and his numerous colleagues would probably laugh at your assertions.

Soon admits his research was funded by the fossil fuel industry.

Being funded by the fossil fuel industry doesn't disprove the research.

Same as the tendency for scientists to back themselves into the same corner due to funding and peer group pressure doesn't prove that they've backed into the wrong corner.

True, it's good to be aware of the funding sources and potential conflicts. And good scientists will declare them.

Still have assess the study on it's scientific merits, though.

Edit: Apparently Will Soon didn't declare that his work was primarily funded by fossil fuel industry. Hmmmm

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

remery said..

peacenlove said..

Oh Dr Soon's team has produced some great science. Dr Soon is a top Astro-physicist and his numerous colleagues would probably laugh at your assertions.

Soon admits his research was funded by the fossil fuel industry.

Being funded by the fossil fuel industry doesn't disprove the research.

Same as the tendency for scientists to back themselves into the same corner due to funding and peer group pressure doesn't prove that they've backed into the wrong corner.

100%. It sure is easier to dismiss an entire research project on the basis that somewhere, indirectly or directly, some funding came from some sector of industry, than to do the work and find errors or biases in the research hey? That would require actual reasoning and critique.

In this case, any funding from the "fossil fuel" energy sector is discounted by the Cult zealots outright. As if there's never been research with some questionable funding done on the Climate Cult side.

Of course that's possible and Soon's work may have some errors or false assumptions somewhere, but Remery so far hasn't done the work.

So more Climate Cult hot air.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..Still have assess the study on its scientific merits, though.

Ian K said..

Being funded by the fossil fuel industry doesn't disprove the research.

Same as the tendency for scientists to back themselves into the same corner due to funding and peer group pressure doesn't prove that they've backed into the wrong corner.

True, it's good to be aware of the funding sources and potential conflicts.

Still have assess the study on its scientific merits, though.

Yep. Go for it.

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..

Of course that's possible and Soon's work may have some errors or false assumptions somewhere, but Remery so far hasn't done the work.

So more Climate Cult hot air.

Baited. Lol

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..
I see, time for a huge diversion to ocean temperatures.

You're not answering my question. Do you accept that the urban heat island effect is real?

No diversion.

We are discussing that study, right?
Not your obsession with UHIs.

Specifically whether Soon et al have accurately assessed the impact of UHIs in that paper.

They're pretty confident that their assessment and modelling are much better than the IPCCs assessment. The IPCC uses 10%, which they have been using to factor into their modelling which have had better success at matching observed temperatures.

I'd also be interested to know much more about Dr Soon, his research, but more specifically how much he was paid and by whom.

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..
I'd also be interested to know much more about Dr Soon, his research, but more specifically how much he was paid and by whom.

A not very flattering article that covers it.
www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

As to whether his non-disclosure would merit have his article retracted would have been up to the journal editors.

But disclosure of funding is only one aspect scientific integrity.

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..
100%. It sure is easier to dismiss an entire research project on the basis that somewhere, indirectly or directly, some funding came from some sector of industry, ..... So more ...... hot air.

Is that like dismissing any benevolent aims of a charity set up by a national media organisation because of who made a donation to them ?

Or is it, like, totally different, like.

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..
I'd also be interested to know much more about Dr Soon, his research, but more specifically how much he was paid and by whom.

Do you need it in a lovely coloured pie chart ?

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..
Do you need it in a lovely coloured pie chart ?

I've been baited in the past using fake pie charts where I was told that they were 'absolutely' from the BBC. There was no apology. The experience left me traumatized. Then I did the legwork.

We all deserve to know the truth about Dr. Soon.

Select to expand quote

myscreenname ...

We all deserve to know the truth about Dr. Soon.

Dr Soon is a top Astro-physicist, whose research was published in an independent journal because the research is, astonishingly, truly independent, unlike the majority of so-called Climate Research done at the IPCC.


is that good enough for you MSN?*



*this description may require you to do more leg work to find out who Willie Soon actually is. Hint: the above description may be factually incorrect in several key points

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..
I see, time for a huge diversion to ocean temperatures.

You're not answering my question. Do you accept that the urban heat island effect is real?

Much like your diversion to "boiling oceans"when I pointed out that their was no hysteria in the BBC article?

Baited

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..
I'd also be interested to know much more about Dr Soon, his research, but more specifically how much he was paid and by whom.

My recollection is that his funding was about $1.5 million from fossil fuel companies related to the Koch brothers.

The fossil fuel industry is using the same media spin merchants that tried to convince us that smoking was healthy. I'm not generalising, it is the same actual people, well person anyway, a quick scan of IPA background will make this obvious.

Select to expand quote

D3 said..

A not very flattering article that covers it.
www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

As to whether his non-disclosure would merit have his article retracted would have been up to the journal editors.

But disclosure of funding is only one aspect scientific integrity.

MDPI were not very demanding when it came to peer review, but they are getting better.

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..
I've been baited in the past using fake pie charts where I was told that they were 'absolutely' from the BBC. There was no apology. The experience left me traumatized. Then I did the legwork.

We all deserve to know the truth about Dr. Soon.

If we are talking about the same paper; MDPI reviewer reports were included with the publication. One of the reviewers was not happy with Soon's comments about the IPPC, but as was the case with MDPI a while ago, they let the publication through.

Select to expand quote

remery said..

myscreenname said..
I'd also be interested to know much more about Dr Soon, his research, but more specifically how much he was paid and by whom.

My recollection is that his funding was about $1.5 million from fossil fuel companies related to the Koch brothers.

The fossil fuel industry is using the same media spin merchants that tried to convince us that smoking was healthy. I'm not generalising, it is the same actual people, well person anyway, a quick scan of IPA background will make this obvious.

More leg work?! Can't we just cut to the pie chart now?
(In primary colours this time please, just so I can understand it)

Select to expand quote

fangman said..

More leg work?! Can't we just cut to the pie chart now?
(In primary colours this time please, just so I can understand it)

Baited... LoL.


www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/02/fossil-fuel-industry-caught-taking-a-page-out-of-the-tobacco-playbook

No doubt a very biased Institute, yet the newspaper articles cited here do present a humorous list of hyperbolic and sometimes hysterical climate claims, often made by "scientific experts" that proved to be wrong.

None come close to the latest hysterical claim that we have entered and "era of GLOBAL BOILING" though.


cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/


Just one hilarity from the list. I struggled to select one most ridiculous claim.

I guess in the absence of the predicted catastrophes they rolled out CONVID instead.

Nice to see you change topic again.

The topic is whatever we want it to be. That's an organic conversation. My beef has always been the same - climate alarmists get it wrong over and over and over again - but we still chose to believe them. Climate science can't be questioned because "it's settled science" and there's a quote "consensus". Neither beliefs are true.

There are many subset topics, but they all come back to this - we are examining the thinking of Cult members.

Then why did you get so worked up about me apparently not responding to your "do you accept UHIs are real?" Comments?

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..

Rango said..
Observed evidence points to future greening.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32017317/

Mother Earth is an amazing being. Truly divine.

CO2 is plant food.

Carbon based life needs carbon.

Carbon in earth is basically life.

A "war on carbon", "Net Zero", is essentially a restriction and artificial curtailing of life.

Essentially, the BLOB doesn't want us to thrive in freedom. It wants to manipulate us through taxes, regulations, red tape, rules, legal restrictions and if we fail to comply with their dictates, attack us with law fare. This artificial narrative and control creates a false scarcity, and it is this false scarcity that enriches those who are in control of this artificial narrative.

"Carbon in earth is basically life"



inspectapedia.com/hazmat/Carbon_Dioxide_Hazards.php

Yeh ,people became pretty stupid wearing masks all day.Was that correlation or causation.