The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Let's do a little test.
Here's one of those sources of mine that doesn't exist.
https://www2.hao.ucar.edu/hao-scienc...limate-forcing
In a nut shell it assignes 2/3 of the global warming we have seen to solar forcing.
Now we wait and watch the believers pretend like it doesn't exist.

The solar orbiter that went up the other day is more brand new instrumentation that is going to study the solar forcing phenomenon.

The data from 1993-1999 would be trash.I've explained why perhaps a year ago.
The data from 1999 on would be in question if the photometers had not been replaced in 1999.And I've already explained that maybe a year ago.
Steller brightness is not the same thing as total solar irradiance.Even the relationship between variability of hydrogen and calcium lines of UV and magnetic activity is unproven.What stars actually do cannot be monitored from Earth,or orbiting satellites.
Those people are free to say whatever they want.And they're perfectly free to be totally wrong.Coincidental is not causal.
The Solar Polar Orbiter won't be looking for anything that wasn't looked at before.It just has a better remote-sensing package aboard.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

This is a rabbit-hole that if you go down it you find that it's the title of a book in German that was never translated to English. What does that say about everything you've ever read? Hmm?

aerohead — Watch for the peer review on this one: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.04633.pdf

It's an immediate fail! It was impossible for their data to be precise,as their readings were off by up to an order of magnitude.I told you this at least a year ago!
Garbage in,garbage out.

[freebeard]

Aren't you pre-judging peer review? What then is the point of demanding per review?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Aren't you pre-judging peer review? What then is the point of demanding per review?

I'm just passing on an observation made by astrophysicists.It's never been proven that insolation maxima have anything to do with interglacials.It doesn't matter how strong or how weak the Sun is.It's never been responsible for climate.
Cosmic particles have never been proven to have anything but a minute effect on climate,so solar magnetic activity is a non-starter.
And total solar irradiance has nothing to do with sunspots.
Milankovitch cycles and the precession of the equinox is the only orbital-solar forcing mechanism to ever be linked to climate change.
Stars,intergalactic dust,gas,plasma,magnetic fields, and the Sun are a dead end.

[aerohead]

A study by The University of Arizona reports that climate change may claim a third of plant and animal species by 2070.Have a nice day.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

A study by The University of Arizona reports that climate change may claim a third of plant and animal species by 2070.Have a nice day.

99.99% of all species that have existed have gone extinct because of climate change, space rocks, the rise of other species, Vulcanism, ect.
Stopping them from going extinct is unnatural.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

99.99% of all species that have existed have gone extinct because of climate change, space rocks, the rise of other species, Vulcanism, ect.
Stopping them from going extinct is unnatural.

Okay.We're done.

[All Darc]

Scientists Continue Developing Alternative Energy Sources For Americans To Waste

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMG5g6MWmvA

;-)

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Scientists Continue Developing Alternative Energy Sources For Americans To Waste

;-)

It is better overall to save energy then it is to make more.

[oil pan 4]

Like a true commie pig.



People said the same thing about democrats and the oil and gas industry in NM. But all they're doing is trying to close one coal fired power plant that's already scheduled to close in 2030 a few years sooner. They won't interrupt that 1.1 billion dollars in oil and gas money going to the state