If they are then they have just won respect and admiration of the alarmists regardless of what they do.
Climate-Denier Scientist Caught Accepting Bribes from Koch Brothers
- Thread starter tay
- Start date
at all? Really? Member Tonington just spoke of the nonsensical simple one-model paper Soon co-authored with wing-nut Monckton. Whether it's back to his earlier paleo related writings... or polar bears, etc., it seems it always glaringly comes back to "Willie and the Sun":
It’s the Sun, stupid!
"The most recent scientific evidence shows that even small changes in solar radiation have a strong effect on Earth’s temperature and climate.
"In 2005, I demonstrated a surprisingly strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years. Since then, I have demonstrated similar correlations in all the regions surrounding the Arctic, including the US mainland and China.
"The close relationships between the abrupt ups and downs of solar activity and of temperature that I have identified occur locally in coastal Greenland; regionally in the Arctic Pacific and north Atlantic; and hemispherically for the whole circum-Arctic, suggesting that changes in solar activity drive Arctic and perhaps even global climate.
"There is no such match between the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the often dramatic ups and downs of surface temperatures in and around the Arctic.
"I recently discovered direct evidence that changes in solar activity have influenced what has been called the “conveyor-belt” circulation of the great Atlantic Ocean currents over the past 240 years. For instance, solar-driven changes in temperature, and in the volume of freshwater output from the Arctic, cause variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic 5-20 years later.
"These previously undocumented results have been published in the journal Physical Geography. They make it difficult to maintain that changes in solar activity play an insignificant role in climate change, especially over the Arctic.
"The evidence in my paper is consistent with the hypothesis that the Sun causes climatic change in the Arctic.
"It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of observed climate change – and raises serious questions about the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or other policies that would cripple energy production and economic activity, in the name of “preventing catastrophic climate change.”
"Bill Clinton used to sum up politics by saying, “It’s the economy, stupid!” Now we can fairly sum up climate change by saying, “It’s the Sun, stupid!”
"In 2005, I demonstrated a surprisingly strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years. Since then, I have demonstrated similar correlations in all the regions surrounding the Arctic, including the US mainland and China.
"The close relationships between the abrupt ups and downs of solar activity and of temperature that I have identified occur locally in coastal Greenland; regionally in the Arctic Pacific and north Atlantic; and hemispherically for the whole circum-Arctic, suggesting that changes in solar activity drive Arctic and perhaps even global climate.
"There is no such match between the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the often dramatic ups and downs of surface temperatures in and around the Arctic.
"I recently discovered direct evidence that changes in solar activity have influenced what has been called the “conveyor-belt” circulation of the great Atlantic Ocean currents over the past 240 years. For instance, solar-driven changes in temperature, and in the volume of freshwater output from the Arctic, cause variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic 5-20 years later.
"These previously undocumented results have been published in the journal Physical Geography. They make it difficult to maintain that changes in solar activity play an insignificant role in climate change, especially over the Arctic.
"The evidence in my paper is consistent with the hypothesis that the Sun causes climatic change in the Arctic.
"It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of observed climate change – and raises serious questions about the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or other policies that would cripple energy production and economic activity, in the name of “preventing catastrophic climate change.”
"Bill Clinton used to sum up politics by saying, “It’s the economy, stupid!” Now we can fairly sum up climate change by saying, “It’s the Sun, stupid!”
I don't find their work very convincing, but that is on the merit of the science itself, not because they received payment for their research.
Yep, and it looks like Harvard Smithsonian is putting as much distance as they can between Soon and their institute:
https://www.facebook.com/Smithsonian/posts/10153248862079574?fref=nf
This one might actually send him looking for work elsewhere.
of course it doesn't but those brainwashed with the disease will try and make it relevant.
at least he didn't lie about a nobel prize.
Of course not, I discussed his weird findings earlier. In fact I even said I don't care where his money comes from, so long as the science is good. It's not.
And yet valid, peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal.
What is weird about that? The funding?
Well he admits to a 20th century warming, but not in the Arctic. Whereas most people, myself included, would say that warming in Artcic has actually been more pronounced than 20th century global warming.
And of course, if it is the sun, then you have to explain why CO2 isn't playing a role, because it's pretty fundamental physics that CO2 absorbs and emits in the infrared spectrum.
And of course, if it is the sun, then you have to explain why CO2 isn't playing a role, because it's pretty fundamental physics that CO2 absorbs and emits in the infrared spectrum.
Maybe, just maybe it explains the missing 2/3 of the rate of warming and why NASA says we have to wait for solar cycle 25 for it to come back IF it does?
Does the jar theory vary if you use a higher or lower wattage of lightbulb?
I already told you what was weird. The results, which I discussed earlier in this thread. If you're actually interested, stop being lazy and read the thread. I'm not interested in being your dance partner.
For everyone else, maybe a lot of you reading this thread don't know, but Soon has a history of publishing in obscure journals with less rigorous review processes. Most of his publications are involving a correlation between temperatures (mostly the Arctic), and a now defunct solar proxy which was shown to be an artifact of data processing. Correlations...that disappear when using a proper solar time series.
His first real fame, or rather infamy came in 2003 when he published a 1000 year temperature reconstruction with Sallie Baliunas. The editor they selected at the journal decided to publish it. Three editors quit, the incoming Editor-in-Chief Hans von Storch also quit, and thirteen of the researchers cited by Soon wrote rebuttals that explained how Soon had misrepresented and misunderstood their conclusions. The particular thing to note is that until that time, Climate Research had no Editor-in-Chief. Editors could send the paper out to whomever they liked. Soon and Baliunas found an editor in Chris de Freitas with a similar outlook to their own, gave him the paper, and then he shopped it out to friendly reviewers.
He has a long history of bad science, and shopping it around to journals that don't mind the buzz and controversy, and with less stringent review processes.
The math is clear 2/3 of the previous rate of warming went bye bye.
Holy f-ck! The entire solar in solar out global warming driver is based on watts but now it isn't? WTF?
Weird!