Hmm was just complaining on another thread about how people seem to grab onto the most weird theories without thinking it through or checking facts. one of my favourites is “it’s the sun” and all I can think is “there is this giant ball of burning gas in the sky and you think the scientists have missed it?”
Good happy to read “research” supporting any of this crackpot twaddle. You can start with these current claims “Global warming is beneficial” Green energy will cause economic harm” Leonardo does not use carbon offsets to mitigate his CO2 use with flights
Lols! You still believe that twaddle? Oooh! Look a whole chapter on “Direct Solar Energy”. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/Chapter-3-Direct-Solar-Energy-1.pdf
Meanwhile POST 389 gets ignored because it is soooo much easier to be caterwauling over a nothing burger about magnetic reverses a classic dodge in full view. Warmist/alarmists are afraid of honest debate.
You forgot the part where the sun expands and contracts in 11-year cycles, can you guess where it's at now?
You know for some thing that apparently is ignoring solar input it sure has unite a bit to say https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/faqs/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FAQ_Chapter_07.pdf
A five year old book is a science that's literally changing and advancing every day? Does it also explain how 400 ppm CO2 molecules causes all our climate worries? Have you colored in all the pictures yet?
Wrong track. My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion This is the contribution to the radiative forcing from different components, as summarized in the IPCC AR5. As you can see, it is claimed that the solar contribution is minute (tiny gray bar). In reality, we can use the oceans to quantify the solar forcing, and see that it was probably larger than the CO2 contribution (large light brown bar). Any attempt to explain the 20th century warming should therefore include this large forcing. When doing so, one finds that the sun contributed more than half of the warming, and climate has to be relatively insensitive. How much? Only 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling, as opposed to the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5. This implies that without doing anything special, future warming will be around another 1 degree over the 21st century, meeting the Copenhagen and Paris goals. The fact that the temperature over the past 20 years has risen significantly less than IPCC models, should raise a red flag that something is wrong with the standard picture.
Yeah, it's totally believable that 400 ppm of CO2 can heat up the atmosphere more than 240W/M2 of solar radiation.
Yes, based on his peer reviewed research. We've been over this. You can read about it here: Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776
No based on cherry picked results meanwhile read page 688 - 691 https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf
You have had your chance but passed it by. I have no interest in playing your games which create great economic pain for low income families.
And your proof of this? Wind is cheaper than coal so what we are seeing is continuing fall in cost of energy from renewables
It’s not cheaper than coal when the full price of energy is considered. If wind is so cheap then why do Germans pay 3X what is payed in the US? Why do low income German families have to decide whether to eat or heat their homes?
You have to look at levelised costs. Now in the past I would link to that proof but I am sick of being played into Brandolinis law so I will post proof when you do
Yeah, you laugh at your own jokes. For the uneducated, here is what they need to be reading and studying. https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/solar-cycles/en/ https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/solar-cycle.html Oh, looky here... even Wikipedia acknowledges the phenomena. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle Oops, no mention of "wobbling" in this article. You're right about something for once. No, I'm not referring to the "wobbling" of the sun.
You have to look at full costs. Levelised costs are misleading. “policymakers and politicians cannot understand why the cost of electricity, and with it prices, continues to increase as the share of solar and wind in the system increases.” — The Unpopular Truth: about Electricity and the Future of Energy by Lars Schernikau, William Hayden Smith https://a.co/378nF39