Nope. Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing? AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION FOR GLOBAL WARMING, OR AT LEAST PART OF IT Solar activity appears to affect climate. This can be seen from many different correlations between solar activity on one hand, and climate on the other. These correlations exist on time scales ranging from the 11-year solar cycle to many millennia (for the two most beautiful correlations, see Neff et al, and Bond et al. in the refs below). Such a link is potentially important for global warming because over the 20th century, solar activity has been increasing. Because the solar correlated climate variations are large, but the total solar irradiance variations are relatively small (a few 0.1%), the latter are most likely not the explanation of climate variability. Instead, different amplifying mechanisms were suggested, mechanisms which can amplify the non-thermal components of the sun (e.g., UV, X-ray, solar wind) and which can considerably vary between an active sun and a quiet one. The leading mechanism to explain the large solar induced climate variability is through solar wind modulation of the cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth, which affects climate through modulation of the amount of atmospheric ionization. Over the past decade, many different pieces of evidence added up to a pretty coherent picture. The activity of the sun manifests its self in many ways. One of them is through a variable solar wind. This flux of energetic particles and entangled magnetic field flows outwards from the sun, and impedes on a flux of more energetic particles, the cosmic rays, which come from outside the solar system. Namely, a more active sun with a stronger solar wind will attenuate the flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth. The key point in this picture is that the cosmic rays are the main physical mechanism controlling the amount of ionization in the troposphere (the bottom 10 kms or so). Thus, a more active sun will reduce the flux of cosmic rays, and with it, the amount of tropospheric ionization. As it turns out, this amount of ionization affects the formation of condensation nuclei required for the formation of clouds in clean marine environment. A more active sun will therefore inhibit the formation of cloud condensation nuclei, and the resulting low altitude marine clouds will have larger drops, which are less white and live shorter, thereby warming Earth. Today, there is ample evidence to support this picture (a succinct introduction can be found here). For example, it was found that independent galactic induced variations in the cosmic ray flux, which have nothing to do with solar activity do too affect climate as one should expect from such a link. There are many more examples. [Added Note (4 Oct. 2006): These recently published experimental results stroingly point towards the validity of this link, as expected] So why is this link important for global warming? As previously mentioned, solar activity has been increasing over the 20th century. This can be seen in fig. 5. Thus, we expect warming from the reduced flux of cosmic rays. Moreover, since the cosmic ray flux actually had a small increase between the 1940's and 1970's (as can be seen in the ion chamber data in fig. 6), this mechanism also naturally explains the global temperature decrease which took place during the same period. Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually quantify empirically the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20th century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005). Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia) Fig. 6: The flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth, as measured by ion chambers. Red line - annual averages, Blue line - 11 yr moving average. Note that ion chambers are sensitive to particles at relatively high energy (several 10's of GeV, which is higher than the energies responsible for the atmospheric ionization [~10 GeV], and much higher than the energies responsible for the 10Be production [~1 GeV]). Plot redrawn using data from Ahluwalia (1997). Moreover, the decrease in high energy cosmic rays since the 1970's is less pronounced in low energy proxies of solar activity, implying that cosmogenic isotopes (such as 10Be) or direct solar activity proxies (e.g., sun spots, aa index, etc) are less accurate in quantifying the solar → cosmic ray → climate link and its contribution to 20th century global warming.
Combatting what seems to be a rising tide of fraud: Guest post: A look behind the scenes of bulk retractions from Sage Adya Misra When I began my graduate work almost 15 years ago, retractions of papers in academic journals were rare, reserved mainly for clear misconduct or serious errors. Today, rarity has given way to routine, with retractions coming more often and increasingly in bulk. Sage is not immune to large-scale retractions, nor are we passive observers of their growth. As Retraction Watch wrote, we were “one of the first publishers to recognize large-scale peer review manipulation and begin retracting papers in bulk nine years ago.” Recently, we issued some major retractions; just in the last few months, we put out 37 from Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and 21 from Concurrent Engineering. And there are more to come. While we don’t celebrate this type of action, the news is not all bad. The high numbers of retractions at times reflect a problem of industrialized cheating, but also, as in our case, a belief that rigorous scholarship – robustly reviewed by researchers who are experts in their fields – can and should improve the world. Sage was founded on this principle, and it guides everything we do. We take our role of vigorously correcting the academic record very seriously because we believe in the scholarly process. We also know that every part of the process is managed by humans with biases (conscious or unconscious), agendas, heavy workloads, and – at times – dubious incentives. As research integrity manager at Sage, I work to safeguard the credibility of the research published in more than 60,000 articles every year across more than 1,100 journals. In my role, I see a lot of unethical practices: peer review rings, where researchers unfairly influence the review process; paper mills that produce mass-fabricated research papers, and the brazen trend of selling authorship or entire papers on private or public forums. When it comes to preventing and correcting this type of action, much goes on behind the scenes. Continue reading
Sage retracts more than 200 papers from journal for compromised peer review The publisher Sage has retracted 209 articles from an engineering journal after an investigation found “compromised peer review or 3rd party involvement,” according to a company spokesperson. The retractions, all from the International Journal of Electrical Engineering & Education, stem from an investigation that led Sage to retract 122 papers – as well as fire the editor-in-chief and purge the editorial board – in December 2021. At that time, the company marked 318 additional papers “with more complex issues” with expressions of concern as it continued investigating. All of the papers retracted today previously had expressions of concern. The 209 articles were retracted with five different notices. Some articles “contain indicators of third-party involvement” and the corresponding authors “were unable to provide a satisfactory explanation,” one read. Continue reading
Nope. Temperature fell ~1940-70 when CO2 was rising rapidly. The paleoclimate association of CO2 and temperature is due to the changing solubility of CO2 in seawater with temperature, as proved by the fact that CO2 correlates much better with previous than with succeeding temperature. There is something like 50x as much CO2 dissolved in seawater as in the atmosphere, so the ocean temperature dog wags the atmospheric CO2 tail. And if not...
Here is a big one that just hit. https://www.sciencealert.com/a-cont...or-paper-has-finally-been-retracted-by-nature More and more, it seems that so many "journals" are in such a rush to be the first to break something potentially "new", that they are not really using due diligence to actually validate the claims. And are seeming more and more like the National Enquirer than actual serious sources for new discoveries.
Below I have some historical temperature and CO2 charts. Take from it what you will. I'm not going to argue this, because one, I am not an expert on the climate, and two, I think this is self-evident.
Sure it is, the are trying to chase the data. Notice how fine the line is prior to around 1850, and how widely varied it is afterwards. That is simply because that is when modern accurate scientific instruments were invented, so they started taking measurements everywhere of everything. And the thing is, it should be the exact opposite. The line after then should be the fine and clearly obvious line as they are actually starting to use actual data collected and not extrapolating based on secondary sources to get an estimate of what things like temperatures and CO2 levels are. For example, one of the main methods has long been examining the shells of plankton found in ocean sediment. As a great many only live in certain temperature ranges. But they live in ranges, of several degrees above or below their preference. That is why they are estimates, the actual temperature may be several degrees higher or lower than the preference of that plankton. So any time I see the detail is more fine prior to modern instruments and more widely varied afterwards, I start to feel the need to shake my head because I know they are essentially lying. And I find the Mona Loa chart even more questionable. You mean to tell me that the CO2 levels varied by almost the exact same amounts, going up and down that precisely for over 6 decades? Holy hell, who even needs an atomic clock? Just set your time to whatever the freaking CO2 is at that particular moment, that is so precise it is incredible. It is inconsistencies like that which is likely why a lot of people myself tend to dismiss a great many of the claims. They make these pretty graphs and charts, but when analyzed logically they start to actually make very little sense.
To simply accept research as valid without observing its standard is extremely naive. You don't merely accept research as valid because it's "research".
At one time, being considered "discriminating" was a good thing. "He has discriminating taste" for example was a complement. And today, a lot of people want to make that kind of thing go away. Accept anything that is published, no matter what. Oh, and only so long as all that is published matches their own views as well. I actually do not cherry pick things, but I do tend to be a skeptic. And the more something contradicts past trends and examples, the more skeptical I become.
In my opinion.... the response to Covid 19 proves that scientists and medical researchers are highly susceptible to pressure from BigPharma...... ... on the plus side....... this could turn into a cash cow for ordinary people if we are willing to get together to do some Class Action Lawsuits against the big players who really messed up badly....... http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ass-action-lawsuit-against-bill-gates.591367/ ? Should Israelis be discussing a Class Action Lawsuit against Bill Gates? * Perhaps... depending on what information comes out over the coming weeks and months? 4 vote(s) 28.6% No... his investments almost certainly saved lives and did far, far, far more good than harm. 0 vote(s) 0.0% Yes....... Israelis in a sense have been experimented on 1 vote(s) 7.1% Yes 1 vote(s) 7.1% No 8 vote(s) 57.1% Change Your Vote
Studying censorship: Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists PNAS https://www.pnas.org › doi › pnas.2301642120 by CJ Clark · 2023 — Prosocial motives for censorship may explain four observations: 1) widespread public availability of scholarship coupled with expanding ...
Peer review takes another hit. Monday Mirthiness: Mind Blowing Failure of “Science” to Police Itself – Shame on Springer Link Anthony Watts How in the HELL does a “scientific” paper get published by Springer with “bullshit” in the title and used over 100 times in the paper?
None is fraudulent but some new theories are relatively errorous. Scientific theories evolve over time. Sometimes they're replaced by completely new theories that are more accurate. Why do you think there are fraudsters at work?
And how do you interpret that? Do you know that scientists who intentionally cheat risk their careers?
An intentional hoax: A closer look at the ‘chocolate with high cocoa content’ hoax We are pleased to present an excerpt from The Predatory Paradox: Ethics, Politics, and Practices in Contemporary Scholarly Publishing by Amy Koerber, Jesse C. Starkey, Karin Ardon-Dryer, R. Glenn Cummins, Lyombe Eko, and Kerk F. Kee, published by Open Book Publishers, October 2023. In 2015, Johannes Bohannon, along with three coauthors, published an article titled ‘Chocolate with High Cocoa Content as a Weight Loss Accelerator’ in the International Archives of Medicine. The article reported results from a study that divided participants into three groups, with a different diet assigned to each group, and concluded that ‘Subjects of the chocolate intervention group experienced the easiest and most successful weight loss’ (p. 1). In a personal account published later, journalist John Bohannon described the article as an intentional hoax that he and his coauthors had carried out in response to a request from a German film crew who was making a documentary on the ‘junk-science diet industry.’ To implement the hoax, Bohannon and his coauthors created an ‘Institute of Diet and Health’ that existed only as a website, and he assumed the name ‘Johannes Bohannon’ as lead author of the study. As he explained, the research reported in the article was actually conducted, but it was “terrible science,” including major flaws that would have been detected if the article had undergone a legitimate peer-review process. Bohannon and his colleagues’ ‘Chocolate with High Cocoa Content’ article was retracted shortly after it was published, and the editors of International Archives of Medicine published a retraction notice dated 10 June 2015 (Editorial Office 2015). The editors’ decision to retract this article ostensibly served to correct the scientific record and prevent the erroneous data reported in the published study from being circulated in subsequent literature. This manner of correcting the scientific record is an important purpose of retractions, as defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): Continue reading
Belated April Fool: Publisher error claims joke paper, April Fools’ tradition – three years later A journal says a content management mishap led to the publication, and subsequent retraction, of a gag essay not intended for wide distribution. Why the retraction happened three and a half years after the paper’s publication remains murky. This story belongs to the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, back when Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics, a Wiley title, used to gather spoof papers for its annual April Fools edition. As Kristofer Barr, an assistant research integrity auditor at Wiley, told us: Continue reading
No it isn't. You are just invoking conspiracy theory nonsense to avoid thinking about the issue. No, that's just another bald falsehood from you. Many conspiracy theories have been proven true. You seem to be making the false, absurd, and disingenuous claim that there has never been any such thing as a conspiracy at all. Is that really your claim? REALLY??
More fraud uncovered. Springer Nature journal pulls nearly three dozen papers from special issues A Springer Nature journal retracted 34 papers earlier this month, including, ironically enough, one on how to detect fake news, which appeared in special guest-edited issues hacked by publication cheats. Special issues have emerged over the past few years as particularly vulnerable to paper mills. Last March, we reported that Wiley was taking a $9 million write-down after its Hindawi subsidiary paused publication of such issues because they were badly hacked by paper mills. “Hybrid deep learning model for automatic fake news detection,” from a group in Turkey led by Othman A. Hanshal, was published last February in Applied Nanoscience. The retraction notice reads: Continue reading
Hey, listen to this....just to add to your paranoia https://freakonomics.com/podcast/can-academic-fraud-be-stopped/
The retraction of 80 papers at once suggests a systemic problem. Journal retracts 80 papers ID’d as paper mill products following sleuth’s report, Undark-Retraction Watch investigation Nearly two years after being warned one of its journals appeared to be the target of a paper mill operation, Taylor & Francis has retracted 80 articles that appeared in that journal. Last June, Undark and Retraction Watch reported on the efforts of a sleuth using the name Aishwarya Swaminathan to alert Taylor & Francis and other publishers starting in April 2022 that a data scientist named Gunasekaran Manogaran allegedly runs “a research paper publishing scam” that targets special issues. Such issues appear to be particularly vulnerable to paper mills. Another sleuth, Nick Wise, also worked to suss out the problems, and El Pais reported on the links between Manogaran and a professor in Spain in October. Now, Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B — Soil & Plant Science has retracted 80 papers, all with a notice that specifies the name of the relevant special issue: Continue reading
