Starting around 2008 and extending through 2012, Scaffeta kept predicting imminent strong global cooling. So did Soon and the whole solar crowd. Oops. No biggie. They were just as wrong with their predictions as it's possible to be. Mainstream AGW science goes out on a limb and presents a series of connected hypothesis to explain the current fast warming. If one hypothesis fails, the whole system tumbles down. The theory is falsifiable in many ways. That's good science practice. Needless to say, none of the hypotheses have failed. Scafetta and West and Soon the sun-worshippers don't do that. They toss together a pastiche of ad hoc theories, none of which really relates to the other. When one theory invariably gets proven to be false, either by the passage of time, or by having its obvious errors pointed out, they just retreat to another bad theory. If your theory can't be disproved, it's not science. The "It's the sun!" theories can't be disproved. This is a good history of the decades of failure of the "It's the sun!" movement. It's by a good scientist, Gavin Schmidt. That will trigger deniers hard, because he's on their EnemiesOfTheParty list, along with people like Dr. Mann or John Cook. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/as-soon-as-possible/
Holy crap, it is right there on the page I pointed to. And you said you could not find it? *shakes head* It is literally the first complete sentence on the page I linked. Of course, this was written less than a decade after geological proof was found that ice ages did indeed exist, and were cyclical. And that the most recent one was not the first so would likely not be the last. And it was made the very year that Alfred Wegener described continental drift, as to be accurate the actual mechanism of plate tectonics would not be described for another 50 years.
Like Gavin Schmidt, you apparently prefer to attack people rather than discuss the science. That, I suppose is your loss more than anyone's. Speaking of Gavin, he recently got his clock cleaned in a public dispute with Roy Spencer. Just sayin'.
See? I told you the cult gets triggered if an OfficialEnemyOfTheParty is mentioned. The piece was entirrely about the science. Jack doesn't know that, and doesn't want to know. The cult defines Gavin Schmidt as a heretic, therefore Jack is forbidden from looking at his work.
Sorry, but Gavin's screed was just an extended ad hominem with graphs for cover. Had it been "about the science" there would have been no need to even mention names.
I'm being kind by assuming you still didn't read the piece, given that your description of it -- a paper entirely about science -- is so at odds with reality. I get it. He does real science and uses the science to show how bad your side's theories are, so you've been commanded to HatesHimForever. Your side tends to use pay-to-publish journals with denier editors. Funny how that works, don't you think? Our side doesn't rely on pay-to-publish or ideologically committed editors. Go fig. So, what data could disprove your solar theory? If your theory isn't disprovable, it's not science. We on the ratinoal side don't have any problems showing what would disprove our theory. A long cooling trend would do it. Needless to say, that hasn't happened. FIlter out the ENSO, and it's been steady warming, just as predicted, at the rate predicted.
https://www.space.com/22471-red-gia...ately five billion years,to the red giant sun. https://www.astronomy.com/observing...the-planets-when-the-sun-becomes-a-red-giant/ Sorry, the only think I can think of when it comes to mass is that indeed our sun is too small to become a supernova in it's final stages. That is believed to require a star at least 1.4 masses of our sun. However, it is believed that there will be a much smaller nova when the final core implodes. So I can only postulate that you are confusing a supernova with a red giant.
complete idiocy. the suns brightness has little or nothing to do with the amount of fuel (mass) it has
It's a good article. Thanks for sharing. However, after reading that section, I find that the excerpt which I have provided, is not taken out of context at all.
If it is only highlighting one part and not others, it very much is. The entire article discusses a great many things about the climate that were being discovered over a century ago. Cutting only a single sentence and saying that is the main point is a failure, as is any cherry picking. And the article is not about "Fossil Fuel", as much as it is about trying to bring together a slew of various recent discoveries at the time and trying to predict what could happen in the future. And notice something that is not even mentioned at all in this article, the "Little Ice Age". Well, of course it is not mentioned because that was not "discovered" for another quarter century. It took a lot more research and gathering of scientific evidence until it could be determined that at the time that article was written it was in the earliest stages of warming from the coldest period since the Younger Dryas some 10ky before. And multiple times they bring up cycles of temperature that had recently been discovered, and are trying to make sense of how it could be used to predict future trends. However, part of proper excerpting and referencing is actually providing the entire source material, so others can read to see if what you claimed was actually the intent and purpose of the article it is being taken from. I tend to see anything else as being dishonest. And trying to cut a single paragraph out of that article is not unlike what is referenced in the meme. One needs to be honest enough to provide the original source in its entirety so others can read the material and make up their own minds as to what it says. And that is something I find oddly lacking in a great many of these debates. Which is something I find rather funny to be honest, as I bet almost none really know what my beliefs in this are. Yet, if I call somebody out for coprolite I must obviously be the enemy and oppose them. When in reality the only thing I really oppose is dishonesty in references and sources. If one can not be honest in their sources, I have to ask what else they are being dishonest in.
Ah, but I did read it. Again, had it really been about the science there would have been no need to mention names, but that would have precluded the personal attacks which were the real point. Your claim about what a "side" does to publish is both without foundation and revealing of a certain paranoia on your part.
Looks to me like you are the one who either didn't read it, or didn't understand what it was intended to do. BWAHAHHAHHAAAA!!! A centuries-long LIA-like cold period accompanied by sustained high solar activity, followed by a century-scale warming period accompanied by sustained low solar activity. I.e., the opposite of what has actually been observed. Except that your theory actually has been disproved, and your belief in it has been unaffected. You just change the data to conform to your theory. No, because that long cooling trend already happened -- from the 1940s to the 1970s -- and your side simply concocted some dishonest nonscience to explain it away, and retroactively falsified the temperature data to remove it from the record. Yes it has. See above. Your side just contrived to make it not have happened. Garbage. Arctic sea ice is about where it was 80 years ago. If there has been so much warming, plus "polar amplification," that would be impossible. Your theory has been conclusively disproved, and your belief in it has been utterly unaffected.
The stuff you say doesn't isn't related to reality in any way. That's just one reason nobody pays attention to you. Life is too short to bother with cranks. Have fun shaking your fist at the clouds.
You're supposed to critique a paper without mentioning the author's name, or his past history of making the same stupid mistakes? You're losing it.
That is a bald falsehood from you, as usual. I stated known and indisputable facts of objective physical reality. You just don't like those facts because they prove your beliefs are false. Simple. Does such transparently contentless tripe really help you avoid knowing the facts that prove your beliefs are false? How sad.
Sorry, but Gavin spends little time or space on the paper you claim he's critiquing. The bulk of his screed is devoted to personal attacks -- which was the point.
