No Mention Of CO2: New Study Shows African Climate Variability Strongly Linked To Natural Cycles

Reposted from The NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin on 5. March 2021

Africa climate variability linked to natural oceanic and solar cycles, a new study affirms. No mention of CO2. 

Image source: “Decadal and multidecadal natural variability of African rainfall“.

A new study analyzes patterns of natural rainfall variability and can provide crucial assistance to African countries in seasonal rainfall forecasting for agriculture and protection against droughts & heavy rains.

Understanding natural cycles the key to model projections

Sufficient rainfall is the basic condition for high-yield agriculture and food security for the population. Until recently, however, it was not possible to reliably predict rainfall several months in advance, which repeatedly led to unexpected crop failures. For some years now, however, progress has been emerging. The literature has repeatedly reported exciting correlations between temperature and air pressure patterns on the world’s oceans with rainfall and droughts in Africa and on other continents.

A group of researchers led by Horst-Joachim Lüdecke wanted to know more and meticulously searched for patterns in the monthly rainfall data of 49 African countries for the period 1901 to 2017 using statistical methods.

“Large number of robust correlations”

The scientists compared the rainfall fluctuations with five oceanic indices of natural origin that are firmly established in science, as well as with solar activity. The evaluation revealed a large number of robust correlations across the African continent with characteristic seasonal patterns. It has been known for some time that the Atlantic Ocean influences precipitation in Morocco and the Sahel via the so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). In East Africa, influences from the Indian and Pacific Oceans have been reported so far.

Lüdecke and his team were able to confirm these connections and add many more relations, differentiated by month with high temporal resolution.

Since some of the correlations have a time lag of up to 11 months, valuable forecasting opportunities are now opening up. These are of great practical use for agricultural planning as well as for protection against droughts and heavy rainfall. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke explains: “At the beginning of the year, for example, parts of Namibia experienced heavy rainfall that caused destructive floods. Our evaluation showed that rainfall intensity in southwest Africa regularly increases in the presence of a negative NAO ocean cycle. So in the future, appropriate precautions can be taken in the region when such a constellation looms again.”

Lake Victoria level linked to Indian Ocean cycles

Co-author Sebastian Lüning from the Institute of Hydrography, Geoecology and Climate Sciences describes another example: “The water level of Lake Victoria in East Africa fell to a historic low in 2006, which was cause for concern at the time. Subsequently, however, the lake level rose again and reached an all-time high at the end of 2020. Today we know: The driver of the changes is apparently the so-called Indian Ocean Dipole. When the index is positive, the lake level of Lake Victoria typically rises and then falls again when the index is negative [See article here]. We were also able to prove such a relation in our study for the rainy season in October and November.”

A co-author from the Technical University of Berlin was instrumental in the complex statistics of the study.

Important forecasting tool for agriculture

The team of authors hopes: “Our results give local and humanitarian planners a good tool to better assess the drought risk, which changes from year to year. This will allow for the timely creation of additional irrigation opportunities in agriculture or the purchase of food in particularly dry years.”

The study was published in early March in the renowned journal “Journal of Hydrology – Regional Studies” and can be downloaded free of charge. This was particularly important to the authors, as the results are thus freely available to all colleagues at African universities and research institutions. The publication fee was kindly covered by the sponsor Jens Kröger.

The original publication can be downloaded here free of charge (open access). Another link to the appendix with numerous additional analyses and data can be found in the online article in Appendix A.

4.3 25 votes
Article Rating
67 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul Stevens
March 6, 2021 6:23 pm

Is this like real science? It is if they have made predictions based on their new understanding of the linkages. Just have to wait and see if the predictions (if any) come to pass.

Paul Stevens
Reply to  Paul Stevens
March 6, 2021 6:23 pm

But, of course, no mention of CO2 means their funding will dry up.

commieBob
Reply to  Paul Stevens
March 6, 2021 7:11 pm

I think this was a shoestring project.

We thank Chris Folland for valuable discussions. Note that this study is fully unrelated to the last author’s employment in the hydrocarbon sector and was neither commissioned nor funded by the energy industry. SL undertook this study outside office hours as a private person, trained geoscientist, and former full-time academic. The vectorised Africa base map in this paper was sourced from http://www.d-maps.com, a useful service for which we are thankful. We are grateful to three anonymous reviewers who greatly helped to improve this manuscript. We thank Jens Kröger for funding the Open Access Publication Fee.

It looks like a buddy personally paid the Open Access Publication fee.

We also have this:

Our empirical results may help to further improve short- to midterm rainfall prognoses in Africa and provide important calibration data for the further improvement of climate models.

Hmmm.

They wrote a paper about weather prediction. They stuck to their knitting. As far as I can tell, they don’t need much funding.

Gee, it looks like real science.

Jean Parisot
Reply to  commieBob
March 7, 2021 7:19 am

Just because it will come up, what’s the range of costs associated with the Open Access Publication fee?

If it’s reasonable, I would participate – anonymously thru WUWT in funding others.

commieBob
Reply to  Jean Parisot
March 7, 2021 7:39 am

For the American Journal of Physics, the open access fee is $3000. link

Jean Parisot
Reply to  Paul Stevens
March 7, 2021 7:16 am

No CO2, falsifiable, and available openly – next you’ll tell me their data is available and they will cooperate with attempts to replicate.

Isn’t this is blasphemy?

Nick Graves
Reply to  Paul Stevens
March 7, 2021 1:22 am

It does seem to read like real science.

Nothing to laugh at here.

Other than imagining the Mannopath having a hissy fit.

H.R.
March 6, 2021 6:33 pm

@CTM, assuming you picked the picture for the article:

That picture did my heart immeasurable good. It totally captures the joy of the rains coming where rains are needed.

That there is one kid who doesn’t give a rat’s patootie about CO2 but takes joy in the rain which will help feed him.

If not you, then all credit where credit is due for that joyous picture.

Thank you.

Joel O'Bryan
March 6, 2021 6:48 pm

The authors here, Horst-JoachimLüdecke, Gisela Müller-Plath, Michael G.Wallace, and Sebastian Lüning, apparently didn’t get the memo from Uber Fraudster and Pseudo-scientist Michael Mann that the AMO has been cancelled.

fred250
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 6, 2021 7:12 pm

“Sebastian Lüning” is very much a REALIST when it comes to climate.

Been around a while. 🙂

He knows the “carbon affecting the climate” meme, is a con.

Pretty sure Michael Wallace is, as well.

I think I’ve seen the other names in rational non-cult scientific studies, too.

Reply to  fred250
March 7, 2021 5:23 am

Lüning is co-author with Vahrenholt of “the neglected Sun”, Lüdecke leading member of EIKE, CC-skeptic organisation and Wallace publishes about the accuracy of pH measurement by “climate scientists” – writing against ocean “acidification”

Erik Magnuson
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 6, 2021 8:54 pm

The authors committed the mortal sin of basing their paper on observations as opposed to the computer models deemed righteous and holy by Mann. Unlike the output of the likes of Mann, the authors’ work may make a lot of peoples lives better.

This also makes me wonder if some of the insights could be applied to climate modeling.

Vincent
March 6, 2021 6:55 pm

The failure of most of the general public and most politicians to understand that climate is always changing in natural cycles, has serious consequences for the victims of extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts and hurricanes.

Adaption and the preparation for the likely recurrence of such extreme weather events that are known to have occurred in the past, would be the most sensible action. Unfortunately, such an approach would be inconsistent with the narrative that CO2 emissions are the main problem, regarding climate change.

If Governments were to convince the population that it was necessary to spend trillions of dollars building more dams and long water pipes to protect against floods and droughts, and building more sturdy infrastructure and homes that could withstand the forces of previous hurricanes that were known to have occurred in the past, in a particular area, then the Governments and the Media couldn’t simultaneously create a scare about the consequences of increasing CO2 emissions to encourage trillions of dollars to also be spent on developing renewable energy sources.

It doesn’t have to be entirely one or the other, but an emphasis on one scenario weakens the case for the other scenario.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Vincent
March 6, 2021 7:07 pm

The climate scam is about controlling that which is at the very heart of an industrialized, modern society… energy. For centuries millennia governments and political authorities tried to tax and control that which was the product of energy such as goods, services, and foods. That was because most energy was human and animal labor derived. But control energy, and in today’s world that means fossil fuels and limit/deny nuclear power, and you control everything.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 6, 2021 8:17 pm

Exactly Joel. I get frustrated every time I read on here that the scam is directed towards accretion of power and a one-world Marxist, communist or socialist Utopia. That’s just one additional branch of the scam – to fool the impressionable people who believe that people like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are in this to actually help people. It’s about the money folks. Paying useful idiots to continue to vote for democrat nitwits. I can’t even grasp why the democratic party would even want to stay in power. Surely by now they know that they are completely useless at anything they touch. They’re just an anachronism now, which is why they have to lie so hard.

fred250
March 6, 2021 7:08 pm

Hard pressed to find ANY CO2-linked warming except in “data adjustments™”…

….. mainly because there isn’t any.

ResourceGuy
March 6, 2021 7:10 pm

Sometimes you just have to let off the CO2 gas and high speed chase when your conscience gets to you. Some of the speed freaks still barrel ahead though.

Mike
March 6, 2021 8:03 pm

Oh Dear, another nail in the coffin.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Mike
March 7, 2021 2:23 am

Unfortunately, they don’t know they’re in a coffin, thanks to their puppets in the lamestream media, they think they’re at a tanning salon.

Abolition Man
March 6, 2021 9:36 pm

Now if the World Bank and the UN would listen, or at least get out of the way, Africa could build smart hydroelectric projects to control flooding and clean coal plants to provide reliable electricity! Before you know it they could be well on their way to achieving the prosperity that has always been denied to them in the past!
Wouldn’t it be great if GangGreen stopped forcing Africans of all nations to live in poverty and darkness; they’d only have to quit being racist for a decade or two and it could happen!

Coeur de Lion
Reply to  Abolition Man
March 7, 2021 12:43 am

It’s been quite clear for some time that those who deny coal fired electricity to the poor are guilty of the top woke sin of racism, if not hate crime.

DHR
March 7, 2021 12:50 am

But Michael Mann assures us that the variation of the AMO is due to CO2.

See https://news.psu.edu/story/649380/2021/03/04/research/apparent-atlantic-warming-cycle-likely-artifact-climate-forcing

Reply to  DHR
March 7, 2021 3:35 am

And first of vulcanoes, not to forget !

David Kamakaris
March 7, 2021 3:11 am

Just African climate variability?
I’ll dare say the rest of the world as well.

Reply to  David Kamakaris
March 7, 2021 3:37 am
Last edited 1 month ago by Krishna Gans
Peter Fraser
Reply to  David Kamakaris
March 7, 2021 12:40 pm

My thoughts exactly. I wonder if a similar analysis could help predict the intermittent rainfall on the east coast of Australia.

ozspeaksup
March 7, 2021 3:39 am

well isnt that a nice change?
honesty

Oldseadog
Reply to  ozspeaksup
March 7, 2021 4:48 am

Not only honesty, quite a lot of common sense as well. And not only that, they actually looked at the records instead of the computer programmes.
Next problem is, how do we get the politicos to read it, then understand it and finally act on it?

John Reyman
March 7, 2021 4:44 am

Get a glimpse at how dishonest this blog entry is.
The paper in page 3 section 3 states: “In addition to natural drivers, precipitation is also thought to be influenced by anthropogenic drivers (e.g. Lott et al., 2013; Otto et al., 2018) which however are outside the scope of this contribution for reasons of focus and length.”. They explicitly state that they don’t even look at anthropogenic contributions, but here P Gosselin twists it like this is evidence AGW is wrong…

Reply to  John Reyman
March 7, 2021 9:11 am

Take land use, water use, UHI as examples, human driven but not because of burning fossils as the usual AGW claims are.

John Reyman
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 7, 2021 9:57 am

how is this relevant to the fact that the paper that Gossselin used here explicitly stated that it is out of its scope to study anthropogenic influences? Their argument here is null, if it’s out of the paper’s scope to study anthropogenic influences then you can’t argue that this means there are no anthropogenic influences…

fred250
Reply to  John Reyman
March 7, 2021 10:26 am

Krishna has just mentioned the main human changes.

Do you any evidence of any others, or are you just another mindless yapping chihuahua.

Your argument is EMPTY, NULL, .. just a whinge !

John Reyman
Reply to  fred250
March 7, 2021 12:23 pm

see my other comments below so that I don’t repeat myself again here. We can’t have an honest discussion if you conflate everything together. I only made a point about P Gosselin‘s misinterpretation of this paper. He took it out of context and used the fact that the authors did not consider anthropogenic effects as evidence that this means there are no anthropogenic effects. This is a wrong conclusion and it should be clear to everyone since the authors make it abundantly clear that it was out of the scope of the paper to check for anthropogenic effects (thus also for arguments against or for AGW!).

So to give you an parallel of what P Gosselin is claiming with this one, let’s say I study memory problems on people with ages in the range 10-20, does that mean that the result of my work is that people older than 20 years cannot have any memory problem?? No, because the focus of that study was ages 10-20 not older!

Reply to  John Reyman
March 7, 2021 10:28 am

The paper is the paper and what Pierre Gosselin states is not relevant to it.
The paper trades wih longtime weather patterns, in so far it’s a climate relevant paper.

In addition to natural drivers, precipitation is also thought to be influenced by anthropogenic drivers (e.g. Lott et al., 2013; Otto et al., 2018) which however are outside the scope of this contribution for reasons of focus and length.

If you are interested in human influence, read the linked papers.
Than you will see, the one (Otto et all, based on models) researches only the Cape region), and Lotti only East Afrcia.
The here discussed paper are based on observations of Africa in complete,

Last edited 1 month ago by Krishna Gans
John Reyman
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 7, 2021 10:50 am

I am not arguing whether AGW is true or not, but only that P Gosselin took a paper that intentionally doesn’t consider CO2 because of “focus and length” as they state and P Gosselin translated this into evidence that CO2 has no effect on climate. This is a wrong interpretation of the paper. This is my only point, if one can’t see that then they have lost the ability to comprehend and discuss ideas.

Whether you believe AGW is wrong or not is irrelevant to what that paper finds, but also they don’t make any argument about the validity of AGW or not. They simply refer to other studies about anthropogenic effects.

In conclusion, this is an interesting paper, that does not disprove AGW or in no way gives evidence against AGW, but it also does not “prove” AGW… It is one of the many papers that notrickszone misinterprets to spread misinformation. Read the paper yourself to make up your mind about it, but don’t rely on biased people like P Gosselin

Reply to  John Reyman
March 7, 2021 1:06 pm

As I wrote above, the discussion is about the paper, and not P. Gosselin. His conclusion is not wrong, but not based on the paper, so what ?

John Reyman
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 7, 2021 1:16 pm

So he writes a blog entry about one specific scientific paper, for which paper it’s out of its scope to study anthropogenic effects of the validity of AGW, and argues that the paper provides evidence against AGW.
And for you it is fine for as long as you already believe AGW is wrong? This is a null argument. This blog entry is about that paper, that paper does not validate or invalidate AGW, hence P Gosselin‘s entry is dishonest…
It is that simple.

Reply to  John Reyman
March 7, 2021 3:17 pm

and argues that the paper provides evidence against AGW.

Only you will see it this way, and the way is wrong.

John Reyman
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 7, 2021 4:19 pm

The blog post is titled “No mention of CO2” when the paper in page 3 section 3 states: “In addition to natural drivers, precipitation is also thought to be influenced by anthropogenic drivers (e.g. Lott et al., 2013; Otto et al., 2018) which however are outside the scope of this contribution for reasons of focus and length.”..
Sure… I am wrong here…

I will only note that I made no case for or against AGW. I only argued about this blog post being manipulating.

Reply to  John Reyman
March 7, 2021 11:09 am

Will you define “anthropogenic drivers”? I don’t have access to Lott and Otto’s wisdoms. Please spend sufficient time on the aspects of cloud seeding, atmospheric particulate injection and all the other synonyms for chemtrails. Reconcile your data with the graphs as supplied, with special attention to synchronising the chemtrail flight data with the graph’s timeline, preferably at a resolution no less than one week intervals. Data the authors probably had no access to, as per your quote.
Then we can discuss “AGW” on a ‘level playing field’.
Or are you just nitpicking at irrelevancies, projecting others’ errors of syntactic logic onto the premise of the paper at issue?
Or is CO2 the only contribution Man makes to the weather? You warmists have to stop picking your data as conveniency demands. Finding fault with other people’s work is easier then admitting the gaping holes in your own, isn’t it?

John Reyman
Reply to  paranoid goy
March 7, 2021 12:19 pm

Why should I do that? I picked one specific topic, which is P Gosselin‘s argument as to what that paper means, and I made it clear that his argument is dishonest and wrong. That doesn’t mean AGW is correct or wrong, this is irrelevant here, because the paper did not address that issue. The paper explicitly states that they studied ONLY natural parameters. They don’t disprove or “prove” AGW, so to make this the point of this discussion is off topic. Even more, to argue that because they didn’t consider anthropogenic factors that it proves AGW is wrong, it is purely dishonest.
Can we agree on that? So to give you an parallel of what P Gosselin is claiming with this one, let’s say I study memory problems on people with ages in the range 10-20, does that mean that the result of my work is that people older than 20 years cannot have any memory problem?? No, because the focus of that study was ages 10-20 not older!

I don’t avoid answering your question of anthropogenic drivers, I simply think this is irrelevant to this post. If you want to have a discussion on AGW with me I’d be happy to, but in a different post. in this post please stick to this particular paper and P Gosselin‘s (mis)interpretation of it.

Reply to  John Reyman
March 7, 2021 1:08 pm

BTW is it the usual way to attack not the message but the messenger.

John Reyman
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 7, 2021 1:19 pm

the message of the paper for which Gosselin wrote is not to validate or invalidate AGW. I attack the core of the message of this blog, by exposing the dishonesty of the writer at the same time. I never argued if AGW is true or not, simply that this paper does not discuss that at all, and Gosselin misinterprets it. Read the paper for yourself. Blog entries like this one are misleading! I don’t care what you think about AGW, but if Gosselin convinced you with blog entries like this one then you have been fooled.

Reply to  John Reyman
March 7, 2021 1:08 pm

“…I picked one specific topic, which is P Gosselin‘s argument as to what that paper means,…”
Kezactly! You picked one thing you thought something means, without supplying valid evidence that your reading has relevance. Now show us where AGW crops up in the paper as relevant to the discussion and particularly the evidence laid forth. You are trying to discredit someone by deliberately misunderstanding the syntax.
Maybe I just keep missing the bit you accuse Gosselin of? I think he shows us the gist of the paper; natural cycles with no mention of CO2, just that, good correlations of natural events, no CO2. As in: “Hey guys, look! A scientist can provide good weather data without adding the satanic prayer of ‘CO2 boooo!’. It’s called a sense of humour. …and a poke inna da eye for the warmist trolls.

John Reyman
Reply to  paranoid goy
March 7, 2021 1:22 pm

I picked the main topic of that blog entry. Gosselin argues that because that paper doesn’t consider anthropogenic effects that means AGW is wrong. The paper intentionally wanted to study only natural mechanisms (The paper in page 3 section 3 states: “In addition to natural drivers, precipitation is also thought to be influenced by anthropogenic drivers (e.g. Lott et al., 2013; Otto et al., 2018) which however are outside the scope of this contribution for reasons of focus and length.”). Is this something unexpected? No, it is known that there are many factors affecting climate. Does it mean that AGW is right or wrong? Absolutely no bearing on that.
This is the main point of this blog entry.
As an extra I add that when someone misinterprets this, they they either didn’t pay enough attention or they were dishonest.
Read the paper for yourself, don’t rely on people who are openly biased on this topic to get your information from.
Does that last sentence sound weird to you?

Reply to  John Reyman
March 7, 2021 3:15 pm

He only write, here in the reposting and on NoTricksZone
nothing more than “ No mention of CO2. “
That’s all; and it’s true. CO2 is not mentioned.
He wrote nothing about AGW, human induced climate change, nothing. I see absolutely no reason at all for any complaint as you did here ounfoundet. You interpreted that in a way it wasn’t said. You are completely on the wrong path by what reason ever.

the message of the paper for which Gosselin wrote is not to validate or invalidate AGW. I attack the core of the message of this blog, by exposing the dishonesty of the writer at the same time

Sorry,but that’s complete BS. I refer for the rest to the above comment from paranoid goy.

John Reyman
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 7, 2021 4:15 pm

so “No mention of CO2” being the title of this blog post and you think it is justified for a paper that clearly states that checking CO2 is beyond its scope..
wow…

Ok I’ll write a blog post about Scafetta’s last paper and I’ll use the title “No mention of Sun”…

Reply to  John Reyman
March 8, 2021 8:02 am

paranoid goy said it best:
As in: “Hey guys, look! A scientist can provide good weather data without adding the satanic prayer of ‘CO2 boooo!’. It’s called a sense of humour. …and a poke inna da eye for the warmist trolls.

In my eyes, you overrate the “no CO2” mention by 100%

Last edited 1 month ago by Krishna Gans
John Reyman
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 8, 2021 12:13 pm

exactly my point, you completely misunderstood the paper.
This discussion is repetitive and over for me.

Can I ask something different? Why are you so willing to spend all this time discussing a paper based on what you read in a blog from someone unqualified to write about it, that it would have taken you much shorter time to actually read the original paper?
If you did read the original paper and still misunderstood it then there is nothing I can say here.

Reply to  John Reyman
March 8, 2021 2:02 pm

Why do you thnk I didn’t ?

John Reyman
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 9, 2021 4:35 am

I don’t start a discussion assuming the other person has comprehension issues or lies… I give them the confidence of the doubt.

If you read the paper and didn’t understand what they do (which is not to prove or disprove AGW) then you have made up your mind and you are not looking into this honestly.

Reply to  John Reyman
March 9, 2021 10:07 am

In my eyes, you overrate the “no CO2” mention by 100%

John Reyman
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 9, 2021 11:05 am

Do papers that support AGW appear in WUWT?
I have seen Scafetta and Soon here, but I haven’t seen a discussion on this paper for instance yeo et al. 2020 (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2020GL090243 )
which disqualifies the Sun for the GW.
Do you think they would have posted about this paper if they couldn’t twist it that it disproves AGW? Or if they do it it will be only to argue that it is wrong. I haven’t checked WUWT that much, give me examples in case you think what I said here is wrong.
Why did they choose a title “No Mention Of CO2” when it has nothing to do with this paper? Doesn’t that make you think they don’t have the best intentions here?
There are valid questions about climate, for which there is disagreement among scientists and makes sense to discuss. However, what they did with this paper is dishonest and leads the way to a dishonest discussion, if any, when done by misinterpreting what scientific papers do and write.Irrespective of what one believes about AGW, they should want to be consistent with what has been published and discuss it in fair terms. Adding Gosseling’s (mis)interpretation of the paper has absolutely no value over that of the actual authors.

John Reyman
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 10, 2021 1:32 pm

thank you for proving to me how biased you are.
Where is the paper by Yeo that shows that the Sun couldn’t explain the recent global warming? Never mentioned here, and never will because it goes beyond WUWT belief.
you posted a big list of misinterpretations and cherry pickings completely ignoring my point. Enjoy your close mind..

ps, what a joke that you take monckton seriously…

Reply to  John Reyman
March 10, 2021 3:19 pm

Do you really believe, absolutely all published papers about CC can be discussed here ?

Do you think they would have posted about this paper if they couldn’t twist it that it disproves AGW? Or if they do it it will be only to argue that it is wrong.

When it’s wrong, it worth to be discussed pro and contra 😀
And if it’s right, it’s a good piece to collect arguments, pro and contra.

Concerning Monckton, it’s not bad to see a wide spectrum of arguments and ideas about climate among other things.

John Reyman
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 11, 2021 12:17 am

If the website was honest about discussing climate change, then yes they could discuss all important papers about CC. What they do here is pure propaganda.
moncton has no education on climate science and has been exposed for posting rubbish cherrypicking again and again.
So you are fine to here the opinions of people unqualified to write about something and equate it to people who have all the formal education and spent the years working on it?
Would you always ask the opinion of a doctor on your health and then go to your accountant to do you a physical medical check up too? But no, in real life deniers can’t be that idiots, only when it comes to CC they are fine to listen to anyone as idiotic and uneducated as they might be, only because they say something they already agree with. Pitiful

Reply to  John Reyman
March 10, 2021 3:10 pm

I have seen Scafetta and Soon here, but I haven’t seen a discussion on this paper for instance yeo et al. 2020 (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2020GL090243 )
which disqualifies the Sun for the GW.

There are several points the mentioned paper doesn’t point to, so the paper isn’t a proof of what ever.
TSI isn’t the only radiation affectiong earth climate the one or the other way. Variations in UV radiation f.e. are much stronger than TSI change.
UV radiation index f.e.measured as TCI (Thermosphere Climate Index) to find at spaceweather.com has influence on the climate as several papers conclude, Haigh, Lockwood to name two only,

The paper you linked states in the beginning:

Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges facing humanity.

You arn’t biased at all ? 😀

You know, there are 2 values for TSI, did you ?
TSI 1AU
TSI TOA

John Reyman
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 11, 2021 12:13 am

you lost it my friend… 2 TSI values?….
So there is no TSI at the Sun? or Mars? or spectral irradiance? The fact that these two are commonly discussed doesn’t mean they are the only ones.. Ignorant comment beyond belief.
Now please make the stupid denier comment about clouds, but have nothing to back it up and ignore all scientific papers that show basically no effect, start!

Your argument about UV irradiance and TSI is ignorant. You are talking about solar cycle variations, for which yes UV has greater variability compared to TSI. But UV shows solar cycle variations in phase with TSI. The paper discussed the long-term trend, which my friend is the forcing. The larger variations over solar cycle scales that you mention can have local effects yes and it is important (spectral irradiance is included in climate modelling along with energetic particles too…), but it won’t change the long-term trend, hence the forcing used by climate scientists. Was that clear or do you want me to explain it better to you?
Therefore, the paper did put constraints on how big the solar forcing could be. The constraint it imposed strengthens the argument of the anthropogenic influence…

With this webpage created only to post propaganda about climate change (and covid now) do you mean to tell me that you don’t think climate change is an important issue? Why are you here then?
Also physicists learn the theory of greenhouse effect in undergraduate, literally this is basic physics…
The fact that deniers find is possible to find physicists that deny this is unbelievable.. Have you bothered to check with the curricula of universities with physics? Have you asked with professors there to tell you about the greenhouse effect? Staying in a bubble of deniers in blogs like that getting a ton of misinformation is irrational.

Reply to  John Reyman
March 11, 2021 3:18 am

you lost it my friend… 2 TSI values?….

SORCE TIM Total Solar Irradiance

 tsi_1au                              R8  f10.4 (Column 5: Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at 1-AU, W/m^2)
 instrument_accuracy_1au              R4  e10.3 (Column 6: Instrument Accuracy in 1-AU TSI, W/m^2, 1 sigma)
 instrument_precision_1au             R4  e10.3 (Column 7: Instrument Precision in TSI at 1-AU, W/m^2, 1 sigma)
 solar_standard_deviation_1au         R4  e10.3 (Column 8: Solar Standard Deviation in 1-AU TSI, W/m^2, 1 sigma)
 measurement_uncertainty_1au          R4  e10.3 (Column 9: Total Uncertainty in TSI at 1-AU, W/m^2, 1 sigma)
 tsi_true_earth                       R8  f10.4 (Column 10: Total Solar Irradiance at Earth distance, W/m^2)
 instrument_accuracy_true_earth       R4  e10.3 (Column 11: Instrument Accuracy at Earth distance, W/m^2, 1 sigma)
 instrument_precision_true_earth      R4  e10.3 (Column 12: Instrument Precision at Earth distance, W/m^2, 1 sigma)
 solar_standard_deviation_true_earth  R4  e10.3 (Column 13: Solar Standard Deviation in TSI at Earth, W/m^2, 1 sigma)
 measurement_uncertainty_true_earth   R4  e10.3 (Column 14: Total Uncertainty in TSI at Earth distance, W/m^2, 1 sigma

OK, I wrote TOA, here it’s called (true) Earth distance.

Coming back to Monckton, for me as non natural English speaker it’s always a joy to read his texts, learning from his way to write, express thoughts including a certain portion of the well known British humor 😀

John Reyman
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 11, 2021 3:56 am

see monty python or any comedian from the UK if that is what you are looking for… He is a clown and a completely uneducated one, for sure.

You are right about these 2 TSI values in the sorce data, but that is merely that the measurement needs to be adjusted to reflect the TSI that the Earth will receive compared to that at a fixed distance. These are simple corrections for the distance differences. These are variations within a year and average out when using any value with sampling greater or equal to a year, which is what you do for climate.. This has no effect on the forcing or the long-term trend of irradiance. The constraint for the forcing stands..
But what was your point with these 2 values?

Reply to  John Reyman
March 11, 2021 4:02 am

The scientific paper you linked started in the introduction with the statement of a “climate crisis” isn’t scientific but propaganda.
Not only me search for that crisis. The only crisis I know come from MSM and a special handfull of scientists linking every weather event out of average to CC. And mostly pick cherries as strong as possible to justify their fearmongering.
What I stated as I was young in the early 70 was, at least in Berlin, a shift from former continental climate regime to a more Atlantic one. But it must have been all over Germany, as the shift to colder and more showery weather was even to find in several song texts asking for a summer as it was in earlier times.

What I was saying abou UV in the comment above concerns the last colds in Europe and USA now also linked to to human caused CC and CO2, even if the certainely real reasons are known since at least around the early 2000.
The waming in the second half of Feb. in Germany isn’t due to CO” and AGW, but found it’s reason in southern winds directely from Sahara, including a lot of dust from just there – weather, not more and not every year and not over 30 years.

Reply to  John Reyman
March 11, 2021 4:04 am

Also physicists learn the theory of greenhouse effect in undergraduate, literally this is basic physics…

The question is about the real strength in nature, not in models.

John Reyman
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 11, 2021 4:47 am

physics, quantum physics, not models. The fact that we are discussing this shows that you have no scientific education.
You ignore completely my points about the 2 TSI values, etc etc. Are my responses inconvenient to you? Try to use some critical thinking and stop reading propaganda sites like WUWT…

I assume you are a retired person who got into this from blogs like this one. This is pure propaganda.
You cherry picked one statement you don’t like from the introduction of a scientific paper and ignored everything else, this is strong bias… Enjoy your denial, I won’t waste any more of my precious time trying to make sense of you

Howard Dewhirst
March 7, 2021 4:36 pm

But Michael Mann now says the AMO does not exist, and he knows a thing or two, like the Hockey stick?

%d bloggers like this: