Willie Soon on the Tom Nelson Podcast

This CO2 stuff is…pure delusion. You cannot find any signature of that.

Tom Nelson

Climate realism

Dr. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist and geoscientist, is a leading authority on the relationship between solar phenomena and global climate. In this 32+ years of singular pursuit, he seeks to understand the Sun-Earth relations in terms of not only meteorology and climate, but also in terms of orbital dynamics of Sun-Earth-other planets interactions, magmatic (volcanoes) and tectonic (earthquakes) activities. His discoveries challenge computer modelers and advocates who consistently underestimate solar influences on cloud formation, ocean currents, and wind that cause climate to change. He has faced and risen above unethical and often libelous attacks on his research and his character, becoming one of the world’s most respected and influential voices for climate realism. In 2018, he founded the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES-science.com) in order to tackle a wider range of issues and topics without fears nor prejudices.

Dr. Soon was an astrophysicist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, from 1991-2022. He served as receiving editor for New Astronomy from 2002-2016, astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory from 1992-2009. He is also on the editorial board of Geoscience, an MDPI publication since 2020 as well as serving as Review Editor of Frontiers in Earth Science starting 2022. Dr. Soon has also held the role of visiting professors at various institutions including University of Putra, Malaysia, Institute of Earth Environment of Xian, China and State Key Laboratory of Marine Environmental Science at Xiamen University. Since September 2021, Dr. Soon is also affiliated with Hungary’s Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science.
Dr. Soon earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees in science and a Ph.D. in aerospace engineering from the University of Southern California.

“The whole point of science is to question accepted dogmas. For that reason, I respect Willie Soon as a good scientist and a courageous citizen.’’ — Freeman Dyson in the Boston Globe, November 5, 2013

About Willie Soon: https://www.ceres-science.com/willie-soon
103 of his peer-reviewed papers: https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/
“How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate”: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131
CERES news: https://www.ceres-science.com/news
Please help support independent science by donating to CERES-science.com:
https://www.ceres-science.com/support-us
——
Tom Nelson’s Twitter: https://twitter.com/tan123
Substack: https://tomn.substack.com/
About Tom: https://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2022/03/about-me-tom-nelson.html
Notes for climate skeptics:
https://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2019/06/useful-notes-for-climate-skeptics.html
ClimateGate emails:
https://tomnelson.blogspot.com/p/climategate_05.html

4.6 20 votes
Article Rating
80 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rusty
October 19, 2022 11:01 pm

There is a simple concept in project and program management… Follow the truth wherever it leads… Simple…
Dr. Soon is an excellent example of how to apply this concept.. Your idea might be good… Follow it… Your idea may have problems… Learn from that, adapt, revise and then move forward…
IMHO… Every real scientific exploration must use this simple concept…
But allas… Many scientists let their ego get in the way, that’s when they cease to be scientists and they become political animals…
Just sayin….
Thank you Dr Soon for your scientific leadership…
May the force be with you…

griff
Reply to  Rusty
October 20, 2022 1:01 am

Outside skeptic circles, persistent questions are raised about Soon’s honesty and dedication to the scientific truth…

Reply to  griff
October 20, 2022 1:58 am

Persistent questions without any base only for diffamatory reasons.
You see in his vita as scientist a lot of honorable institutions he worked for, outside the “skeptic circles”.
What circle, bubble are you living in ?

H.R.
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 20, 2022 5:12 am

griff’s bubble? Mom’s basement.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  H.R.
October 20, 2022 7:53 am

Climateers only smear those they fear. You know you are over the center of the target by the density of the flak.

AlanJ
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 20, 2022 6:50 am

Defamatory reasons? Didn’t a paper Soon published in Climate Research lead to the resignation of half the editorial board of the journal after it was revealed that Soon and his coauthor had grossly misrepresented the work of scientists whose research they were citing? That seems to be a huge black mark on his academic record.

Pat Frank
Reply to  AlanJ
October 20, 2022 7:49 am

You’re alluding to Soon & Baliunas (2003) Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years. Climate Research 23(2), 89-110.

That paper roused the Hockey Team to violent protest because it came to a valid conclusion about the climate, namely that the current state displayed nothing outside natural variability.

Otto Kinne has a fair review of the event (pdf). The five editors who resigned merely lacked the moral courage of their convictions in the face of controversy.

Green character assassins have had a field day slandering Willie Soon and misrepresenting the circumstances ever since.

AlanJ
Reply to  Pat Frank
October 20, 2022 8:34 am

Otto Kinne’s fair review of the event acknowledges that the paper shouldn’t have made it past peer review:

In conclusion: Quality control at CR was practised along generally established lines. There were no problems over the 13 years of CR existence. But there was insufficient attention to the methodological basis of statements that touch on hotly debated controversies and involve pronounced political and economic interests. CR should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication.

He does not attempt to defend the quality of the paper. We should note that the paper did not merely rouse the “Hockey Team,” it roused the ire of the scientists whose work had been flagrantly misrepresented in it.

Reply to  AlanJ
October 20, 2022 3:14 pm

Ordinary non-science citizen that I am, my email contact list reads like a Who’s Who of skeptic climate scientists. Dr Willie Soon asked me to reply here on his behalf with the following:

Alan J did not even bother to listen to the Tom Nelson podcast—where I told about specific examples of those that tried to slur me for not citing their works correctly got no answer when I asked them where and how I quoted them incorrectly …

but for this comment, i want this letter to be widely out there—this is from climategate episode where Otto Kinne (just like Hans von Storch) are political animals … secretly pulled this stunt by checking all my notes (BTW: this process is very sacred and no one even did this to me or anyone else in the peer-reviewing processes—he has no right to look into this without my approval—but he did it anyway!)

See also the Youtube link to this 2017 talk I did on all these censorship and pal-reviewed system problems.

Reply to  Russell Cook
October 21, 2022 7:57 am

I just tried to write an email to W. Soon, but it would not make it past his spam filter. Pretty ironic given the content.

Anyway, I just stumbled upon this from Soon, Eschenbach, Legates, cause I am just dealing with polar amplification.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262267398_Arctic_albedo_changes_are_small_compared_with_changes_in_cloud_cover_in_the_tropics

They argue with clouds and so on, and they would be more important than the polar albedo effect. I don’t really feel the letter is up to a point.

The funny thing is, they have had a solid winning point in what they try to argue, if only they new. Water is very reflective at low angles of incidence. In the chart it is reflectivity relative to normal. For the poles it would be the range between 67 and 90°. It is somewhere between 10% and 100% albedo in this instance. Over all not much difference to about 50% albedo with ice and snow.

comment image

Pat Frank
Reply to  Russell Cook
October 21, 2022 7:58 am

Thanks Russell. You’re one of the unsung serious heroes of this whole global warming fiasco.

Otto Kinne’s letter completely exonerates Willie Soon and Sally Baliunas, as well as Chris de Frietas. The review and ultimate acceptance of their 2003 Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years was completely legitimate.

And so were their conclusions.

I have to add, though, that as Editor-in-Chief of Climate Research Otto Kinne was completely within his rights and the purview of his position to examine the full record of review and editorial decision.

As a high-ranking academic Marine Biologist, his decision to support de Frietas’ editorial process carried the full weight of a professionally knowledgeable evaluation.

AlanJ
Reply to  Russell Cook
October 21, 2022 8:02 am

The scientist who is shunned for challenging the establishment and the scientist who is shunned for having kooky ideas will both feel equally persecuted. I’ve read the 2003 paper and I can see how the research was misrepresented.

Pat Frank
Reply to  AlanJ
October 21, 2022 9:20 am

having kooky ideas” that you can’t refute, Alan. And neither can anyone else.

I can see how the research was misrepresented.” which you somehow have neglected to reveal.

Your fact-free comments are indistinguishable from blowhardery.

Pat Frank
Reply to  AlanJ
October 20, 2022 4:07 pm

Otto Kinne merely second-guessed expert peer review. He didn’t offer any overlooked error of substantive fact.

More to your high ethical purity, the Mann, et al., (2003) reply to S&B published in EOS, purveyed a fraud. Their Figure 1 truncated Briffa’s proxy at 1960, just where it entered a steep decline.

Steve McIntyre dissected the whole disgraceful episode. The figure below shows his closeup of the misdirection. The arrow points to Briffa’s truncated (orange) proxy peeking out from behind the others. Pretty much hiding the lop-job.

Manuscript editor Ellen Mosley-Thompson could not have been ignorant of the fraud. The EOS paper boasted 13 authors — all of them proxy heroes. All of them participating in an outright fraud.

The ordinate temperatures on their figures were derived from no physical theory. The °C has no physical meaning. That constitutes a second fraud — one ubiquitous in modern proxy studies.

Ethical flag still flying, Alan?

2003 EOS Hide the decline close-up.png
AlanJ
Reply to  Pat Frank
October 21, 2022 8:04 am

Their Figure 1 truncated Briffa’s proxy at 1960, just where it entered a steep decline.

Because the decline does not represent a climate signal, as Briffa and multitudes of other researchers have noted. It diverges from the instrumental record post 1960. This is such a silly objection that I cannot believe the amount of time Steve McIntyre has spent wringing his hands about it.

Pat Frank
Reply to  AlanJ
October 21, 2022 9:25 am

Because the decline does not represent a climate signal,…” and so neither do any of the other strands of proxy spaghetti

What do you think happened to all those proxy trees, Alan, that they were good climate monitors until 1960 and then suddenly went bad.

And you go on about others being silly.

AlanJ
Reply to  Pat Frank
October 21, 2022 10:08 am

Certainly they are acting as proxies across the calibration and verification periods, as they are consistent with the instrumental record. Prior to that they are consistent with other proxies. It does indeed seem to be something restricted to recent years.

Pat Frank
Reply to  AlanJ
October 21, 2022 1:01 pm

“they are consistent with the instrumental record.”

Indistinguishable from happenstance. The canonized series are chosen out of the generally trendless pack because they just happen to match the 20th century temperature record.

The whole business is mere data snooping. An exercise in correlation = causation.

Interpretations of tree-ring series are based on no physical theory. They have no physical meaning.

consistent with other series” Right. They’re a lovely study in pre-modern coherence./irony

And the figure is *after* processing.

Consistent with other series.png
Last edited 3 months ago by Pat Frank
Rick C
Reply to  AlanJ
October 20, 2022 8:03 am

AlanJ: You must be referring to the Soon/Baliunas debunking of Mann’s hockey stick paper. A big black mark on Mann’s reputation for sure. The resignation of editors under pressure from gang green was just the usual cancel culture retaliation for allowing blaspheme.

AlanJ
Reply to  Rick C
October 20, 2022 8:30 am

Soon and Baliunas published a literature review paper and the scientists whose literature they reviewed said the duo had flagrantly misrepresented their work. There is no evidence that the editors did anything less than resign of their own free will in protest of the journal’s poor publishing practices.

Pat Frank
Reply to  AlanJ
October 20, 2022 8:49 am

There is no physical method to convert a climate proxy to an air temperature. The people who purport temperatures from proxies make the assignment by fiat.

Such people are not scientists. It’s no wonder they protest at being exposed. So it’s always been with spiritualists and seancers.

AlanJ
Reply to  Pat Frank
October 20, 2022 9:28 am

That’s a very broad and impossible to dissect sentiment. What do you mean by “physical method?” Is not the method use statistical in nature? What do you mean by “make the assignment by fiat?” Do you believe this to be the case for all temperature proxies? Or just tree rings?

Pat Frank
Reply to  AlanJ
October 20, 2022 10:03 am

My statement is quite possible to dissect.

Statistics is no substitute for physics. Physics derives causality. Statistics establishes numerical coherence.

Statistics cannot derive causality. Statistics provides no method to covert a proxy into a physical temperature.

Assignment of temperature by fiat is true for all proxies, including ice cores. See proxy science and proxy pseudo-science.

Also see Negligence, Non-science and Consensus Climatology, peer-reviewed and published.

AlanJ
Reply to  Pat Frank
October 20, 2022 10:59 am

Oh. It’s the same tired systematic error nonsense I’ve seen from you my whole time here. If the thoughtful and well reasoned comments in that thread pointing out your errors weren’t enough to convince you, I stand little chance.

If temperature proxies provided no information about temperature then they wouldn’t agree with each other and the whole wouldn’t agree with the instrumental record. It’s almost silly to declare the notion that trees grow more when conditions are favorable to growth and grow less when they aren’t is “unphysical.”

Pat Frank
Reply to  AlanJ
October 20, 2022 12:41 pm

Non-sequitur. The case against proxies has nothing to do with systematic measurement error.

It has everything to do with the fact that there is no physical theory that converts a proxy into a temperature. That absence is fatal to the entire field of proxy temperature reconstructions.

You either don’t understand that obvious and basic truth of science, Alan, or are willfully blind to it.

Proxies can reveal warmer/wetter, cooler/drier. Hence their sometimes agreement. But confounding factors and spurious correlations remain unknown. Extracting a physical temperature from them is presently impossible.

Coherence with temperature? Look here and weep. Also here. And a truly damning example here.

Comparing proxy reality to your certainties, I’d observe the evidence is that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

In any case, systematic error is revealed in every single sensor field calibration experiment. That’s not nonsense but your comment about it is fatuous.

“[T]houghtful and well reasoned comments” in opposition to an experimental fact? Your unintended irony is inadvertent comedy.

AlanJ
Reply to  Pat Frank
October 21, 2022 10:11 am

There is a physical link between proxies and temperature, unless you’re suggesting that ocean temperature doesn’t influence isotopic fractionation in the shells of calcifying organisms, for instance, or that trees don’t actually grow better when conditions are more favorable to growth. But I know you wouldn’t be so silly as to suggest anything like that.

Last edited 3 months ago by AlanJ
Pat Frank
Reply to  AlanJ
October 21, 2022 2:32 pm

Show me the physical theory that explicates the quantitative relation between ocean temperature and isotopic fractionation of calcifying shells, Alan. Include the biological rate equations.

You’ll also need to present the isotopic ratios of past ocean waters, local to each proxy series.

Provide the physical theory that quantitatively describes the response of tree ring widths or ring-wood density to temperature. Include the biophysical equations quantifying the temperature dependence of wood deposition.

You can’t do any of that and neither can anyone else.

Hand-waving arguments are all you’ve got.

You’re making physically undemonstrable arguments in a discussion of physical science. Why isn’t that silly?

Richard Goodley
Reply to  AlanJ
October 21, 2022 6:39 am

spare me

MarkW
Reply to  AlanJ
October 20, 2022 6:26 pm

While the alarmists did force a lot of editors to resign due to the sin of publishing something the alarmists disagreed with. Your claim that Soon et. al. misrepresented the work of others has been reviewed and found to be false.

Mike
Reply to  griff
October 20, 2022 2:27 am

Well woopty doo! That means a lot doesn’t it.

b.nice
Reply to  griff
October 20, 2022 3:22 am

“questions are raised about Soon’s honesty and dedication to the scientific truth…”

ROFLMAO.

With NEVER any proof.. just made up fantasies and LIES, that FOOLS like you believe.

Mark BLR
Reply to  griff
October 20, 2022 3:34 am

persistent questions are raised about …

“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.“ — Joseph Goebbels (allegedly ?)

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  griff
October 20, 2022 3:51 am

That does not reflect favourably on your own ethics. Ought to be beneath you.

garboard
Reply to  griff
October 20, 2022 4:21 am

former noaa head and current white house climate advisor jane lubchenco is censured and banned for 5 years by the national academy of science for dodgy data and ethics violations and she keeps her job and not a peep from the media . meanwhile willie soon who is a serious astronomer is repeatedly attacked in the basest and most dishonest ways by the press / media , not for his science but for dubious ad hominem attacks on his character . climate reporting is a sad joke and demonstrates the pathetic misinformation masquerading as “ climate science “

Reply to  griff
October 20, 2022 4:58 am

Griff

You have a lot of nerve, you slandered Soon, you slandered Crockford and were caught and made to look like the fool you are, but here you are again with you nonsense, why Anthony allows you to post on either of these scientist is beyond me. You sir should be ashamed of yourself.

Dave Yaussy
Reply to  bob boder
October 20, 2022 5:43 am

He should be ashamed of himself. But I’m glad that Anthony lets him post here. He’s a representative of the catastrophic crowd, and if this is the best they can do to challenge Willie Soon (including the lame Willie Nelson joke below) then we, and Soon, are doing well.

Reply to  Dave Yaussy
October 20, 2022 10:30 am

Dave

Normally I would agree, but Griff posted incredibly poisonous lies about both Willie Soon and Susan Crockford on this site, he tried both to destroy their credibility as scientist and at the same time imply that they were both profiteering with a pack of lies and nonsense that he got caught and fried on. While I really don’t give two cents whether he post here or not he should not ever be allowed to comment of either of these 2 respected scientist ever again.

Gyan1
Reply to  bob boder
October 20, 2022 4:36 pm

I’ve always believed it is wrong to silence a fool because they provide such a glaring example of how not to behave.

Reply to  griff
October 20, 2022 8:51 am

Inside far-left conspiracy belief circles, unsupportable accusations are raised about Dr Soon’s honesty and dedication to the scientific truth…

(Fixed griff’s sentence for him.)

Walter
Reply to  griff
October 20, 2022 10:51 am

I fail to understand why you consistently post stuff like this here. It is as if you are a troll. I also don’t understand how any logical person can side more with the activist side than the “denialist” side.

Citizen Smith
Reply to  griff
October 20, 2022 12:45 pm

Can’t debate the science so attack the character. Sophomoric strategy.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  griff
October 20, 2022 1:36 pm

Sometimes you appear to be almost human. But this is not one of them. This is despicable, Griff.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
October 20, 2022 6:24 pm

You alarmists believe that anyone who disagrees with you has been bought off.

It’s almost as if you are no longer capable of thinking for yourselves.

cpratt@telusplanet.net
Reply to  griff
October 20, 2022 9:14 pm

Oh Griff I have missed you – NOT. You post to only get attention.

Rusty
Reply to  griff
October 20, 2022 10:04 pm

“But allas… Many scientists let their ego get in the way, that’s when they cease to be scientists and they become political animals…”

I think you have demonstrated my point… Thank you…

Ireneusz Palmowski
October 19, 2022 11:08 pm

Who can say when the peak activity of the 25th solar cycle will be?
comment image
comment image

Graham
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
October 20, 2022 12:08 am

We will very soon see all the rabid dogs attacking Willie Soon here .
They will be here because Willie Soon dares to challenge their religion of CAGW .
The models do not match the real world so they are faulty and the Hockey stick is a fraud .
Without these two illusions the warmist religion falls over and does not stand up to intensive research.
Climate change has become a political tool to keep the people in western countries worried and controllable .
Hopefully the voters will awake and see where these policies are taking many countries too hardship hunger and poverty .

Reply to  Graham
October 20, 2022 1:16 am

CAGW is like a religion and a political tool
Climate models make wrong predictions
The Hockey Stick Chart is junk science
And Willie Soon could be wrong.

You have character attacked everyone who disagrees with Willie Soon even before they make a single comment. You have exhibited leftist-style behavior.

Last edited 3 months ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 20, 2022 2:02 am

There have been a lot of earlier comments on Willi Soon, f.e. from, not representative, griff and other CAGW fetechists, including many non honorable scientists

Reply to  Richard Greene
October 20, 2022 3:36 am

Your name is program ? 😀

Graham
Reply to  Richard Greene
October 20, 2022 12:08 pm

It is very obvious that Richard Greene and Alan J are attack dogs because some one dares put facts in front of them that disproves their beliefs .
They attack the messenger as they have not got any proof that CAGW will or could ever happen .
Willie Soon deals in facts where as you fellows ignore facts.
I don’t have to post graphs here as there are many that show that all climate models run hot . Any one even without a science degree can see that the models are not fit for purpose .
The hockey stick graph was a straight out fraud that almost demolished the Medieval Warm Period and pushed up the threat of future warming purely for political purposes .
I deal in facts which are that if governments around the world keep pushing global warming for political gain then a lot of worlds population of 8 billion people will very soon be facing starvation .
This is because there is a drastic shortage of nitrogen fertilizer because of restrictions in gas supplies in many countries that manufacture this essential fertilizer .
4 billion people are fed with the food grown using artificial nitrogen fertilizer every year .

JBP
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
October 20, 2022 5:27 am

SC25 will be like SC 24. Peak in 1-2 years from now.

Rod Evans
October 20, 2022 12:01 am

Whenever I watch or listen to Willie Soon, I am completely overwhelmed by his passion and enthusiasm for truth and honesty. If only all the so called climate scientists that make it onto the airwaves were as driven and dedicated to the importance of honest scientific study as Willie is. If they were, we would not be facing the desperate situation of people freezing/starving to death this coming winter.
When charlatans and liars are promoted into positions of influence people end up dying.
That is why being straight and honest is, crucial for society.

patrick healy
Reply to  Rod Evans
October 20, 2022 2:28 am

Well Rod it is worse than that. Events in Britain over these past few weeks have confirmed that beyond doubt.
The CAGW fraud is just a carrier for the great reset build back better adgenda.
The plan is to shrink the world (Honey) economy, get rid of all grown up eneergy, and most importantly get rid of millions of us useless eaters.
Anyone who did not understand the great Wuhan flu imposition, George Soros, Claus Schwab, Bill Gates, Anthony Fauchi and ‘my’ Popes involvement in this scam, have not been awake recently.

griff
October 20, 2022 1:00 am

I misread that as ‘Willie Nelson’ and got quite excited for a minute…

lee
Reply to  griff
October 20, 2022 1:12 am

I hope you got “excited” in private.

toorightmate
Reply to  lee
October 20, 2022 3:20 am

Griff,
Stop washing yourself too quickly in the shower.

Reply to  griff
October 20, 2022 1:20 am

Here’s a great Willie Nelson song worth hearing
(written by Lyle Lovett)

Farther Down The Line – YouTube

Reply to  griff
October 20, 2022 2:04 am

Not the fist misread in your poor life. 😀

b.nice
Reply to  griff
October 20, 2022 3:24 am

Doesn’t surprise me that Willie Nelson would excite you.

He has nothing to do with science.. just like you.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
October 20, 2022 6:37 pm

I would have thought you were more used to misreading stuff by now.

Mike
October 20, 2022 2:30 am

This CO2 stuff is…pure delusion. You cannot find any signature of that.”

I just thought I’d highlight that for all the climate lovies out there, bless their little worried hearts.

Last edited 3 months ago by Mike
Ireneusz Palmowski
October 20, 2022 4:40 am

What happens if we assume that the troposphere, because of its density (due to gravity), is heated directly by incoming solar radiation? Then we discover that greenhouse gases are actually cooling the surface, because the vertical gradient decreases as water vapor increases.
 This seems to be the situation on Venus, where little solar radiation reaches the planet’s surface and the temperature near the surface is very high.

Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
October 20, 2022 7:01 am

Thermosphere at least is heated directly by the suns UV radiation and is measured as TCI, Thermosphere Climate Index.

https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/10/26/a-new-space-weather-metric/

Last edited 3 months ago by Krishna Gans
ren
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 20, 2022 8:24 am

“TCI is based on measurements from the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air 100 to 300 kilometers above our planet’s surface. By measuring the infrared glow of these molecules, SABER can assess the thermal state of gas up there.”
comment image

ren
Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 20, 2022 8:42 am

Far from neutral.
comment image
Very similar to the first peak in 2012 in the 24th solar cycle.
comment image

Last edited 3 months ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
October 20, 2022 5:03 am

“Climate is a very complicated subject. Any fool would try to say he understand climate please come”

Raise my hand.. 😉

John Shotsky
October 20, 2022 5:40 am

Without looking up the reports, it has been shown by ice core data that CO2 follows temperature changes, not the other way around. Those studies that demonstrated this are ignored by those that ‘believe’. But they have absolutely no way to dispute the findings, so they ignore them as if they did not exist.
And, before it is mentioned, as it always is, CO2 cannot be both the result of temperature change, and the cause of temperature change. Nature does not work that way, or else the earth would be a very different place, and we would likely not be here, peacefully typing away on a cool morning.

ren
Reply to  John Shotsky
October 20, 2022 8:34 am

I would say even a winter morning in the southern states of the US. Temperature in degrees Celsius.
comment image

Janice Moore
Reply to  John Shotsky
October 20, 2022 11:41 am

1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record.

2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.

3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2MacRae_thumb.jpg

(Source: Allan MacRae, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/ )

Janice Moore
Reply to  John Shotsky
October 20, 2022 11:42 am
Janice Moore
Reply to  John Shotsky
October 20, 2022 11:45 am

comment image

The climate alarmist crowd never tires of insisting that anthropogenic additions to atmospheric carbon dioxide … —are driving … global warming … .

Long-term geological data show a pretty consistent correlation between CO2 and temperature, giving the claim its initial attractiveness.

But there’s a problem. Detailed analysis of the data shows that the time sequence is opposite what the claim requires.

(Source: https://cornwallalliance.org/2017/06/global-temperature-and-co2-which-drives-which/ )

Last edited 3 months ago by Janice Moore
Ireneusz Palmowski
October 20, 2022 12:19 pm

Currently, there has been a sharp decline in solar activity.
comment image

Mickey Reno
October 20, 2022 1:34 pm

This was great, Dr Soon.

I have a problem in donating to your work.. I quit PayPay. Can you come up with an alternate payment method. I guess this goes for Anthony and Jo Nova, too. PayPal is not our friend. Everyone should quit them.

Doug S
October 20, 2022 2:02 pm

I think the parishioners in the Climate church fear Dr. Soon because he is instantly likeable and funny! He’s a dangerous heretic that should be placed under house arrest and have a portion of his ear cut off! /s

Call me a skeptic
Reply to  Doug S
October 20, 2022 3:53 pm

Same tired tactics. If you can’t impeach the man’s work then attempt to impeach the man’s character. It really is quite boring and predictable.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Call me a skeptic
October 20, 2022 5:52 pm

Okay, whoever you are. We will now call a skeptic to testify.

Dr. Christy, please state your name and occupation for the record…

comment image

Janice Moore
Reply to  Call me a skeptic
October 20, 2022 5:54 pm

What? You were setting up THIS old gag?

*sigh* Okay. You’re a skeptic.

Ireneusz Palmowski
October 20, 2022 2:06 pm

We are seeing a sharp drop in the temperature of the Peruvian Current.
comment image

Darren Dines
October 22, 2022 8:27 pm

There’s a recent NASA white paper on how surprised they were that Jupiter’s atmospheric temperature is hundreds of degrees warmer than their model’s predicted. They are seeing warming at the poles due to electrical currents entering the atmosphere at the poles and then propagating towards the equator. Thunderbolts Project did an interesting analysis video. It looks like we should rename the solar wind to the solar current. Then we will need to rewrite climate science, cosmology, etc, etc.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights