Ron Wagner

How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

India adds 10 GW solar capacity in 2022
 

Solar capacity installations in the country jumped by a record 210 per cent to 10 gigawatts during 2021, Mercom Communications India said in a report on Thursday. The green capacity installations reached a level of 3.2 gigawatts (GW) in 2020, the research firm said in its 'Indian Solar Sector Market Leaders' report.

"In CY 2021, India saw a record 10 GW of new solar capacity installed, a big jump of 210 per cent compared to 3.2 GW the year before. The newly installed solar capacity in ..

 

India is planning huge coal production increases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I thoroughly debunked your research. Solar energy is down but temperature is way up.

Your solar statistics are not the ones used by the scientists, Jay. You had nothing there.

Also, your data was out of date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No you made an imbecilic claim that data from the SOHO solar observatory is not used by solar scientists.  

About the SOHO Mission
 
 

SOHO, the Solar & Heliospheric Observatory, is a project of international collaboration between ESA and NASA to study the Sun from its deep core to the outer corona and the solar wind.

SOHO was launched on December 2, 1995. The SOHO spacecraft was built in Europe by an industry team led by prime contractor Matra Marconi Space (now EADS Astrium) under overall management by ESA. The twelve instruments on board SOHO were provided by European and American scientists. Nine of the international instrument consortia are led by European Principal Investigators (PI's), three by PI's from the US. Large engineering teams and more than 200 co-investigators from many institutions supported the PI's in the development of the instruments and in the preparation of their operations and data analysis. NASA was responsible for the launch and is now responsible for mission operations. Large radio dishes around the world which form NASA's Deep Space Network are used for data downlink and commanding. Mission control is based at Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.

Further information about SOHO:

 

PMOD Solar Irradiance is from the SOHO solar observatory satellite:

Contemporary radiometric measurements from satellites:  Recently, TSI has been measured by the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM); two versions of this instrument have flown on the SORCE spacecraft (providing TSI measurements since 2003) and the TCTE platform (providing TSI measurements since 2013).  SORCE and TCTE data are available through the University of Colorado's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics.

A joint European Space Agency-NASA experiment known as VIRGO, which encompasses 3 instruments for TSI on the SOHO spacecraft, has provided TSI data from the mid-1990s to present.

Earlier satellite-era TSI measurements came from the ERB/HF, ACRIM, and ERBS missions.  Data from these earlier missions have been combined with contemporary VIRGO measurements to form a composite satellite-era TSI record known as PMOD (named for the institute in Davos, Switzerland that produces the data), which spans 1978-present.

Again, this is not the data used for the new solar studies. I gave you the correct data.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You were the one who quoted the article. That 99% figure comes from a public relations exercise. How could you miss that?

There are numerous studies:

The scientific consensus on human-caused global warming has been a topic of intense interest in recent decades. This is in part due to the important role of public perception of expert consensus, which has downstream impacts on public opinion and support for mitigation policies. Numerous studies, using diverse methodologies and measures of climate expertise, have quantified the scientific consensus, finding between 90% and 100% agreement on human-caused global warming with multiple studies converging on 97% agreement. This study revisits the consensus among geoscientists ten years after an initial survey of experts, while exploring different ways to define expertise and the level of agreement among these groups. We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses. In addition to analyzing the raw survey results, we independently quantify how many publications self-identified climate experts published in the field of climate change research and compare that to their survey response on questions about climate change. As well as a binary approach classifying someone as 'expert' or 'non-expert', we also look at expertise as a scale. We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774/meta

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

8 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

There are numerous studies:

The scientific consensus on human-caused global warming has been a topic of intense interest in recent decades. This is in part due to the important role of public perception of expert consensus, which has downstream impacts on public opinion and support for mitigation policies. Numerous studies, using diverse methodologies and measures of climate expertise, have quantified the scientific consensus, finding between 90% and 100% agreement on human-caused global warming with multiple studies converging on 97% agreement. This study revisits the consensus among geoscientists ten years after an initial survey of experts, while exploring different ways to define expertise and the level of agreement among these groups. We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses. In addition to analyzing the raw survey results, we independently quantify how many publications self-identified climate experts published in the field of climate change research and compare that to their survey response on questions about climate change. As well as a binary approach classifying someone as 'expert' or 'non-expert', we also look at expertise as a scale. We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774/meta

Here is from your article, Jay.

"We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses."

And this was not a survey of published work, but a survey of opinions by "climate scientists" who were selected to qualify under the criteria set by the study. 

A pre-selected sample.

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, this is not the data used for solar studies. I gave you the correct data.

SOHO is one of the foremost sources of data for solar scientists. CRF is secondary data set, it mostly has to do with cosmic rays from the other stars, not the Sun 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 minute ago, Jay McKinsey said:

SOHO is one of the foremost sources of data for solar scientists. CRF is secondary data set, it mostly has to do with cosmic rays from the other stars, not the Sun 

CRF is the data set used by the new research which gives the best results.

And, no, it doesn't result from other stars.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Here is from your article, Jay.

"We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses."

And this was not a survey of published work, but a survey of opinions by "climate scientists" who were selected to qualify under the criteria set by the study. 

A pre-selected sample.

There are numerous reports that all came to the same general conclusion and none have gone the other way.

The scientific consensus on human-caused global warming has been a topic of intense interest in recent decades. This is in part due to the important role of public perception of expert consensus, which has downstream impacts on public opinion and support for mitigation policies. Numerous studies, using diverse methodologies and measures of climate expertise, have quantified the scientific consensus, finding between 90% and 100% agreement on human-caused global warming with multiple studies converging on 97% agreement. This study revisits the consensus among geoscientists ten years after an initial survey of experts, while exploring different ways to define expertise and the level of agreement among these groups. We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses. In addition to analyzing the raw survey results, we independently quantify how many publications self-identified climate experts published in the field of climate change research and compare that to their survey response on questions about climate change. As well as a binary approach classifying someone as 'expert' or 'non-expert', we also look at expertise as a scale. We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774/meta

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

There are numerous reports that all came to the same general conclusion and none have gone the other way.

The scientific consensus on human-caused global warming has been a topic of intense interest in recent decades. This is in part due to the important role of public perception of expert consensus, which has downstream impacts on public opinion and support for mitigation policies. Numerous studies, using diverse methodologies and measures of climate expertise, have quantified the scientific consensus, finding between 90% and 100% agreement on human-caused global warming with multiple studies converging on 97% agreement. This study revisits the consensus among geoscientists ten years after an initial survey of experts, while exploring different ways to define expertise and the level of agreement among these groups. We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses. In addition to analyzing the raw survey results, we independently quantify how many publications self-identified climate experts published in the field of climate change research and compare that to their survey response on questions about climate change. As well as a binary approach classifying someone as 'expert' or 'non-expert', we also look at expertise as a scale. We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774/meta

 
  •  

Here is from your article, Jay. I guess you never studied statistics.

"We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses."

And this was not a survey of published work, but a survey of opinions by "climate scientists" who were selected to qualify under the criteria set by the study. 

A pre-selected sample.

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Here is from your article, Jay. I guess you never studied statistics.

"We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses."

And this was not a survey of published work, but a survey of opinions by "climate scientists" who were selected to qualify under the criteria set by the study. 

A pre-selected sample.

Then pay attention to the other reports that all found the same thing. No one cares about your silliness.

The scientific consensus on human-caused global warming has been a topic of intense interest in recent decades. This is in part due to the important role of public perception of expert consensus, which has downstream impacts on public opinion and support for mitigation policies. Numerous studies, using diverse methodologies and measures of climate expertise, have quantified the scientific consensus, finding between 90% and 100% agreement on human-caused global warming with multiple studies converging on 97% agreement. This study revisits the consensus among geoscientists ten years after an initial survey of experts, while exploring different ways to define expertise and the level of agreement among these groups. We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses. In addition to analyzing the raw survey results, we independently quantify how many publications self-identified climate experts published in the field of climate change research and compare that to their survey response on questions about climate change. As well as a binary approach classifying someone as 'expert' or 'non-expert', we also look at expertise as a scale. We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774/meta

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

CRF is the data set used by the new research which gives the best results.

And, no, it doesn't result from other stars.

Wrong as always:

What Are Cosmic Rays?

By Elizabeth Howell published May 10, 2018

  •  

Energetic Cosmic Rays Strike top of Earth's AtmosphereShowers of high energy particles occur when energetic cosmic rays strike the top of the Earth's atmosphere. Most cosmic rays are atomic nuclei: most are hydrogen nuclei, some are helium nuclei, and the rest heavier elements. Although many of the low energy cosmic rays come from our Sun, the origins of the highest energy cosmic rays remains unknown and a topic of much research. This drawing illustrates air showers from very high energy cosmic rays. (Image credit: Simon Swordy (U. Chicago), NASA)

 
 

Cosmic rays are atom fragments that rain down on the Earth from outside of the solar system. They blaze at the speed of light and have been blamed for electronics problems in satellites and other machinery.

 
 

Discovered in 1912, many things about cosmic rays remain a mystery more than a century later. One prime example is exactly where they are coming from. Most scientists suspect their origins are related to supernovas (star explosions), but the challenge is that for many years cosmic ray origins appeared uniform to observatories examining the entire sky.

 
 

A large leap forward in cosmic ray science came in 2017, when the Pierre Auger Observatory (which is spread over 3,000 square kilometers, or 1,160 square miles, in western Argentina) studied the arrival trajectories of 30,000 cosmic particles. It concluded that there is a difference in how frequently these cosmic rays arrive, depending on where you look. While their origins are still nebulous, knowing where to look is the first step in learning where they came from, the researchers said. The results were published in Science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

28 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Wrong as always:

What Are Cosmic Rays?

By Elizabeth Howell published May 10, 2018

  •  

Energetic Cosmic Rays Strike top of Earth's AtmosphereShowers of high energy particles occur when energetic cosmic rays strike the top of the Earth's atmosphere. Most cosmic rays are atomic nuclei: most are hydrogen nuclei, some are helium nuclei, and the rest heavier elements. Although many of the low energy cosmic rays come from our Sun, the origins of the highest energy cosmic rays remains unknown and a topic of much research. This drawing illustrates air showers from very high energy cosmic rays. (Image credit: Simon Swordy (U. Chicago), NASA)

 
 

Cosmic rays are atom fragments that rain down on the Earth from outside of the solar system. They blaze at the speed of light and have been blamed for electronics problems in satellites and other machinery.

 
 

Discovered in 1912, many things about cosmic rays remain a mystery more than a century later. One prime example is exactly where they are coming from. Most scientists suspect their origins are related to supernovas (star explosions), but the challenge is that for many years cosmic ray origins appeared uniform to observatories examining the entire sky.

 
 

A large leap forward in cosmic ray science came in 2017, when the Pierre Auger Observatory (which is spread over 3,000 square kilometers, or 1,160 square miles, in western Argentina) studied the arrival trajectories of 30,000 cosmic particles. It concluded that there is a difference in how frequently these cosmic rays arrive, depending on where you look. While their origins are still nebulous, knowing where to look is the first step in learning where they came from, the researchers said. The results were published in Science.

Here is the methodology in the latest research. 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020EA001223

Note this statement:

"Due to the higher quality data coming from the AIA instrument on the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO/AIA; Lemen et al., 2012) compared to its predecessor (SOHO/EIT; Delaboudinière et al., 1995), the corresponding midlatitude increases in activity beyond the 2011 termination are more pronounced that in 1997."

" Due to the higher quality data coming from the AIA instrument on the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO/AIA; Lemen et al., 2012) compared to its predecessor (SOHO/EIT; Delaboudinière et al., 1995), the corresponding midlatitude increases in activity beyond the 2011 termination are more pronounced that in 1997. Progressing down the figure, we see the computed Heliospheric Current Sheet (HCS) tilt angle from the Wilcox Solar Observatory (Panel B; Scherrer et al., 1977; Wilcox et al., 1980) and the Penticton 10.7 cm radio flux (Panel C; Tapping, 2013). The F10.7 flux is considered canonical as it is the longest consistent, calibrated, physical (as opposed to the more subjective counting of sunspots), record of solar activity, stretching back to 1947. Panel D shows the anticorrelated variation of the galactic cosmic-ray flux (CRF) as measured at the University of Oulu's Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory. The anticorrelation of CRF and solar activity (Forbush, 1954; McIntosh et al., 2013) is a result of changes in the Sun's global magnetic field strength (and structural configuration)—basically, a strong solar magnetic field blocks cosmic rays from entering the solar system, and hence the Earth's atmosphere with corresponding increases when said magnetic field is weak. Note that solar cycle 24 has seen a weaker global solar magnetic field than its predecessor, and correspondingly higher cosmic-ray fluxes. Observations of radiative proxies of solar activity from other wavelengths follow, in Panel E, the 1–8 Å integrated coronal X-ray irradiance measured by the GOES family of spacecraft (Chamberlin et al., 2009) and the University of Bremen's composite index of the Sun's chromospheric variability measured through the ultraviolet emission of singly ionized Magnesium (Panel F; Snow et al., 2014). The GOES X-ray flux was the measure in in which terminator events were first detected (Saba et al., 2005; Strong & Saba, 2009). Throughout all panels, the pairs of vertical dotted lines mark step-function changes are present in each of the measured quantities (radiative increases and CRF decreases) that persist for the next several months at the end of Cycle 22 and at the end of Cycle 23."

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Here is the methodology in the latest research.

" Due to the higher quality data coming from the AIA instrument on the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO/AIA; Lemen et al., 2012) compared to its predecessor (SOHO/EIT; Delaboudinière et al., 1995), the corresponding midlatitude increases in activity beyond the 2011 termination are more pronounced that in 1997. Progressing down the figure, we see the computed Heliospheric Current Sheet (HCS) tilt angle from the Wilcox Solar Observatory (Panel B; Scherrer et al., 1977; Wilcox et al., 1980) and the Penticton 10.7 cm radio flux (Panel C; Tapping, 2013). The F10.7 flux is considered canonical as it is the longest consistent, calibrated, physical (as opposed to the more subjective counting of sunspots), record of solar activity, stretching back to 1947. Panel D shows the anticorrelated variation of the galactic cosmic-ray flux (CRF) as measured at the University of Oulu's Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory. The anticorrelation of CRF and solar activity (Forbush, 1954; McIntosh et al., 2013) is a result of changes in the Sun's global magnetic field strength (and structural configuration)—basically, a strong solar magnetic field blocks cosmic rays from entering the solar system, and hence the Earth's atmosphere with corresponding increases when said magnetic field is weak. Note that solar cycle 24 has seen a weaker global solar magnetic field than its predecessor, and correspondingly higher cosmic-ray fluxes. Observations of radiative proxies of solar activity from other wavelengths follow, in Panel E, the 1–8 Å integrated coronal X-ray irradiance measured by the GOES family of spacecraft (Chamberlin et al., 2009) and the University of Bremen's composite index of the Sun's chromospheric variability measured through the ultraviolet emission of singly ionized Magnesium (Panel F; Snow et al., 2014). The GOES X-ray flux was the measure in in which terminator events were first detected (Saba et al., 2005; Strong & Saba, 2009). Throughout all panels, the pairs of vertical dotted lines mark step-function changes are present in each of the measured quantities (radiative increases and CRF decreases) that persist for the next several months at the end of Cycle 22 and at the end of Cycle 23."

Since you don't understand what is going on, try and focus on this excerpt:

"The anticorrelation of CRF and solar activity (Forbush, 1954; McIntosh et al., 2013) is a result of changes in the Sun's global magnetic field strength (and structural configuration)—basically, a strong solar magnetic field blocks cosmic rays from entering the solar system, and hence the Earth's atmosphere with corresponding increases when said magnetic field is weak. Note that solar cycle 24 has seen a weaker global solar magnetic field than its predecessor, and correspondingly higher cosmic-ray fluxes."

It clearly states that CRF is anticorrelated with solar activity. That is because CRF is from outside the solar system. When the Sun is more active with a stronger magnetic field it keeps the CRF away from the Earth. When the Sun is weaker more CRF get through to the Earth. 

This paper you love so much actually says that galactic cosmic rays are responsible for affects on Earth weather, not the Sun. Clearly this paper is meant to try and explain why a weaker Sun can actually lead to Earth warming because in its weakened condition it lets more galactic cosmic rays reach the Earth. 

"There have been many possible explanations postulated for a cosmic-ray climate connection, including: (i) Forbush decreases inducing increased extratropical storm vorticity (Roberts & Olson, 1973; Tinsley et al., 1989) and atmospheric gravity waves propagating from the auroral ionosphere (Prikryl et al., 2009); (ii) global electric conductivity inducing changes in cloud microphysics (Harrison, 2004; Tinsley, 2000); and (iii) direct formation of ionization particles seeding cloud formation (Svensmark & Friis-Christensen, 1997; Svensmark et al., 2017). However, the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation are a matter of hot debate (e.g., Gray et al., 2010; Kristjánsson et al., 2002; Pierce, 2017), with even the sign of the correlation between cosmic rays and climate not agreed on. "

Unequivocally CRF is not what solar scientists use to study the Sun because cosmic rays do not come from the Sun!!!!!!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

21 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Since you don't understand what is going on, try and focus on this excerpt:

"The anticorrelation of CRF and solar activity (Forbush, 1954; McIntosh et al., 2013) is a result of changes in the Sun's global magnetic field strength (and structural configuration)—basically, a strong solar magnetic field blocks cosmic rays from entering the solar system, and hence the Earth's atmosphere with corresponding increases when said magnetic field is weak. Note that solar cycle 24 has seen a weaker global solar magnetic field than its predecessor, and correspondingly higher cosmic-ray fluxes."

It clearly states that CRF is anticorrelated with solar activity. That is because CRF is from outside the solar system. When the Sun is more active with a stronger magnetic field it keeps the CRF away from the Earth. When the Sun is weaker more CRF get through to the Earth. 

This paper you love so much actually says that galactic cosmic rays are responsible for affects on Earth weather, not the Sun. Clearly this paper is meant to try and explain why a weaker Sun can actually lead to Earth warming because in its weakened condition it lets more galactic cosmic rays reach the Earth. 

"There have been many possible explanations postulated for a cosmic-ray climate connection, including: (i) Forbush decreases inducing increased extratropical storm vorticity (Roberts & Olson, 1973; Tinsley et al., 1989) and atmospheric gravity waves propagating from the auroral ionosphere (Prikryl et al., 2009); (ii) global electric conductivity inducing changes in cloud microphysics (Harrison, 2004; Tinsley, 2000); and (iii) direct formation of ionization particles seeding cloud formation (Svensmark & Friis-Christensen, 1997; Svensmark et al., 2017). However, the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation are a matter of hot debate (e.g., Gray et al., 2010; Kristjánsson et al., 2002; Pierce, 2017), with even the sign of the correlation between cosmic rays and climate not agreed on. "

Unequivocally CRF is not what solar scientists use to study the Sun because cosmic rays do not come from the Sun!!!!!!!!

 

The solar data series used here is a combined calculation using CRF and other cosmic ray series to provide the adjusted series. This provides the background measurement of solar activity, and is a completely different set of data from the ones you are suggesting from that PR blurb. This study is expecting a cooling period beginning in 2020, which is the same result from other solar activity studies. If many studies using different methodologies give the same results, that increases the confidence we can have in the outcomes.

And note the qualification about the SOHO project, which you claim the solar data is derived from.  That is not the case at all, here is the point above,

"Due to the higher quality data coming from the AIA instrument on the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO/AIA; Lemen et al., 2012) compared to its predecessor (SOHO/EIT; Delaboudinière et al., 1995), the corresponding midlatitude increases in activity beyond the 2011 termination are more pronounced that in 1997."

So that PR blurb you quoted above on SOHO needs to be understood in context.

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 

Then pay attention to the other reports that all found the same thing. No one cares about your silliness.

The scientific consensus on human-caused global warming has been a topic of intense interest in recent decades. This is in part due to the important role of public perception of expert consensus, which has downstream impacts on public opinion and support for mitigation policies. Numerous studies, using diverse methodologies and measures of climate expertise, have quantified the scientific consensus, finding between 90% and 100% agreement on human-caused global warming with multiple studies converging on 97% agreement. This study revisits the consensus among geoscientists ten years after an initial survey of experts, while exploring different ways to define expertise and the level of agreement among these groups. We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses. In addition to analyzing the raw survey results, we independently quantify how many publications self-identified climate experts published in the field of climate change research and compare that to their survey response on questions about climate change. As well as a binary approach classifying someone as 'expert' or 'non-expert', we also look at expertise as a scale. We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774/meta

 

I guess you never studied statistics, Jay.  This is not a random sample, there are criteria used to select the sample. A pre-selected sample is regarded as a biased sample, and the results have to be understood accordingly. This is a very low percentage of responses, less than one-third, which suggests that certain scientists did not want to respond. That alone would bias the sample. It looks like those scientists who were enthusiastic supporters of anthropogenic climate change theories would be most likely to respond. I would not take these results without looking at the context, which requires looking at the terms of the questionnaire, the types of "climate scientists" deemed suitable for the sample, etc. What was the actual question about global warming, was it due to "human activity"? Or was it due to "CO2"? How were the questions phrased? We need to know that.

The new solar research falls outside the brackets of this study.

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

The solar data series used here is a combined calculation using CRF to provide the adjusted series.

And not the qualification about the SOHO project, which you claim the solar data is derived from.  That is not the case at all, here is the point above,

"Due to the higher quality data coming from the AIA instrument on the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO/AIA; Lemen et al., 2012) compared to its predecessor (SOHO/EIT; Delaboudinière et al., 1995), the corresponding midlatitude increases in activity beyond the 2011 termination are more pronounced that in 1997."

So that PR blurb you quoted above on SOHO needs to be understood in context.

The SDO data does not show an increase in irradiance that correlates with the increase global temperature. It shows a decrease since 2014.

image.thumb.png.2759a0eabf5148c0d44e3fc93d4a6cb0.png

https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/sdo_eve_ssi_1nm_l3/

Temperature from 2010 to 2022

image.png.3a249776c8b5eca9ae9c47e5dbbad5a2.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

I guess you never studied statistics, Jay.  This is not a random sample, there are criteria used to select the sample. A pre-selected sample is regarded as a biased sample, and the results have to be understood accordingly. This is a very low percentage of responses, less than one-third, which suggests that certain scientists did not want to respond. That alone would bias the sample. It looks like those scientists who were enthusiastic supporters of anthropogenic climate change theories would be most likely to respond. I would not take these results without looking at the context, which requires looking at the terms of the questionnaire, the types of "climate scientists" deemed suitable for the sample, etc. What was the actual question about global warming, was it due to "human activity"? Or was it due to "CO2"? How were the questions phrased? We need to know that.

The new solar research falls outside the brackets of this study.

I know you never studied the English language. There are many other studies that found the same thing. 

The scientific consensus on human-caused global warming has been a topic of intense interest in recent decades. This is in part due to the important role of public perception of expert consensus, which has downstream impacts on public opinion and support for mitigation policies. Numerous studies, using diverse methodologies and measures of climate expertise, have quantified the scientific consensus, finding between 90% and 100% agreement on human-caused global warming with multiple studies converging on 97% agreement. This study revisits the consensus among geoscientists ten years after an initial survey of experts, while exploring different ways to define expertise and the level of agreement among these groups. We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses. In addition to analyzing the raw survey results, we independently quantify how many publications self-identified climate experts published in the field of climate change research and compare that to their survey response on questions about climate change. As well as a binary approach classifying someone as 'expert' or 'non-expert', we also look at expertise as a scale. We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774/meta

Edited by Jay McKinsey
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

I guess you never studied statistics, Jay.  This is not a random sample, there are criteria used to select the sample. A pre-selected sample is regarded as a biased sample, and the results have to be understood accordingly. This is a very low percentage of responses, less than one-third, which suggests that certain scientists did not want to respond. That alone would bias the sample. It looks like those scientists who were enthusiastic supporters of anthropogenic climate change theories would be most likely to respond. I would not take these results without looking at the context, which requires looking at the terms of the questionnaire, the types of "climate scientists" deemed suitable for the sample, etc. What was the actual question about global warming, was it due to "human activity"? Or was it due to "CO2"? How were the questions phrased? We need to know that.

The new solar research falls outside the brackets of this study.

If you could hope to even understand this book (nasa/jpl manual for radiation protection of satellites)AIAAG-083-1999GuideGuide To Modeling Earth’sTrapped Radiation Environment

The guide was prepared by Dr. Henry B. Garrett of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA for the AIAA Atmospheric and Space Environments Committee onStandards, Dr. Shu Lai, Chairman. https://spacewx.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/AIAA-655-543.pdf You have any sources in this league or are your all T-Balll players. ?

Hank was my roommate for year and half before i went to play soldier boy. Any one of your sources picked by AIAA to write a definitive treatise on standards for this topic? 

Edited by nsdp
left out a sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You apparently can't contemplate that I keep saying tomorrow there will be. The primary path will be renewable energy to create green hydrogen and atmospheric carbon removal to make green hydrocarbons for everything from steel to plastic to fertilizer and everything else.

‘Green steel’: Swedish company ships first batch made without using coal

This article is more than 8 months old

Hybrit sends steel made with hydrogen production process to Volvo, which plans to use it in prototype vehicles and components

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/19/green-steel-swedish-company-ships-first-batch-made-without-using-coal

Steel could go green by 2050 and it will only cost US$278 billion to get there: BNEF.

https://stockhead.com.au/resources/steel-could-go-green-by-2050-and-it-will-only-cost-us278-billion-to-get-there-bnef/

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

Steel could go green by 2050 and it will only cost US$278 billion to get there: BNEF.

https://stockhead.com.au/resources/steel-could-go-green-by-2050-and-it-will-only-cost-us278-billion-to-get-there-bnef/

Ah yes, remake their steel industry like the USA is currently using EAF's(majority) and miraculously find this hydrogen source...   Hrmm, Guess I know where all that new US steel capacity will go, Europe; as their gas supply is getting cut down... Guess the EU howling over tariffs will vanish instantly in the next couple of years, last I checked, steel prices are skyrocketeing throughout the entire EU.  Or... they will just get that horrible big bad CO2 laden steel from China/India.<<Cough>> what will actually happen.

EDIT: <<As for article... ??>> Brazil is going to be a low cost Hydrogen producer by 2030... In what delusional dope induced dream world is the idiot who wrote this article on?  Australia... maybe(have sun hours continuous).  Gloomy tropical Brazil?  Australia gets 2X the sun as Brazil.  So does Egypt, etc. Brazil has no wind... so what dream induced idiocy is the article blathering about?  $278Billion.... what a joke.  US just spent what? $30B for a few mtons production increase and hydrogen is nowhere to be found in that price tag. 

Edited by footeab@yahoo.com
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Ah yes, remake their steel industry like the USA is currently using EAF's(majority) and miraculously find this hydrogen source...   Hrmm, Guess I know where all that new US steel capacity will go, Europe; as their gas supply is getting cut down... Guess the EU howling over tariffs will vanish instantly in the next couple of years, last I checked, steel prices are skyrocketeing throughout the entire EU.  Or... they will just get that horrible big bad CO2 laden steel from China/India.<<Cough>> what will actually happen.

EDIT: <<As for article... ??>> Brazil is going to be a low cost Hydrogen producer by 2030... In what delusional dope induced dream world is the idiot who wrote this article on?  Australia... maybe(have sun hours continuous).  Gloomy tropical Brazil?  Australia gets 2X the sun as Brazil.  So does Egypt, etc. Brazil has no wind... so what dream induced idiocy is the article blathering about?  $278Billion.... what a joke.  US just spent what? $30B for a few mtons production increase and hydrogen is nowhere to be found in that price tag. 

Agree totally its a pipe dream!

i was responding to Jay saying that renewables could replace all FF usages, clearly thats not happening in anyones lifetime on this site.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Agree totally its a pipe dream!

i was responding to Jay saying that renewables could replace all FF usages, clearly thats not happening in anyones lifetime on this site.

 

The real Q is... will the EU actually ban Russian OIL?  I doubt it.  All those land locked Eastern countries with pipelines to Russia... Honestly have no other option.  The right of way battle through how many countries to a coastline for a new pipeline...

Yea I know, has nothing to do with your post, but both postulates are equally absurd.  Hydrogen steel mills for a couple billion which will LOWER their CO2 output, not net zero and eastern Europe weaning itself off of Russian oil anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

The real Q is... will the EU actually ban Russian OIL?  I doubt it.  All those land locked Eastern countries with pipelines to Russia... Honestly have no other option.  The right of way battle through how many countries to a coastline for a new pipeline...

Yea I know, has nothing to do with your post, but both postulates are equally absurd.  Hydrogen steel mills for a couple billion which will LOWER their CO2 output, not net zero and eastern Europe weaning itself off of Russian oil anytime soon.

Hungary wont stop buying Russian oil and if they dont others will take the same stance including Germany.

It will make the EU look like a bunch of incompetent, powerless aresholes! Which they are!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.