The Sun-Climate Effect

This has always been Shaviv's view.
Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct
". . . Instead, one can and should simulate the 20th century, and beyond, and see that when taking the sun into account, it explains about 1/2 to 2/3s of the 20th century warming, and that the best climate sensitivity is around 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling (compared with the 1.5 to 4.5°C of the IPCC). Two points to note here. First, although the best estimate of the solar radiative forcing is a bit less than the combined anthropogenic forcing, because it is spread more evenly over the 20th century, its contribution is larger than the anthropogenic contribution the bulk of which took place more recently. That's why the best fit gives that the solar contribution is 1/2 to 2/3s of the warming. Second, the reason that the best fit requires a smaller climate sensitivity is because the total net radiative forcing is about twice larger. This implies that a smaller sensitivity is required to fit the same observed temperature increase. . . . "

 

Again your point has been made by BB. And shows that there is no impending “climate catastrophe”.

 

"Why are we melting then?" They say.

 

No full costs are misleading. Levelised costs are the costs minus the govt subsidies and taking into account building and maintenance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity


https://about.bnef.com/blog/cost-of...sive-debt-offset-by-cooling-commodity-prices/

https://www.statista.com/statistics...-capital-cost-of-energy-generation-in-the-us/

Different sites give somewhat different numbers. BTW cost of battery storage is about to change big time.

https://www.australianvanadium.com.au/vanadium-batteries/
In fact grid storage is poised to revolutionise- which is one reason why the USA is investing in “green” energy. Lots and lots and lots of money to be made. Mind you the USA is not investing in the one really reliable green energy - geothermal.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/geothermal/use-of-geothermal-energy.php. You have so much geothermal available - unlike poor old Aus which is sitting on an ancient stable plate

 

Why are you making up stories? Point me to where scientists are talking about an immanent catastrophe. Yes science lays out all the pathways that might happen but groups of scientists are not sitting around hand wringing

 

As you can see, anything that is subsidised by a government will end up being detrimental to that nation.

 

I wouldn't know, as I'm not the one chanting, "I'm melting".

We go through hot and cold cycles. You just have to look at historical records.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/education/climate-primer/natural-climate-cycles

 

How sweet! A blog!
You DO a know don’t you that people can post anything they like on a blog - doesn’t have to be true. And you STILL haven’t spotted the rotten cherries!!!

Hint

Cherry 1
Only tying two correlates together in a complex system

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1351
Cherry 2
We freaking KNOW the temperature of the planet is affected by solar irradiation( https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance) but what Shaviv ignores is this

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/
Shavivs graph

Cherry 3
Truncated graph
Shavivs graph stops at 2000 (must have been the Y2K bug) before the real variance became so noticeable

Do you want me to go on or are you happy with eating rotten cherries?

 

@Bowerbird
Just in case you missed it, which I'm sure you did, in the last article → https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/education/climate-primer/natural-climate-cycles

If you hadn't noticed, this coincides with posts #390 & #425

And nothing to do with a "wobbly" sun!

 

What is melting?

 

Previously....



The climate alarmists who are snowflakes, they melt.

 

The full cost of energy is the only thing that is meaningful. The full cost of geothermal is astronomical. It makes no sense.

 

Yep! Know about those - are they causing the current warming?

 

No it isn’t. NZ has been using geothermal for over 50 years. Biggest issue to date has been that the hit spots aren’t exactly portable but this article discussing the future is VERY interesting

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/geothermal-energy/

 

So has Iceland. Why hasn’t the rest of the world converted? It’s obvious.

 

Well, NZ and Iceland have the advantage of being on top of geologically active sites but that was for traditional geothermal. The link I gave above delves into the broader types that are currently on the drawing board I.e “hot rock” technology

https://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/resources/technologies/geothermal

 

1. So you do not dispute the correlation? But rather content yourself with speculating about something unknown? Not persuasive.
2. Shaviv explicitly excludes TSI as important. I have told you this before.
3. The paper, published in 2008, took as its subject 20th century solar influence on warming. Hence, the 2000 end point. The "real variance" is not a variance at all because TSI is unimportant.

 

Why is this all on the drawing board?

 

One.
Show just one of the doomsday predictions we've heard about in the last 70 years that has proven accurate.
Then we can talk about global cooling climate warming climate change climate shift climate crisis climate whatever. Or perhaps you'd like to justify the use of private jets by the likes of Gates and Gore and Kerry (they don't own) to flit about the world telling us we're all gonna die if we don't shut off the lights, get rid of all fossil fuels NOW, and live in caves.

 

Crayons are easier to use.

 

No but correlation does not necessarily imply causation and in this case it may be a direct result or it may be secondary to the heating of the atmosphere or some slight melting of the ice caps all of which are KNOWN results from increased solar input - despite Shaviv’s claim there is a bloody lot of research around this influence of solar irradiance on the climate of earth.
Finally if this is so earth shattering (pun intended) - why is this a fringe theory quoted by virtually no one? He has not exactly shaken the scientific community with this as I pointed out to you before his paper has bloody few citations for what is supposed to be a seminal work, most of those are from fringe theorists with ties to the fossil fuel industries. As for the graph - he has had plenty of time to update it so why hasn’t he?

Shaviv has been criticised for sloppy wishful thinking before

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/archive-news/2004-2005/discussion.html

 

We have a saying here in Aus “What did your last slave die of?” Implying that demands will not be automatically granted. You want this YOU do the work.
And why have none of you ever heard of Carbon Offsets? Doesn’t America have them?
https://www.offsetguide.org/understanding-carbon-offsets/what-is-a-carbon-offset/

 

Well, if governments had put the funding into green energy that they put into fossil fuels over the last thirty years we would have the research and infrastructure now.
https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies

Look at the citation I included earlier about using the heat in deep oil wells to generate electricity- sadly some of the inertia has also been a mindset among fossil fuel executives (ie Koch bros) to resist change at all costs rather than embrace it and shift investments toward greener alternatives

 

Governments haven't put funding into fossil fuels. That's ridiculous. All the development in fossil fuels has come from the private sector.

 

@Bowerbird

This is why...
The earth's magnetic field impacts climate: Danish study

Does the strength of Earth's magnetic field influence its climate?

Earth’s Magnetic Field—The Key to Global Warming