I watch Dore on the regular, and when I saw this one I wondered how long it would take someone, and believe me or not but I figured it would probably be you, to post this with some variant of that title. It took almost two weeks, and I gave it three stars. Why don't people rate vids?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Muchos Munchbagger (Short Spike)
Don't care
Party got boring
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
Why would anyone stick around at a boring party?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
I simply cannot take anyone seriously who publishes on or quotes prager u. They must be one of the least credible sites on the interwebs.
+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
puttefnask (Old Spike)
PragerU is not a university, though the "U" implies it. It's a nonprofit organisation that was founded in 2009 by Dennis Prager and Allen Estrin in an attempt to offset what they regard as the undermining of college education by the left. They create short videos on different topics from a conservative perspective that are posted on their youtube channel.
The criticism they have received on science is based on a video they uploaded that features a climate skeptic's opinions. The animated graphs are not supposed to accurately reflect specific numbers and measurements. They are made to show a rise in c02 emissions over time, and also reflect what the skeptic is saying, his opinions. This is obvious by looking at them and further confirmed by actually watching the video in its entirety.
PragerU stopped using images, photographs, screenshots from other sources after they were sued in 2013, and have since only used animations.
Jordan Peterson's tweet did not state that he supports the climate skeptic's "scientific" findings presented in the video.
The majority of the video doesn't revolve around specific findings. It revolves around scientists, media and politicians taking advantage of the climate debate to further their own goals and financial gain, which directly affects scientific progress which would lead to real solutions.
The existence of climate skeptics or the sharing of their conclusions is not dangerous.
Just like the existence of skeptics in physics on every known theory of gravity is not dangerous.
We know climate skeptics are vastly outnumbered. Which means they are no threat to anyone.
Being a skeptic as a scientist does not automatically mean that you are pseudo-scientific in your approach.
In physics, skeptics are held high, because they're the only ones who can create progress by introducing new ideas.
Most people would say the science is done. Solved. And therefore we must engage in mass taxation and limit carbon emissions globally, even though the same people also say that it's too late and no action can reverse or repair the damage that has been done.
Unfortunately the climate scientists and the education system are not the ones leading the discussion or the way forward. Politicians and the media are leading it forward, in tandem with governments that promote a mandatory blueprint that says people will have to sacrifice their livelyhoods, their property, their wealth for a greater cause, often enacted by force by government mandate or lobbying efforts.
This is a "nature over men" mindset that prioritizes the will of the informed majority above the constitutional rights of the rapidly increasing number of blue-collar workers who aren't going to apply for the techblog assistant interview at Starbucks any time soon.
In an economy that has already suffered a lot since computers started replacing jobs, being forced out of a lifelong profession because someone you don't understand says that an invisible gas is making things warmer, is a reality most people don't empathize with.
And the political rift that is currently shaping society, has leaders, social media and mainstream media stifling debate on all sides. There's not a ball in sight to throw between the trenches.
What Jimmy Doore is doing in this clip is a character assassination of Jordan Peterson based on scientific findings(pseudo-or not) that Jordan Peterson personally had nothing to do with.
You see, Jimmy Doore's main schtick with his show is that he watches videos, and either debunk them, or pauses them to state where the hipocrisy or lies are placed.
In this video he does not, because Jimmy Doore, as objective he appears to be in many cases, is a liberal, on a liberal show, and Jordan Peterson is clearly one of the biggest threats to the liberal agenda right now. He actually hurts them.
In this video, Jimmy rather points to the responding tweets by random people, who also points only to the animated graphs in one tiny part of the video.
And then he just goes for it, ridicules his beliefs, even though Jordan Peterson doesn't believe in God. And totally misrepresent his views on monogamy.
He proceeds to even tell his audience to rather focus on their disingenious reporting on his scientific views on science based on a tweet, than Jimmy's own misrepresentation of the man, because he knew he went too far.
What a dick move.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"The existence of climate skeptics or the sharing of their conclusions is not dangerous."
If the "conclusions" of the "skeptics" are based solely on red herrings and outright false or misrepresented data it is.
If the "skeptics" are driven by nothing but an agenda (political or otherwise) it is.
Especially on climate change we have yet to see "skeptics" and their game changing "conclusions" that actually ARE based on valid research and peer reviewed papers and not just on a hunch, misinterpretation of valid research or outright lies, that can NOT be debunked in literally minutes by looking at the related real scientific research.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
puttefnask (Old Spike)
All the skeptics aren't saying they have a final conclusion that states the opposite.
They are saying that all the data isn't in yet, that there are more factors that has to be taken into account, BEFORE making a final conclusion on man made climate change, or even what steps to take in order to reverse it, if even possible.
Graphs will not fully explain the processes of climate, because climate is a chaotic system. Graphs are static and limited(simplified presentations of information we use to comprehend large quantities of data gathered over time). Chaotic systems are dynamic and continuous.(i.e unpredictable).
If you can't explain the process of climate change without using words like: dangerous, too late, or else, too big to fail, you are not engaging in a scientific discussion. You're a salesman. I have yet to see anyone credible explain it scientifically using all the factors available, or the reasons to discount certain factors as noncontributing to climate change.
That doesn't mean I don't believe in climate change. It means I find the explanations so far unsatisfactory and insufficient to believe they know how and why climate changes are happening right now. Though I do find human industrialisation and the following increase of carbon gases as a likely reason, and a good enough reason to make certain changes when it comes to pollution and emissions, those aren't good enough reasons to destroy infrastructure and take away people's livelyhoods.
Jordan Peterson incourages repeatedly to listen to someone you don't agree with, just in case you learn something that can save your life. That can improve your life. That can make life easier for the people around you that you care about. It is also a good exercise in debate, where you actually can convince someone that they are mistaken in their conclusions or opinions. Which is why you shouldn't defame or ridicule people you don't agree with. You're destroying every chance of them joining you, to come to their senses, to realise why they are wrong. Worst case scenario is that you are wrong.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"If you can't explain the process of climate change without using words like: dangerous, too late, or else, too big to fail, you are not engaging in a scientific discussion."
These words are not part of the scientific discussion. They are used by tabloids, some "interested" celebreties and others with a certain bias.
" I have yet to see anyone credible explain it scientifically using all the factors available, or the reasons to discount certain factors as noncontributing to climate change."
Of course you would say that despite me for example referencing various times to a video series where this is explained in laymens terms without buzz words and REFERENCED to the valid scientific research where everybody can check for themselves whether or not this "works out."
But headline huggers like yourself don't like long-ish uncomfortable "entertainment" and prefer the likes of crowder to receive their climate science from.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
Bwahahahaha! The climate change denial conspiracy will never die! Potholer54 hasn't released a video in 4 months - shortly after he misrepresented Suspicious Observers he just dropped off of YouTube. Do you think that's a coincidence? Putt and I are heavily funded by the oil industry, we know who butters our bread, and we will fight to push climate change-denying disinfo forever so we can get rich and watch the world die while cackling:
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Yeah I was looking forward to the second part of the debate with Ben. Now Potholer has even deleted the first part from his channel. Kinda weird because he was so eager getting it on there for everyone to see.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
40 seconds in and he is wrong already.
And: Where are the "hundreds" of peer reviewed papers allegedly ignored? Have I missed the references to them?
Why doesn't he write a paper on this gets it published and peer reviewed by people that actually know what they are talking about rather than making a few videos that do not contain references and are aimed at people that don't really know?
Also: you are one of the most biased and somewhat obsessed people on here. Go and do some consulting.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Check the end of the first video. Happy reading.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
I stand corrected and, in contrary to you, will have a look and see if what of it I understand......
At first glance about half of them are regarding health issues and quite a number about local phenomena, which I think we can all agree can be ruled out from the discussion.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Good for you. You can call me lazy by I'm not going to dive into 200 papers on my day off. I'm just going to have to take the summary on this video for what it is. Not as absolute fact, but something that is good to consider while doomsday prophets beat their drums.
This is pretty much in line what I've always said to you. I'm not denying global warming, but I'm skeptical of how anthropomorphic global warming vs natural variability can be so accurately separated. The models are lacking and will be for a good time to come because we don't yet understand the climate fully.
Maybe potholer could reply / debunk this video, that is if he ever gets out the suspicious0bservers debate part II that I've been waiting for the last 6 months.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
LOL
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
regarding "global water cycle and solar cycle activity"
"Abstract
The water cycle is the most active and most important component in the circulation of global mass and energy in the Earth system. Furthermore, water cycle parameters such as evaporation, precipitation, and precipitable water vapour play a major role in global climate change. In this work, we attempt to determine the impact of solar activity on the global water cycle by analyzing the global monthly values of precipitable water vapour, precipitation, and the Solar Modulation Potential in 1983-2008. The first object of this study was to calculate global evaporation for the period 1983-2008. For this purpose, we determined the water cycle rate from satellite data, and precipitation/evaporation relationship from 10 years of Planet Simulator model data. The second object of our study was to investigate the relationship between the Solar Modulation Potential (solar activity index) and the evaporation for the period 1983-2008. The results showed that there is a relationship between the solar modulation potential and the evaporation values for the period of study. Therefore, we can assume that the solar activity has an impact on the global water cycle."
This is recognised by NASA and therefore I find it hard to believe that this will not be incorporated into models if it isn't already should it be of significance.
Regarding: empirical mode decomposition solar irradiance global temperature
"Abstract
Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD) is a tool that can decompose and analyze the cyclic components from oscillatory data in the time-domain. When combined with the traditional Hilbert spectral analysis, it is similar to spectral tools such as Fourier analysis, wavelet analysis, and generalized time–frequency analysis. However, the EMD method is specifically designed to analyze nonstationary data from nonlinear processes. Fluctuations of total solar irradiance, global temperature, sunspot number, and CO2 concentration are decomposed into their periodic components using the EMD method. The cyclic components of the data are analyzed and compared in the time-domain. An 11-year oscillation in global mean temperature is found and compared with the Schwabe cycle from sunspot and total solar irradiance proxy data. Also, the relative radiative forcing from different periodic components of total solar irradiance and CO2 concentration are empirically estimated.
Highlights
► We decompose a number of solar and terrestrial data sets using Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD). ► The periodic components of solar irradiance, sunspot number, and global temperature are compared. ► The EMD method provides empirical estimates for radiative forcing from solar irradiance and CO2."
It would be interesting to read the full article, if anyone has acces please pass it on. I think it is doubtful that huge discrepancies are found, otherwise it would be mentioned in the abstract.
Regarding; Evolution of Dst index, cosmic rays and global temperature during solar cycles 20–23
"Abstract
We have studied conditions in interplanetary space, which can have an influence on galactic cosmic ray (CR) and climate change. In this connection the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field parameters and cosmic ray variations have been compared with geomagnetic activity represented by the equatorial Dst index from the beginning 1965 to the end of 2012. Dst index is commonly used as the solar wind–magnetosphere–ionosphere interaction characteristic. The important drivers in interplanetary medium which have effect on cosmic rays as CMEs (coronal mass ejections) and CIRs (corotating interaction regions) undergo very strong changes during their propagation to the Earth. Because of this CMEs, coronal holes and the solar spot numbers (SSN) do not adequately reflect peculiarities concerned with the solar wind arrival to 1 AU. Therefore, the geomagnetic indices have some inestimable advantage as continuous series other the irregular solar wind measurements. We have compared the yearly average variations of Dst index and the solar wind parameters with cosmic ray data from Moscow, Climax, and Haleakala neutron monitors during the solar cycles 20–23. The descending phases of these solar cycles (CSs) had the long-lasting solar wind high speed streams occurred frequently and were the primary contributors to the recurrent Dst variations. They also had effects on cosmic rays variations. We show that long-term Dst variations in these solar cycles were correlated with the cosmic ray count rate and can be used for study of CR variations. Global temperature variations in connection with evolution of Dst index and CR variations is discussed."
As before.
Regarding cosmic rays and cloud cover I found this.
Conclusion:
"Possible long term effect
The effect from Forbush decreases on clouds is too brief to have any impact on long-term temperature changes.
However since clouds are affected by short term changes in galactic cosmic radiation, they may well also be affected by the slower change in Solar activity that happens on scales from tens to hundreds of years, and thus play a role in the radiation budget that determines the global temperature.
The Suns contribution to past and future climate change may thus be larger than merely the direct changes in radiation, concludes the scientists behind the new study."
That shall be it for the time being. It does not look like these are theory changing publications, does it.
There of course will be inaccuracies that have to be dealt with and time will tell which of those studies wil actually have an impact and thus will be incorporated in the models.
None of the studies mention that their findings replace CO2 as the main driver for global warming, that would already be in the title or in the abstract.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Oh dear, I was "shamed" into watching the other two parts of the video series as apparently these are the pudding the proof resides in.
OOOOOPS.
The series is merely a promotion for a book he wrote, alleged facts are presented but not substantiated. Yes it will be a book, NOT a scientific study or report (although, according to him, he published groundbreaking work on another topic before). Many "real" scientists apparently are waiting anxiously in anticipation.
May I ask the fanboys to please report back once they read it. please, pretty please with sugar on top.....
Comments
(Short Spike)
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/952345392619847680?lang=en
...lol..
I'm high fiving my meaning of music embroidered drapes I got for 500 bucks, while you faggots don't even know how to do the lobster.
(Old Spike)
Jimmy Dore is so bitch-made.
(Short Spike)
Tiny gorilla beating his chest and slinging shit / <gif>
(Old Spike)
This is so old.
(Short Spike)
The Jimmy Dore Show
Published on Aug 4, 2018
(Old Spike)
I watch Dore on the regular, and when I saw this one I wondered how long it would take someone, and believe me or not but I figured it would probably be you, to post this with some variant of that title. It took almost two weeks, and I gave it three stars. Why don't people rate vids?
(Short Spike)
Don't care
Party got boring
(Old Spike)
Why would anyone stick around at a boring party?
(Old Spike)
I simply cannot take anyone seriously who publishes on or quotes prager u. They must be one of the least credible sites on the interwebs.
(Old Spike)
PragerU is not a university, though the "U" implies it. It's a nonprofit organisation that was founded in 2009 by Dennis Prager and Allen Estrin in an attempt to offset what they regard as the undermining of college education by the left. They create short videos on different topics from a conservative perspective that are posted on their youtube channel.
The criticism they have received on science is based on a video they uploaded that features a climate skeptic's opinions. The animated graphs are not supposed to accurately reflect specific numbers and measurements. They are made to show a rise in c02 emissions over time, and also reflect what the skeptic is saying, his opinions. This is obvious by looking at them and further confirmed by actually watching the video in its entirety.
PragerU stopped using images, photographs, screenshots from other sources after they were sued in 2013, and have since only used animations.
Jordan Peterson's tweet did not state that he supports the climate skeptic's "scientific" findings presented in the video.
The majority of the video doesn't revolve around specific findings. It revolves around scientists, media and politicians taking advantage of the climate debate to further their own goals and financial gain, which directly affects scientific progress which would lead to real solutions.
The existence of climate skeptics or the sharing of their conclusions is not dangerous.
Just like the existence of skeptics in physics on every known theory of gravity is not dangerous.
We know climate skeptics are vastly outnumbered. Which means they are no threat to anyone.
Being a skeptic as a scientist does not automatically mean that you are pseudo-scientific in your approach.
In physics, skeptics are held high, because they're the only ones who can create progress by introducing new ideas.
Most people would say the science is done. Solved. And therefore we must engage in mass taxation and limit carbon emissions globally, even though the same people also say that it's too late and no action can reverse or repair the damage that has been done.
Unfortunately the climate scientists and the education system are not the ones leading the discussion or the way forward. Politicians and the media are leading it forward, in tandem with governments that promote a mandatory blueprint that says people will have to sacrifice their livelyhoods, their property, their wealth for a greater cause, often enacted by force by government mandate or lobbying efforts.
This is a "nature over men" mindset that prioritizes the will of the informed majority above the constitutional rights of the rapidly increasing number of blue-collar workers who aren't going to apply for the techblog assistant interview at Starbucks any time soon.
In an economy that has already suffered a lot since computers started replacing jobs, being forced out of a lifelong profession because someone you don't understand says that an invisible gas is making things warmer, is a reality most people don't empathize with.
And the political rift that is currently shaping society, has leaders, social media and mainstream media stifling debate on all sides. There's not a ball in sight to throw between the trenches.
What Jimmy Doore is doing in this clip is a character assassination of Jordan Peterson based on scientific findings(pseudo-or not) that Jordan Peterson personally had nothing to do with.
You see, Jimmy Doore's main schtick with his show is that he watches videos, and either debunk them, or pauses them to state where the hipocrisy or lies are placed.
In this video he does not, because Jimmy Doore, as objective he appears to be in many cases, is a liberal, on a liberal show, and Jordan Peterson is clearly one of the biggest threats to the liberal agenda right now. He actually hurts them.
In this video, Jimmy rather points to the responding tweets by random people, who also points only to the animated graphs in one tiny part of the video.
And then he just goes for it, ridicules his beliefs, even though Jordan Peterson doesn't believe in God. And totally misrepresent his views on monogamy.
He proceeds to even tell his audience to rather focus on their disingenious reporting on his scientific views on science based on a tweet, than Jimmy's own misrepresentation of the man, because he knew he went too far.
What a dick move.
(Old Spike)
"The existence of climate skeptics or the sharing of their conclusions is not dangerous."
If the "conclusions" of the "skeptics" are based solely on red herrings and outright false or misrepresented data it is.
If the "skeptics" are driven by nothing but an agenda (political or otherwise) it is.
Especially on climate change we have yet to see "skeptics" and their game changing "conclusions" that actually ARE based on valid research and peer reviewed papers and not just on a hunch, misinterpretation of valid research or outright lies, that can NOT be debunked in literally minutes by looking at the related real scientific research.
(Old Spike)
All the skeptics aren't saying they have a final conclusion that states the opposite.
They are saying that all the data isn't in yet, that there are more factors that has to be taken into account, BEFORE making a final conclusion on man made climate change, or even what steps to take in order to reverse it, if even possible.
Graphs will not fully explain the processes of climate, because climate is a chaotic system. Graphs are static and limited(simplified presentations of information we use to comprehend large quantities of data gathered over time). Chaotic systems are dynamic and continuous.(i.e unpredictable).
If you can't explain the process of climate change without using words like: dangerous, too late, or else, too big to fail, you are not engaging in a scientific discussion. You're a salesman. I have yet to see anyone credible explain it scientifically using all the factors available, or the reasons to discount certain factors as noncontributing to climate change.
That doesn't mean I don't believe in climate change. It means I find the explanations so far unsatisfactory and insufficient to believe they know how and why climate changes are happening right now. Though I do find human industrialisation and the following increase of carbon gases as a likely reason, and a good enough reason to make certain changes when it comes to pollution and emissions, those aren't good enough reasons to destroy infrastructure and take away people's livelyhoods.
Jordan Peterson incourages repeatedly to listen to someone you don't agree with, just in case you learn something that can save your life. That can improve your life. That can make life easier for the people around you that you care about. It is also a good exercise in debate, where you actually can convince someone that they are mistaken in their conclusions or opinions. Which is why you shouldn't defame or ridicule people you don't agree with. You're destroying every chance of them joining you, to come to their senses, to realise why they are wrong. Worst case scenario is that you are wrong.
(Old Spike)
"If you can't explain the process of climate change without using words like: dangerous, too late, or else, too big to fail, you are not engaging in a scientific discussion."
These words are not part of the scientific discussion. They are used by tabloids, some "interested" celebreties and others with a certain bias.
" I have yet to see anyone credible explain it scientifically using all the factors available, or the reasons to discount certain factors as noncontributing to climate change."
Of course you would say that despite me for example referencing various times to a video series where this is explained in laymens terms without buzz words and REFERENCED to the valid scientific research where everybody can check for themselves whether or not this "works out."
But headline huggers like yourself don't like long-ish uncomfortable "entertainment" and prefer the likes of crowder to receive their climate science from.
(Old Spike)
Bwahahahaha! The climate change denial conspiracy will never die! Potholer54 hasn't released a video in 4 months - shortly after he misrepresented Suspicious Observers he just dropped off of YouTube. Do you think that's a coincidence? Putt and I are heavily funded by the oil industry, we know who butters our bread, and we will fight to push climate change-denying disinfo forever so we can get rich and watch the world die while cackling:
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Yeah I was looking forward to the second part of the debate with Ben. Now Potholer has even deleted the first part from his channel. Kinda weird because he was so eager getting it on there for everyone to see.
(Old Spike)
40 seconds in and he is wrong already.
And: Where are the "hundreds" of peer reviewed papers allegedly ignored? Have I missed the references to them?
Why doesn't he write a paper on this gets it published and peer reviewed by people that actually know what they are talking about rather than making a few videos that do not contain references and are aimed at people that don't really know?
Also: you are one of the most biased and somewhat obsessed people on here. Go and do some consulting.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Check the end of the first video. Happy reading.
(Old Spike)
I stand corrected and, in contrary to you, will have a look and see if what of it I understand......
At first glance about half of them are regarding health issues and quite a number about local phenomena, which I think we can all agree can be ruled out from the discussion.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Good for you. You can call me lazy by I'm not going to dive into 200 papers on my day off. I'm just going to have to take the summary on this video for what it is. Not as absolute fact, but something that is good to consider while doomsday prophets beat their drums.
This is pretty much in line what I've always said to you. I'm not denying global warming, but I'm skeptical of how anthropomorphic global warming vs natural variability can be so accurately separated. The models are lacking and will be for a good time to come because we don't yet understand the climate fully.
Maybe potholer could reply / debunk this video, that is if he ever gets out the suspicious0bservers debate part II that I've been waiting for the last 6 months.
(Old Spike)
LOL
(Old Spike)
regarding "global water cycle and solar cycle activity"
"Abstract
The water cycle is the most active and most important component in the circulation of global mass and energy in the Earth system. Furthermore, water cycle parameters such as evaporation, precipitation, and precipitable water vapour play a major role in global climate change. In this work, we attempt to determine the impact of solar activity on the global water cycle by analyzing the global monthly values of precipitable water vapour, precipitation, and the Solar Modulation Potential in 1983-2008. The first object of this study was to calculate global evaporation for the period 1983-2008. For this purpose, we determined the water cycle rate from satellite data, and precipitation/evaporation relationship from 10 years of Planet Simulator model data. The second object of our study was to investigate the relationship between the Solar Modulation Potential (solar activity index) and the evaporation for the period 1983-2008. The results showed that there is a relationship between the solar modulation potential and the evaporation values for the period of study. Therefore, we can assume that the solar activity has an impact on the global water cycle."
This is recognised by NASA and therefore I find it hard to believe that this will not be incorporated into models if it isn't already should it be of significance.
Regarding: empirical mode decomposition solar irradiance global temperature
"Abstract
Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD) is a tool that can decompose and analyze the cyclic components from oscillatory data in the time-domain. When combined with the traditional Hilbert spectral analysis, it is similar to spectral tools such as Fourier analysis, wavelet analysis, and generalized time–frequency analysis. However, the EMD method is specifically designed to analyze nonstationary data from nonlinear processes. Fluctuations of total solar irradiance, global temperature, sunspot number, and CO2 concentration are decomposed into their periodic components using the EMD method. The cyclic components of the data are analyzed and compared in the time-domain. An 11-year oscillation in global mean temperature is found and compared with the Schwabe cycle from sunspot and total solar irradiance proxy data. Also, the relative radiative forcing from different periodic components of total solar irradiance and CO2 concentration are empirically estimated.
Highlights
► We decompose a number of solar and terrestrial data sets using Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD). ► The periodic components of solar irradiance, sunspot number, and global temperature are compared. ► The EMD method provides empirical estimates for radiative forcing from solar irradiance and CO2."
It would be interesting to read the full article, if anyone has acces please pass it on. I think it is doubtful that huge discrepancies are found, otherwise it would be mentioned in the abstract.
Regarding; Evolution of Dst index, cosmic rays and global temperature during solar cycles 20–23
"Abstract
We have studied conditions in interplanetary space, which can have an influence on galactic cosmic ray (CR) and climate change. In this connection the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field parameters and cosmic ray variations have been compared with geomagnetic activity represented by the equatorial Dst index from the beginning 1965 to the end of 2012. Dst index is commonly used as the solar wind–magnetosphere–ionosphere interaction characteristic. The important drivers in interplanetary medium which have effect on cosmic rays as CMEs (coronal mass ejections) and CIRs (corotating interaction regions) undergo very strong changes during their propagation to the Earth. Because of this CMEs, coronal holes and the solar spot numbers (SSN) do not adequately reflect peculiarities concerned with the solar wind arrival to 1 AU. Therefore, the geomagnetic indices have some inestimable advantage as continuous series other the irregular solar wind measurements. We have compared the yearly average variations of Dst index and the solar wind parameters with cosmic ray data from Moscow, Climax, and Haleakala neutron monitors during the solar cycles 20–23. The descending phases of these solar cycles (CSs) had the long-lasting solar wind high speed streams occurred frequently and were the primary contributors to the recurrent Dst variations. They also had effects on cosmic rays variations. We show that long-term Dst variations in these solar cycles were correlated with the cosmic ray count rate and can be used for study of CR variations. Global temperature variations in connection with evolution of Dst index and CR variations is discussed."
As before.
Regarding cosmic rays and cloud cover I found this.
Conclusion:
"Possible long term effect
The effect from Forbush decreases on clouds is too brief to have any impact on long-term temperature changes.
However since clouds are affected by short term changes in galactic cosmic radiation, they may well also be affected by the slower change in Solar activity that happens on scales from tens to hundreds of years, and thus play a role in the radiation budget that determines the global temperature.
The Suns contribution to past and future climate change may thus be larger than merely the direct changes in radiation, concludes the scientists behind the new study."
That shall be it for the time being. It does not look like these are theory changing publications, does it.
There of course will be inaccuracies that have to be dealt with and time will tell which of those studies wil actually have an impact and thus will be incorporated in the models.
None of the studies mention that their findings replace CO2 as the main driver for global warming, that would already be in the title or in the abstract.
(Old Spike)
Oh dear, I was "shamed" into watching the other two parts of the video series as apparently these are the pudding the proof resides in.
OOOOOPS.
The series is merely a promotion for a book he wrote, alleged facts are presented but not substantiated. Yes it will be a book, NOT a scientific study or report (although, according to him, he published groundbreaking work on another topic before). Many "real" scientists apparently are waiting anxiously in anticipation.
May I ask the fanboys to please report back once they read it. please, pretty please with sugar on top.....