The Sun and Climate 2

How We Know the Sun Changes the Climate (II). The Present
Contents
00:00 Introduction
00:30 The IPCC Says...
01:21 Sun's Effect on the Surface
03:09 Sun's Effect on the Ocean
06:56 Atmospheric Effects
10:25 Earth's Rotation Effects
12:57 Conclusions

[@ScienceClimate-uf4xm]

My books: amzn.to/4dlk9KZ Solving the Climate Puzzle. The Sun's Surprising Role. amzn.to/3y7XNwl Climate of the Past, Present and Future. A Scientific Debate Mes livres: www.amazon.fr/Résoudre-puzzle-climat-surprenant-soleil-ebook/dp/B0CQ2RDWNY/ www.amazon.fr/climat-passé-présent-futur-scientifique-ebook/dp/B0BRJ94Z2H/ Mis libros: amzn.to/4diyhV8 Resolviendo el Puzzle Climático. El Sorprendente papel del Sol. amzn.to/4aUN1YB Climate of the Past, Present and Future. A Scientific Debate

[@daves3819]

Excellent work. Well done, thanks!!

[@mfr58]

Thank you for your important work.

[@grahamgillard3722]

Thank you. I don’t understand it all, but I know it is important.

[@Zalioth]

Awesome work, I'd love to see a version in Spanish so this can reach further!

[@ScienceClimate-uf4xm]

My Spanish channel is @JavierVinos The Sapanish version of this video will be up in a few days.

[@Zalioth]

@@ScienceClimate-uf4xm thanks!

[@josegarcia-wo5pi]

Sometimes you may not have all the facts 100% about a subject but you have a gut feeling. This is one of those times. I believe in the validity of the work of this gentlemen

[@voncth5791]

Very interesting channel! This chanel become more popular with such thorough data

[@gregorybrennan8539]

Thank You .

[@stevebolae5500]

Great video presentation. I was surprised to learn the sun's effect on the earth's rotation. It goes to show that there is so much to learn about our planet's climate.

[@EinarBordewich]

Fantastic interesting information and presentation of for me total unknown factors of climate change! Thank you! By the way, is your findings presented here published and peer-reviewed?

[@ScienceClimate-uf4xm]

Yes. My first book, "Climate of the Past, Present and Future. A Scientific Debate" is a peer reviewed academic book. It includes the reviewers' comments and answers. The second book is not academic, and written for a more general readership.

[@brudo5056]

I thought there was a consensus that if the warming effect should come from the solar source then the average temperature trend in the stratosphere should go up but the observation is a cooling effect in the stratosphere and a warming effect in the lower levels... this indicates that the sun is probably NOT the driving force for the actual temperature rise.

[@ScienceClimate-uf4xm]

That's the typical fallacious dichotomy based on a simple but false choice. The Sun does not only cause temperature changes in the stratosphere. It also causes dynamical changes. it is not true that to act on climate the Sun needs to warm the stratosphere. In addition, If CO₂ was responsible for the cooling of the stratosphere why the lower stratosphere stopped cooling in 1997 when CO₂ has continued increasin even faster than before?

[@brutter602]

Thanks for the information. People are starting to wake up to the lies that they are being told.

[@stephenbrown9998]

Thank you

[@gossedejong9248]

absolutely brilliant!!

[@Ray_of_Light62]

Thank you.

[@renesmit6774]

Could the changes in magnetic interactions also be a contributing factor???

[@ScienceClimate-uf4xm]

I don't know much about that, but there have been several geomagnetic inversions and excursions, and the last one, the Laschamp Event does show some climatic anomalies but nothing too drastic. So I don't think we have a good answer on that one.

[@EngiRedbeard]

It could. For example, we are inside the suns magnetic field. As the sun's magnetic field changes we receive more or less cosmic rays as it's field affects how much gets through. There are theories that cosmic rays affect cloud nucleation. So with more cosmic rays, we get more clouds and like a camera iris, it cools the planet. So Total Solar Iradience is a massive over simplification of the suns affect on climate. The suns magnetic field is different than total TSI so it does not take it into account. Also, parts of the spectrum affect the climate differently. Just like sunburns are from UVA/UVB, certain frequencies affect different things differently. So TSI might only change slightly, but parts of the spectrum change dramatically and those changes could have more or less affect. TSI averages all that out and over simplifies the sun's affects. This is very basic stuff about problem solving that are nearly completely ignored. But when your funding depends on you getting the preferred outcome, you choose to eat, over choosing to find the truth. Of course if you don't believe in truth, you don't feel that bad about it.

[@LivingNow678]

​@@ScienceClimate-uf4xm Hallo, just a suggestion take a look at the video 22 November 2022 Creative Society 'our survival is in unity'

[@LivingNow678]

​@@ScienceClimate-uf4xm I'm Italian and we say: Messager non porta pena 🤗✋

[@christophvonknobelsdorff1936]

hat meine KI extra für mich komponiert .

[@kkartha]

Are they reflecting sun's rays back to space by injecting chemicals in the atmosphere aka Geo Solar Engineering?

[@ScienceClimate-uf4xm]

It is being discussed by some people, but we are actually doing the opposite by cleaning the atmosphere from aerosol pollution through more strict fuel regulations for ships. This is considered to have a warming effect.

[@henkenmarionschuringaart-ku6zb]

you show (around 2:30) a figure from Judith Lean (2017) showing the latitude dependent variation of global warming, both for surface temperature and stratospheric temperature. the latitude dependency for the stratosphere appears to be more or less the inverse of the surface temp dependency. then you claim this refutes the greenhouse gas warming fingerprint claim: that the stratosphere is cooling, while for the sun to be the source of extra radiative forcing the stratosphere should be warming with the troposphere. but the graph clearly shows, that the extra solar energy causes warming in both troposphere and stratosphere. that the warming of the stratosphere with increasing TSI has a different latitude dependency does still not mean that it is cooling.

[@ScienceClimate-uf4xm]

That's correct. I don't say that the increase in solar activity causes cooling in the stratosphere because it doesn't. However, that solar activity causes a different (mirror image) effect on the stratosphere and surface indicates we don't understand stratospheric changes in behavior sufficiently well to affirm that the cooling of the stratosphere responds to the increase in CO₂. In fact, since 1997 the lower stratosphere has stopped cooling, while CO₂ has continued increasing. This supports that the cooling of the stratosphere is not due to the increase in CO₂ as many scientists believe, but responds to changes in the dynamics of the stratosphere that are very affected by solar activity. The decrease in solar activity since the mid-90s supports this interpretation.

[@gigabane7357]

Freedom of information request directly to the guy speaking. Man to man, eye to eye. declare your interests. I will already be impressed if you do not delete my words. I declare that ALL of my motives are about saving nature from the machinations of man. I am a hedonistic solar punk that literally needs nothing from the world of capitalism to make my life more fun or matter more. I cannot be bought. I am also an autistic self educated (Including reading and writing, so expect poor skill on word formation due to bad habits and moving on to other fields as soon as i had just enough skill to understand them). citizen who leans slightly to the left, but is more concerned with the world that exists outside the human paradigm. Climate science is my autistic special interest and i have tens of thousands of hours of learning and forgetting the very bleeding edge as it happens. I will explain this topic through MY world views so you can understand from a different perspective. The Sun is a camp fire and you are the earth. Every now and then, someone throws a log on the fire or a cup of water. This is your solar cycles. call it all natural variability, because we have milankovich cycles and other stuff... just assume for the point of this conversation, this means all detectable variabilities that are NOT man made. Very very very slowly, inside the fire, very slow to ignite fuel is raising the over all temp of the fire by a miniscule amount. this can be likened to the fact our sun is ever so slowly getting hotter over million year scales. Now this fire is the perfect distance from you that you can feel just the right amount of heat and those occasional logs and cups of water make a noticable difference to how warm your skin feels.. not huge, but you can detect it. Now into this mix we add some new variables. Part of your outfit is a solar umbrella. over time this is growing but even now to this day, it only reflects about 10-20% of the total heat coming from the fire. This is our poisonous sulphur pollution. but also, you have just the right amount of cloths on to match the fire and most of the reflectance of the solar shield. Now the global warming that we who lean closer to the doomer side are talking about is directly adding more clothes. more clothes and growing the solar shield, but the shield is never big enough to cancel more than 1/3rd of the incoming energy. THIS is the problem and it is a HUGE problem. I will state now that Myself and MANY others including the peer I will mention do not think the IPCC is any good at all. EVERYTHING they do is underpinned by models. Models that are wrong. so it is no surprise that there is a lot of wiggle room to argue their points. these are the facts that are important. Before the Ford Model T was even on the roads, Eunice Newton Foote, both discovered the fact that co2 can store heat, AND demonstrates how we can test and see for ourselves in very easy ways to replicate at home. Then in 1896 Svante came out out with our first real significant climate forcing formula. I will not write it here. I expect you to do some leg work people. in this age of AI assistance, you have NO excuse but abdicating personal soverignty for your ignorance in the topics that matter to the day. Now in Nov 2023 James Hansen has revised his 'Global warming in the pipeline' paper and has given us the RECONSTRUCTION forcings, not models. These two GIANTS of science are singing on exactly the same hymn sheet. Between them we have invented the micro chip, the super computer, the quantum computer and artificial intelligence to second guess our work. and the two numbers are in sync. Right now, the climate is set to +10 and the feedbacks are kicking in. We are very very very much on the precipice of an unstoppable march to very hothouse earth AND Amoc collapse, with all the chaotic weather that will bring. Yes the sun has an effect, but the amount of insulation we have put on is making us so hot, the variations in solar output are getting lost in the trapped heat.

[@ScienceClimate-uf4xm]

I've been a scientist since the mid-1980s. My only interest in climate is in the advancement of science avoiding wrong paradigms caused by insufficient knowledge. Nobody knows how much a doubling of CO₂ warms the surface. It is called climate sensitivity. Scientists have been trying for 45 years, since the Charney Report of 1979, to find out the sensitivity of the climate to CO₂ and so far have failed. Your two giants have provided opinion, not evidence. For all we know most of the warming could be natural. Climate feedbacks cannot be measured because they are a part of the process. We just guess them to make models reproduce observations. Besides educating yourself, you have to develop your skepticism, which is an absolute requirement in science, but also very useful for many other things in life. About the climate, we settled on an explanation before we had sufficient information and before all the facts were properly evaluated. It just happens to be the explanation of choice to the UN and governments who control the funding of science. Between that and peer pressure its no wonder there is so much consensus.

[@arthurmario5996]

This guy is a biologist, trying to make a buck shilling for lame climate denial 🤬

[@EngiRedbeard]

Biologists learn the scientific method, of course not all of them are good at it and plenty of non STEM educated people also know and understand the scientific method and can reason their way to understand just about any topic. You on the other hand are trying to gate keep. I'm surprised you didn't say trust the science or trust the experts as an appeal to authority.

[@djtomleeuwen]

Indeed, the effect of the sun is well observed and included in all climate models. For instance, when you do a search on Google Scholar -> 'Climate Impact Sun' some 3 million articles come up. And now this person thinks he is on to something...

[@ScienceClimate-uf4xm]

Expertise lies in the knowledge one possesses, not in the formal education one has received. In my case, I’ve been studying climate for ten years, more than twice as long as it took me to get my Ph.D. The vast body of knowledge I’ve accumulated about past and present natural climate change constitutes my expertise in the field. Throughout the history of science, significant contributions have often come from outsiders to the field. Benjamin Franklin and Michael Faraday were largely self-taught. James Croll, a college janitor, proposed one of the first astronomical theories of glaciation in 1864. Milutin Milankovic, an engineer, introduced the now-accepted theory of orbital climate change in 1920. Similarly, Guy Callendar, also an engineer, was the first to link measured increases in CO2 to a warming climate. Other examples include Alfred Wegener, a meteorologist and explorer, and Albert Einstein, a patent clerk.

[@ScienceClimate-uf4xm]

@@djtomleeuwen Nothing of what I say in this video is included in climate models, and it is supported by lots and lots of articles, so no, much of what the Sun does to the climate is not included in models.

[@mike59317]

@arthurmario5996 Explaining climate change is not 'climate denial'.

[@wereldvandenluuk]

How we know God changes the climate. Prove me wrong 🤣

[@robertlarder1907]

Prove yourself right, you are making claim.

[@ronaldlogan3525]

fake science here

[@ScienceClimate-uf4xm]

There is no such thing as fake science. There are correct and incorrect hypotheses, all of them are part of scientific discovery. You mistake science for religion. Go with your religion of human sins.

[@ronaldlogan3525]

@@ScienceClimate-uf4xm this is not science it is political. It is done for political purposes so the oil companies won't have to give up any future profits.

[@ScienceClimate-uf4xm]

@@ronaldlogan3525 Speak for yourself. I have no ties, no interests, no skin in the issue. I'm just doing science as I have done for most of my life. If you don't like it go elsewhere.