[Steve_American]

No, your claims are false and disingenuous. The paper's basic scientifically verifiable -- and thoroughly verified -- argument is stated in somewhat different words a number of times in different places, such as in the executive summary:
"An important scientific task has been to quantify the solar impact on climate, and it has been found that
over the eleven-year solar cycle the energy that enters the Earth’s system is of the order of 1.0–1.5 W/m2.
This is nearly an order of magnitude larger than what would be expected from solar irradiance
alone, and suggests that solar activity is getting amplified by some atmospheric process."

In part 4, p 11:
"We therefore conclude that the Sun has a large effect [on climate] over the solar cycle. In fact,
it is about 5–7 times larger than can be expected from changes in solar irradiance alone."

In the Conclusion:
"The temperature change between the two periods is of the order of 1.0–1.5 K.
This shows that solar activity has had a large impact on climate. The above statement is
in direct contrast to the IPCC, which estimates the solar forcing over the 20th century as
only 0.05 W/m2, which is too small to have a climatic effect. One is therefore left with the
conundrum of not having an explanation for the difference in climate between the Medieval
Warm Period and Little Ice Age. But this result is obtained by restricting [the effect of] solar
activity to only minute changes in total solar irradiance."

In the Appendix:
"So the solar signal found is ≈5–7 times larger than the change in solar irradiance alone."

Such claims are false, absurd, and disingenuous. Any reader can read the paper and see that your claims are false, as it is packed with verifiable scientific arguments referencing peer-reviewed papers. You just choose to assume because you will not read. Or think.

Finally, TtP gives us some words to support his unsupported assertions.

1] It says "and suggests that solar activity is getting amplified by some atmospheric process." Here the word 'suggests' is not proof of anything.

2] It says, "This shows that solar activity has had a large impact on climate." Here the word 'This' has no antecedent, because it was cut off by TtP. As such, it is not convincing.

3] It says, "So the solar signal found is ≈5–7 times larger than the change in solar irradiance alone." Here again so much has been cut off, that it is simply an unsupported assertion, like TtP usually just makes all by himself.
.

[Truth To Power]

This started in the 1970s, long before your fake controversy was developed.

No, climate science started millennia ago. There is the famous account of Thales of Miletus, whose study of climate led him to believe there would be a bumper crop of olives one year. He bought up all the olive presses, and when the harvest came in, made a fortune renting them out to farmers desperate to press their olives before they spoiled.

Not only that, one of the outfits was an oil company.

Which always lie except when they agree with your silly AGW nonscience...?

The 80s and 90s were spent working out the details.

Which still have not been worked out.

I remember one study that examined the mineral content in the runoff water from the Himalyas.

But did not provide support for the claim that CO2 governs temperature.

Decades of research is the absolute opposite of assumption.

Not when the "research" is directed toward support of a particular assumption.

You need better lies.

I'm not the one baldly lying that there is some sort of climate "crisis" or "emergency."

[late]

No, climate science started millennia ago.

Which always lie except when they agree with your silly AGW nonscience...?

Which still have not been worked out.

But did not provide support for the claim that CO2 governs temperature.

Not when the "research" is directed toward support of a particular assumption.

I'm not the one baldly lying that there is some sort of climate "crisis" or "emergency."

The computing power to model climate first happened with the supercomputers of the 1970s. Only DARPA and the oil company had that kind of money.

Actually, oil companies publicly have zigged and zagged all over the map. For a while they invested in green energy, but that didn't last.

Again, the science settled on humans as the cause a generation ago. You need lies that are, at least, vaguely plausible.

They're doing science, you do propaganda. That's a well supported theory, liar.

[Truth To Power]

Finally, TtP gives us some words to support his unsupported assertions.

1] It says "and suggests that solar activity is getting amplified by some atmospheric process." Here the word 'suggests' is not proof of anything.

What a ridiculous statement. How could one word be proof of anything?

2] It says, "This shows that solar activity has had a large impact on climate." Here the word 'This' has no antecedent, because it was cut off by TtP. As such, it is not convincing.

What are you talking about? "This" self-evidently refers to the previous sentence, which I quoted.

3] It says, "So the solar signal found is ≈5–7 times larger than the change in solar irradiance alone." Here again so much has been cut off, that it is simply an unsupported assertion, like TtP usually just makes all by himself.

False, absurd, and disingenuous. The whole paper talks about the solar signal measured in various ways.

PoD asked me for scientifically verifiable statements. I provided them. Inevitably, you are pretending I was attempting unsuccessfully to do something else which you have not quite specified.

[Truth To Power]

The computing power to model climate first happened with the supercomputers of the 1970s.

Wrong. They did not have the power -- they still don't -- and in any case, computing power was not needed to establish that climate had risen since the LIA, before CO2 could have been a significant factor, but cooled from the 1940s to the 1970s when CO2 was rising exponentially, falsifying AGW claims.

Only DARPA and the oil company had that kind of money.

Silliness.

Actually, oil companies publicly have zigged and zagged all over the map. For a while they invested in green energy, but that didn't last.

They didn't know any more than anyone else. The fact that one of their experts was fooled by the same CO2-centered climate nonscience the IPCC is promoting is not evidence that they believed him.

Again, the science settled on humans as the cause a generation ago.

No it didn't. Only CO2-centered nonscience did.

You need lies that are, at least, vaguely plausible.

They're doing science, you do propaganda. That's a well supported theory, liar.

Disgraceful.

[noemon]

My personal views about Climate Change, the Environment and Energy Transition.

1) I am more sympathetic to the ones taking Climate change seriously & for granted than the ones who don't but with some caveats that I will expand more below.
2) I am 100% convinced that the current system is unsustainable and that we need world changing attitudes towards the way that we understand the environment and our symbiosis with it.
3) I consider waste management to be the greatest issue of our times, .ie greater than climate change. I believe that plastics & other pollutants in the sea and soil are the greatest danger that we face as a species and ecosystem. As this issue has been marginalised I lean on climate change that is at the forefront in the hope that it will cover that issue also.
4) On climate change specifically I consider it undeniable, that our fossil fuel processing has caused a significant effect on the atmosphere and consequently global temperatures.
5) On the solutions against climate change, I consider them to be bordering between the ridiculous and the bare minimum. I am especially upset that the Climate Change narrative has taken the focus out of waste management and placed it on fossil fuels.
Let's stand on this for a minute, the solutions that we are being given are: drive electric, expand wind & solar, install solar panels on your roof and heat pumps on the side.
Apparently, if we do that, then we are allegedly doing our bit. But are we? Electric cars are huge emission polluters as we discussed in the other thread, sometimes worse than ICE cars depending on the lifetime of each. An electric car on lease for 4 years with 40-50k km's limit will damage the environment more than the equivalent ICE car. Install solar panels on your roof, you can get hot water out of it as we have been doing in Greece for some decades, but no central heating. I was quoted to get a solar panel system installed in the UK and that would save me a whopping 6% of my annual energy usage and this 6% figure is probably inflated also. Heat pumps, I did that too, only to throw them out because they were not operating to the specs that we required them.
6) I have noticed a huge media drive to get us to drive electric, cook electric and replace our "dirty" gas stoves and boilers, when the electricity we get out of the grid comes from even worse sources, such as coal and oil, thereby adding more pollution to the environment for every meal cooked electrically than when we use natural gas. It also has a very disturbing influence on the price of electricity, more demand, less supply, higher prices. Much ado about nothing essentially.
7) At the same time we have waste on our oceans the size of entire countries if not continents that noone seems to be concerned about, despite the fact that this is something that we can actually do something about it. .ie we can clean it. We have the technology and means to actually achieve that.
8 ) Do we have the technology and means to transition from fossil fuels? To me at least, it seems that we do not and unless fusion comes into play in a big way and quick, I do not think we will manage to break through.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, your claims continue to be baldly false.

You are wrong.

Then how do you explain your inability to tell us what the argument is?

[Pants-of-dog]

No, your claims are false and disingenuous. The paper's basic scientifically verifiable -- and thoroughly verified -- argument is stated in somewhat different words a number of times in different places, such as in the executive summary:
"An important scientific task has been to quantify the solar impact on climate, and it has been found that
over the eleven-year solar cycle the energy that enters the Earth’s system is of the order of 1.0–1.5 W/m2.
This is nearly an order of magnitude larger than what would be expected from solar irradiance
alone, and suggests that solar activity is getting amplified by some atmospheric process."

Is evidence provided for this claim?

How does this tie into climate?

In part 4, p 11:
"We therefore conclude that the Sun has a large effect [on climate] over the solar cycle. In fact,
it is about 5–7 times larger than can be expected from changes in solar irradiance alone."

Note that there is no description of whatever mechanism is supposedly amplifying the sun's energy.

What is the mechanism?

In the Conclusion:
"The temperature change between the two periods is of the order of 1.0–1.5 K.
This shows that solar activity has had a large impact on climate. The above statement is in direct contrast to the IPCC, which estimates the solar forcing over the 20th century as only 0.05 W/m2, which is too small to have a climatic effect. One is therefore left with the conundrum of not having an explanation for the difference in climate between the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. But this result is obtained by restricting [the effect of] solar activity to only minute changes in total solar irradiance."

In the Appendix:
"So the solar signal found is ≈5–7 times larger than the change in solar irradiance alone."

Such claims are false, absurd, and disingenuous. Any reader can read the paper and see that your claims are false, as it is packed with verifiable scientific arguments referencing peer-reviewed papers. You just choose to assume because you will not read. Or think.

Rather than being rude and disrespectful, please describe the hypothetical mechanism that amplifies solar energy.

[late]

8 ) Do we have the technology and means to transition from fossil fuels? To me at least, it seems that we do not and unless fusion comes into play in a big way and quick, I do not think we will manage to break through.

We are in a transition period, and part of that will be developing new tech like a SmartGrid.

"If you want to change behavior, change the price." An incremental gas tax will make plastics more expensive. But after that, things get interesting. Perhaps the best way is require all shipping to pay a fee to cover the costs of getting plastic out of the ocean.

Nuclear power will have to be part of it.

[Truth To Power]

Then how do you explain your inability to tell us what the argument is?

That's easy: it is another bald fabrication on your part.

[Pants-of-dog]

That's easy: it is another bald fabrication on your part.

No, we jus went through your quotes and we noticed that they do not describe the mechanism by which the sun’s power was supposedly amplified.

In fact, you did not even show the argument that supposedly showed that the sun’s energy was amplified.

[Truth To Power]

Is evidence provided for this claim?

Yes.

How does this tie into climate?

Self-evidently.

Note that there is no description of whatever mechanism is supposedly amplifying the sun's energy.

A number of candidates are described.

What is the mechanism?

Why do you assume there cannot be more than one?

Rather than being rude and disrespectful,

This, from you?

please describe the hypothetical mechanism that amplifies solar energy.

Three candidate mechanisms are identified in the paper. Others are certainly possible. There is no reason -- other than sheer, blind, anti-science, anti-reason, anti-CO2, anti-fossil-fuel dishonesty, of course -- to think that only one mechanism is possible.

The point, of course, is that identification of the association of solar activity with large climatic effects independently of any specifically identified mechanism outright falsifies the IPCC's insistence that there cannot be any effect of the sun on climate but TSI, and thus flat-out disproves the basic tenet of CO2-centered climatology.

[Pants-of-dog]

Three candidate mechanisms are identified in the paper.

Please describe them.

[Truth To Power]

No,

Yes. Your claims are just bald falsehoods.

we jus went through your quotes and we noticed that they do not describe the mechanism by which the sun’s power was supposedly amplified.

That is not evidence that I am unable to provide such, given that you did not ask me to describe the possible mechanisms, only to identify verifiable scientific statements showing that anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda has been falsified. Pretending and falsely claiming that the other side has failed or is unable to do what they were merely not asked to do is a typical disingenuous, disgraceful and despicable propaganda trick resorted to by deceitful and loathsome AGW propagandists.

In fact, you did not even show the argument that supposedly showed that the sun’s energy was amplified.

Because that is not what you claimed I could not show. There are a number of lines of argument in the paper. I only gave enough of what it said to prove your claims were false.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

Describe the three mechanisms.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

Describe the three mechanisms.

This is how the paper explains them:

"Solar UV mechanism
One mechanism is based on changes in the UV part of the solar spectrum. During solar max-
ima, the energy in the UV spectrum can be several percent higher than during solar minima.
The increase in UV is absorbed in the stratosphere, which then gets warmer. This results in
changes in the dynamical circulation of the stratosphere, such that energy is transported
down into the troposphere, where it may influence surface temperatures. 43 The UV mecha-
nism has been tested by extensive numerical modelling, 44,45 and it is found that the effect
on the troposphere appears to be too weak to explain the observed changes in the global
radiative budget over the solar cycle. The UV mechanism is the most mature theory put for-
ward to explain solar amplification, in the sense that the physics is understood, and that the
mechanism has been tested in global circulation models.

Cosmic ray clouds mechanism
Another possible mechanism is changes to Earth’s cloud cover due to solar modulation of
cosmic rays. 50–52 In 1996, satellite observations showed that Earth’s cloud cover changed by
around 2%, in phase with changes in cosmic rays, over a solar cycle. Such a variation cor-
responds to a change in radiative forcing of around 1 W/m 2 , which would be in agreement
with the observed changes in energy entering the oceans (see Figure 9). The fundamental
idea is that cosmic ray ionisation in the atmosphere is important for the formation 54,55 and
growth of small aerosols into CCN, which are necessary for the formation of cloud droplets
and thereby clouds. 58 Changing the number density of CCN changes the cloud microphysics,
which in turn changes both the radiative properties and the lifetime of clouds (see Figure 12).
There is now theoretical, experimental and observational evidence to support the cos-
mic ray–cloud link, 57,58 although it should be mentioned that satellite observations of cloud
changes on 11-year timescales are by no means entirely reliable due to inherent calibration
problems. However, in support of the theory, the whole link from solar activity, to cosmic ray
ionisation to aerosols to clouds, has been observed in connection with Forbush decreases
on timescales of a week. 59,60 The cosmic ray variations in response to the stronger Forbush
decreases are of similar size to the variations seen over the 11-year solar cycle and result in
a change in cloud cover of approximately 2%. 60
Cloud variations are one of the most difficult and uncertain features of the climate sys-
tem, and therefore cosmic rays and their effect on clouds will add important new under-
standing of this area. There have been attempts to include the effect of ionisation on the
nucleation of small aerosols in large numerical models, 56,84,85 but important physical pro-
cesses are missing. 58
Although there are uncertainties in all of the above observations, they collectively give
a consistent picture, indicating an effect of ionisation on Earth’s cloud cover, which in turn
19
can strongly influence climate and Earth’s temperature. Nonetheless, the idea of a cosmic-
ray link to climate has been questioned, 86–89 and can still give rise to debate. But as more
data from observations and experiments are obtained, the case for the link has only be-
come stronger. For example, if the cosmic ray–climate link is real, then any variation of the
cosmic ray flux, including those which have nothing to do with solar activity, will translate
into changes in the climate as well. Over geological timescales, large variations in the cosmic
ray flux arise from the changing galactic environment around the solar system. A compari-
son between reconstructions of the cosmic ray flux 4 and climate 5 over these long timescales
demonstrates that, over the past 500 million years, 6 ice ages have arisen in periods when the
cosmic ray flux was high, as the theory predicts. 90–93 Even the solar system’s movement in
and out of the galactic plane can be observed in the climate record. 94,95

Electric field mechanism
The effects of the electrical circuit on Earth’s climate have also been suggested as a possi-
ble driver of climate. The global atmospheric electrical circuit and its interaction with cloud
microphysics (and hence the cosmic ray effect) is an interesting area of climate science, but
needs observations and experiments to enable an assessment of its importance."

[Pants-of-dog]

This is how the paper explains them:

"Solar UV mechanism
One mechanism is based on changes in the UV part of the solar spectrum. During solar max-
ima, the energy in the UV spectrum can be several percent higher than during solar minima.
The increase in UV is absorbed in the stratosphere, which then gets warmer. This results in
changes in the dynamical circulation of the stratosphere, such that energy is transported
down into the troposphere, where it may influence surface temperatures. 43 The UV mecha-
nism has been tested by extensive numerical modelling, 44,45 and it is found that the effect
on the troposphere appears to be too weak to explain the observed changes in the global
radiative budget over the solar cycle. The UV mechanism is the most mature theory put for-
ward to explain solar amplification, in the sense that the physics is understood, and that the
mechanism has been tested in global circulation models.

Yes, the mechanism was tested and found to be too weak to have the effect you argue.

According to the text you quoted.

Cosmic ray clouds mechanism
Another possible mechanism is changes to Earth’s cloud cover due to solar modulation of
cosmic rays. 50–52 In 1996, satellite observations showed that Earth’s cloud cover changed by
around 2%, in phase with changes in cosmic rays, over a solar cycle. Such a variation cor-
responds to a change in radiative forcing of around 1 W/m 2 , which would be in agreement
with the observed changes in energy entering the oceans (see Figure 9). The fundamental
idea is that cosmic ray ionisation in the atmosphere is important for the formation 54,55 and
growth of small aerosols into CCN, which are necessary for the formation of cloud droplets
and thereby clouds. 58 Changing the number density of CCN changes the cloud microphysics,
which in turn changes both the radiative properties and the lifetime of clouds (see Figure 12).
There is now theoretical, experimental and observational evidence to support the cos-
mic ray–cloud link, 57,58 although it should be mentioned that satellite observations of cloud
changes on 11-year timescales are by no means entirely reliable due to inherent calibration
problems. However, in support of the theory, the whole link from solar activity, to cosmic ray
ionisation to aerosols to clouds, has been observed in connection with Forbush decreases
on timescales of a week. 59,60 The cosmic ray variations in response to the stronger Forbush
decreases are of similar size to the variations seen over the 11-year solar cycle and result in
a change in cloud cover of approximately 2%. 60
Cloud variations are one of the most difficult and uncertain features of the climate sys-
tem, and therefore cosmic rays and their effect on clouds will add important new under-
standing of this area. There have been attempts to include the effect of ionisation on the
nucleation of small aerosols in large numerical models, 56,84,85 but important physical pro-
cesses are missing. 58
Although there are uncertainties in all of the above observations, they collectively give
a consistent picture, indicating an effect of ionisation on Earth’s cloud cover, which in turn
19
can strongly influence climate and Earth’s temperature. Nonetheless, the idea of a cosmic-
ray link to climate has been questioned, 86–89 and can still give rise to debate. But as more
data from observations and experiments are obtained, the case for the link has only be-
come stronger. For example, if the cosmic ray–climate link is real, then any variation of the
cosmic ray flux, including those which have nothing to do with solar activity, will translate
into changes in the climate as well. Over geological timescales, large variations in the cosmic
ray flux arise from the changing galactic environment around the solar system. A compari-
son between reconstructions of the cosmic ray flux 4 and climate 5 over these long timescales
demonstrates that, over the past 500 million years, 6 ice ages have arisen in periods when the
cosmic ray flux was high, as the theory predicts. 90–93 Even the solar system’s movement in
and out of the galactic plane can be observed in the climate record. 94,95

According to this mechanism, the Earth should be cooling.

High solar activity is supposed to deflect galactic cosmic rays from the Earth, which then lessens cloud formation, decreasing albedo. This then warms the Earth.

But the sun has been experiencing lower solar activity over the last few decades, so we should have more clouds and the Earth should be cooling.

Electric field mechanism
The effects of the electrical circuit on Earth’s climate have also been suggested as a possi-
ble driver of climate. The global atmospheric electrical circuit and its interaction with cloud
microphysics (and hence the cosmic ray effect) is an interesting area of climate science, but
needs observations and experiments to enable an assessment of its importance."

So there are no observations or experiments that support this hypothesis.

This seems like there are no serious challenges to ACC.

[Truth To Power]

Yes, the mechanism was tested and found to be too weak to have the effect you argue.

BY ITSELF. Disingenuous anti-fossil-fuel propagandists always have to pretend that science only permits one potential mechanism to contribute to an effect. But in fact, that rule only applies to stupid AGW nonscience.

According to this mechanism, the Earth should be cooling.

And it is, as I have proved repeatedly and you always contrive some pretext for refusing to know.

But the sun has been experiencing lower solar activity over the last few decades, so we should have more clouds and the Earth should be cooling.

No, I've already conclusively refuted that "argument" many times, and you just ignore the fact that it has been conclusively refuted and go on repeating it as if you did not know the fact that it has been conclusively refuted. Here is the conclusive refutation again:

1. There are internal cyclical processes in the climate system like the decadal oceanic circulation cycle that may either reinforce or cancel the external effect of solar activity at any given time.
2. There are various kinds of inertia in the climate system which cause measurable effects to be delayed. For example, it takes centuries for warming or cooling of the oceans to raise or lower atmospheric CO2 levels to the equilibrium point.
3. Whether warming or cooling occurs as a result of changes in solar activity does not depend in any way on whether that activity is higher or lower than it was at any particular previous time, but only on whether the earth's temperature is higher or lower than the equilibrium temperature for the current level of solar activity.

This seems like there are no serious challenges to ACC.

When you choose to ignore science in favor of hysterical and disingenuous anti-fossil-fuel nonscience.

[Pants-of-dog]

BY ITSELF. Disingenuous anti-fossil-fuel propagandists always have to pretend that science only permits one potential mechanism to contribute to an effect. But in fact, that rule only applies to stupid AGW nonscience.

And now you ate changing your argument.

Please show exactly how this mechanism interacts with others to amplify the sin's effect.

And it is, as I have proved repeatedly and you always contrive some pretext for refusing to know.

No, I've already conclusively refuted that "argument" many times, and you just ignore the fact that it has been conclusively refuted and go on repeating it as if you did not know the fact that it has been conclusively refuted.

No. The Earth is not cooling.

Here is the conclusive refutation again:

1. There are internal cyclical processes in the climate system like the decadal oceanic circulation cycle that may either reinforce or cancel the external effect of solar activity at any given time.
2. There are various kinds of inertia in the climate system which cause measurable effects to be delayed. For example, it takes centuries for warming or cooling of the oceans to raise or lower atmospheric CO2 levels to the equilibrium point.
3. Whether warming or cooling occurs as a result of changes in solar activity does not depend in any way on whether that activity is higher or lower than it was at any particular previous time, but only on whether the earth's temperature is higher or lower than the equilibrium temperature for the current level of solar activity.

When you choose to ignore science in favor of hysterical and disingenuous anti-fossil-fuel nonscience.

The equilibrium temperature for something receiving low amounts of energy would also be low.

But if you want to put forth yet another new argument showing that the Earth's equilibrium temperature is lower than the equilibrium temperature of the sun's energy, I would love to see evidence.

[Truth To Power]

And now you ate changing your argument.

No. You simply made that up. It is just another bald fabrication on your part.

Please show exactly how this mechanism interacts with others to amplify the sin's effect.

That is a typically absurd and disingenuous demand on your part. No one knows exactly how anything in the earth's climate works, and if I knew everything, I would be God.

No. The Earth is not cooling.

Yes it is, as I have already proved to you.

The equilibrium temperature for something receiving low amounts of energy would also be low.

Were you under an erroneous impression that that could be informative to someone?

But if you want to put forth yet another new argument showing that the Earth's equilibrium temperature is lower than the equilibrium temperature of the sun's energy, I would love to see evidence.

It's not. It's higher. That's why the earth is cooling. And the fact that the earth is cooling is proof that its temperature is above the equilibrium temperature for the energy it gets from the sun. Duh.