Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Sid Belzberg]

Over a year ago, I posted this.

1)One tree absorbs approximately anywhere from 10-50lbs of carbon per year on average 30lbs of carbon per year www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests
2) There are approximately 145 billion trees in Canada https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14967
3) Based on these two facts, the trees in Canada can absorb 1,983,555,2612 metric tons of CO2 per year
4) Canada emits 740 million metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year https://www.statista.com/statistics/271748/the-largest-emitters-of-co2-in-the-world/
The trees absorb all of the CO2 emissions in Canada and can absorb much more. Yet another example of why carbon restrictions in Canada are based on politics and
not facts.
post 1309 https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/chesstalk-s-non-chess-discussion-board/217060-anthropogenic-negative-climate-change-ancc/page87#post226518


Well, it turns out that plants absorb a lot more than was known a year and a half ago. What an unbelievable scam WEF puppet Marxist governments have perpetrated on humanity, from CO2 being a control knob to the environment to a self-inflicted scamdemic designed to force lethal deathshots on humanity.

Oops, science was "settled" - until it wasn't: Plants absorb 31% CO2 than we thought

November 2, 2024 by Charles Rotter

A new study reveals that plants have been absorbing 31% more CO₂ than previously believed. Yes, 31% — a glaring error that casts serious doubt on climate models, emissions scenarios, and policy prescriptions like Net Zero.For years, we were told that the "science was settled," and that urgent action was needed to avoid catastrophic warming. But this discovery suggests that our models have been dramatically underestimating nature's ability to manage CO₂. This revelation not only upends the rationale behind aggressive policies but also raises broader questions about the supposed certainty of climate science.

The Myth of "Settled Science"

The phrase "settled science" has been the bedrock of climate advocacy for decades. We've been told that if we don't make rapid, costly changes, we'd face imminent disaster. Skeptics were treated as heretics, while the so-called consensus was portrayed as unquestionable. Yet, it turns out we were 31% wrong about something as fundamental as plant CO₂ absorption. This isn't a minor correction; it's a massive revision that undermines the credibility of models driving policy.

The Unraveling of Climate Models

Climate models are the tools used to predict warming and guide policy. They've been treated as scientific scripture, driving policies from emissions reductions to renewable energy mandates. But with a key assumption proven wrong, the models' projections are called into question:

1. Overblown Emissions Impact: Climate models predicted rapid CO₂ buildup, assuming limited natural absorption. This inflated the urgency of drastic emissions cuts. Correcting for higher CO₂ absorption rates means that CO₂ accumulates in the atmosphere slower than models predicted, weakening the case for urgent, economy-wrenching measures.
2. Questionable Feedback Loops: Many models rely on dramatic feedback loops — such as reduced plant CO₂ absorption at higher temperatures — to justify emergency interventions. But this new data shows plants can handle more CO₂ than anticipated, making these feedback loops look less inevitable and more speculative.
3. Policy Implications: If the models guiding climate policy have been this far off, then the entire framework behind policies like Net Zero becomes shaky. Policies driven by these models were never proven to be beneficial, but were only assumed to be so. The discovery that plants are absorbing significantly more CO₂ undermines the supposed need for extreme measures.

Integrated Assessment Models: Revisiting Flawed Assumptions

Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) blend climate and economic data to suggest policies that balance costs and benefits. They have provided much of the justification for global measures ranging from carbon taxes to renewable subsidies. But with CO₂ absorption rates off by 31%, these models face a major credibility problem.

1. Cost-Benefit Analysis Loses Its Basis: IAMs assume a certain rate of CO₂ absorption to weigh the costs of emissions cuts against the benefits. If the natural absorption is higher, then the benefits of aggressive cuts are lower than the models projected. In short, many of these "benefits" were assumed rather than demonstrated.
2. Marginal Abatement Costs Are Likely Wrong: If plants are more effective carbon sinks, the cost of reducing each additional ton of CO₂ may be overstated in current models. This means that the high costs of immediate interventions may not be justified by the reduced warming they are supposed to achieve.
3. Tech-Centric Solutions Become Harder to Justify: Expensive technological carbon capture schemes, often seen as a cornerstone of Net Zero strategies, become less urgent in light of nature's greater CO₂ absorption capacity. Relying on natural processes might be more cost-effective, while prioritizing costly tech solutions could be a waste of resources.

The Net Zero Push: Unproven and Assumed to Be Beneficial

Net Zero policies are often presented as inherently beneficial, with no need to prove their value. The assumption is that reducing emissions rapidly will stabilize the climate and prevent catastrophic warming. But the reality is far less certain:

1. Urgency Based on Unproven Models: The rush to Net Zero has been justified by models that assumed much lower natural CO₂ absorption. With plants taking in more CO₂, the urgency diminishes, raising questions about whether this policy was ever justified, beyond mere assumptions of benefit.
2. Economic Costs Without Clear Benefits: The transition to Net Zero is projected to cost trillions, requiring massive infrastructure changes and energy system overhauls. These changes were sold as necessary to prevent dire outcomes, but with natural systems absorbing more CO₂, the supposed benefits become even murkier. The costs are real, while the benefits remain speculative.
3. A Flawed Logic of Assumed Good: Proponents argue that even if Net Zero doesn't deliver promised benefits, it's better to "play it safe." But this logic ignores the very real economic and social costs of these policies — costs that can harm the most vulnerable. If models were wrong about something as basic as CO₂ absorption, then continuing these extreme measures without re-evaluation is irresponsible at best.

Climate Sensitivity: Rethinking the Crisis Narrative

Climate sensitivity measures how much the Earth's temperature will rise with a doubling of CO₂. It's a core figure in climate models, typically estimated to be between 1.5°C and 4.5°C, with policy-driving models often assuming a midpoint of 3°C. If plant CO₂ absorption rates were so underestimated, it suggests that the models might also be overestimating climate sensitivity.

1. Slower CO₂ Accumulation Reduces Sensitivity: If natural absorption is higher, the atmospheric CO₂ concentration increases more slowly, which may imply a lower climate sensitivity than currently assumed. In other words, less CO₂ means less immediate warming, contradicting the dire predictions that have justified extreme policies.
2. Overestimated Warming Scenarios: The upper estimates of climate sensitivity have driven much of the urgency around climate action, but this new data suggests that the Earth may not warm as rapidly as claimed. If the worst-case scenarios are less likely, then the aggressive timelines for emissions reductions look increasingly unjustified.
3. Time to Adapt, Not Panic: If climate sensitivity is indeed lower, it means we have more time to adapt to any changes, that may in fact be natural, rather than rush into drastic mitigation measures that haven't been proven to work. Adaptation becomes a more reasonable and potentially effective strategy, given the new information on natural absorption rates.

The Bigger Picture: Science Isn't Settled, and Neither Is Policy

The discovery that plants absorb 31% more CO₂ than we thought reveals just how far off the mark climate models — and the policies based on them — can be. It's not just a matter of revising a few numbers; it's about rethinking the entire narrative of "settled science."

• Assumptions, Not Proof: Policies like Net Zero were based on assumptions of benefit, not evidence. They were sold as urgently needed to prevent catastrophe, but those catastrophic outcomes were based on models that got a core assumption wrong by nearly a third.
• More Surprises Await: If this key factor in the carbon cycle was so miscalculated, how many other natural systems might also be misunderstood? The real danger may not be climate change itself, but the overconfidence of those who claim to understand it fully.
• The Real Risk Is Bad Policy: Extreme measures based on flawed models can do more harm than good. If the costs of policies like Net Zero outweigh their uncertain benefits, then pushing ahead with them is reckless and potentially damaging.

Conclusion: Stop Assuming, Start Reassessing

The revelation that plants absorb 31% more CO₂ than previously estimated is a major blow to the models driving global climate policy. It challenges the core assumptions behind policies like Net Zero, which were never proven to be beneficial but only assumed to be so.

Reference:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08050-3 - Nature

[Pargat Perrer]

Over a year ago, I posted this.

1)One tree absorbs approximately anywhere from 10-50lbs of carbon per year on average 30lbs of carbon per year www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests
2) There are approximately 145 billion trees in Canada https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14967
3) Based on these two facts, the trees in Canada can absorb 1,983,555,2612 metric tons of CO2 per year
4) Canada emits 740 million metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year https://www.statista.com/statistics/271748/the-largest-emitters-of-co2-in-the-world/
The trees absorb all of the CO2 emissions in Canada and can absorb much more. Yet another example of why carbon restrictions in Canada are based on politics and
not facts.
post 1309 https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/chesstalk-s-non-chess-discussion-board/217060-anthropogenic-negative-climate-change-ancc/page87#post226518


Well, it turns out that plants absorb a lot more than was known a year and a half ago. What an unbelievable scam WEF puppet Marxist governments have perpetrated on humanity, from CO2 being a control knob to the environment to a self-inflicted scamdemic designed to force lethal deathshots on humanity.

Oops, science was "settled" - until it wasn't: Plants absorb 31% CO2 than we thought

November 2, 2024 by Charles Rotter

A new study reveals that plants have been absorbing 31% more CO₂ than previously believed. ......

.....


Conclusion: Stop Assuming, Start Reassessing

The revelation that plants absorb 31% more CO₂ than previously estimated is a major blow to the models driving global climate policy. It challenges the core assumptions behind policies like Net Zero, which were never proven to be beneficial but only assumed to be so.

Reference:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08050-3 - Nature

You are demanding we stop assuming ... on the basis of a paper you link to that uses a lot of scientific mumbo-jumbo ... carbon sulfides ... blah blah blah ... and then uses the weasel word "INFERRING" !!!!!

They are INFERRING! They haven't proven anything.

YOU should stop assuming before you ask US to stop assuming!

Please provide links to CREDENTIALED CLIMATE SCIENTISTS who claim in no uncertain terms that this paper PROVES 31% more carbon absorption than was previously believed. AS MANY SUCH SCIENTISTS AS POSSIBLE who are not registered with any right-wing political organization!

Meanwhile ... despite the fact that you continue to claim CO2 levels are not a problem ... the world continues to suffer and suffer more and more extreme climate events ....

Floods in Spain Signal Worsening Climate Crisis

No, it isn't just the floods in Spain ....

"In recent years, apocalyptic images appear to have migrated from Hollywood disaster movies: Commuters swept off subway platforms or trapped in carriages as the waters rose up to their necks during the Zhengzhou metro line 5 flooding disaster in China , the glass wall being ripped off the side of a Vietnamese office tower during the super-typhoon Yagi, which also snapped giant wind turbines like twigs in Hainan, China. Each grotesque clip deadens the impact.

We are living in a time of unwelcome climate superlatives: the hottest two years in the world’s recorded history, the deadliest fire in the US, the biggest fire in Europe, the biggest fire in Canada, the worst drought in the Amazon rainforest. The list goes on. This is just the start. As long as people pump gases into the atmosphere, such records will be broken with increasing frequency until “worst ever” becomes our default expectation."

Plenty of evidence of a EVER-WORSENING CLIMATE CRISIS.

EDIT: maybe the core problem is really methane, not CO2 ... it makes a bit of sense that after a couple hundred years of industriailzation, most of which did not cause global climate warming to any great extent but POSSIBLY caused micro-increases in global warming ... and the accumulation of these micro-increases eventually has led to melting of permafrost in Siberia and the Arctic, releasing vast amounts of methane .... and now the levels have risen to where the feedback has become much more substantial ... if THAT is really what has been happening, it means we are already well beyond the point of no return and the turning of Earth into Venus will happen (eventually) no matter what we do from this point on, and humanity WILL cease to exist unless we can resettle on Mars.

[Sid Belzberg]

For those not technically inclined, the importance of this study cannot be underestimated

Understanding "Inferring" in Scientific Research

In scientific terminology, "inferring" refers to drawing conclusions based on evidence and reasoning. It doesn't imply uncertainty but rather indicates that the conclusions are supported by the data collected. In this study, researchers used carbonyl sulfide (COS) as a proxy to estimate GPP, a method grounded in established scientific principles.

Credibility of the Study

The research was published in Nature, a leading scientific journal known for its rigorous peer-review process. This indicates that multiple experts in the field have evaluated and validated the study's methodology and findings.

Expert Endorsements

Several reputable scientists and institutions have recognized the significance of this study:

• Dr. Lianhong Gu, a distinguished staff scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), stated: "It's important that we get a good handle on global GPP since that initial land carbon uptake affects the rest of our representations of Earth's carbon cycle."
  Oak Ridge National Laboratory
• Dr. Peter Thornton, Corporate Fellow and lead for the Earth Systems Science Section at ORNL, emphasized: "Nailing down our estimates of GPP with reliable global-scale observations is a critical step in improving our predictions of future CO₂ in the atmosphere, and the consequences for global climate."
  Oak Ridge National Laboratory

The study provides robust evidence suggesting that plants absorb approximately 31% more CO₂ than previously estimated. The use of COS as a proxy for measuring GPP is a scientifically sound method, and the findings have been endorsed by leading experts in the field. It's important to approach such scientific advancements with an open mind and consider the evidence presented by the research community

Abstract


Terrestrial photosynthesis, or gross primary production (GPP), is the largest carbon flux in the biosphere, but its global magnitude and spatiotemporal dynamics remain uncertain¹. The global annual mean GPP is historically thought to be around 120 PgC yr⁻¹ (refs. ^2,3,4,5,6), which is about 30–50 PgC yr⁻¹ lower than GPP inferred from the oxygen-18 (¹⁸O) isotope⁷ and soil respiration⁸. This disparity is a source of uncertainty in predicting climate–carbon cycle feedbacks^9,10. Here
we infer GPP from carbonyl sulfide, an innovative tracer for CO₂ diffusion from ambient air to leaf chloroplasts through stomata and mesophyll layers. We demonstrate that explicitly representing mesophyll diffusion is important for accurately quantifying the spatiotemporal dynamics of carbonyl sulfide uptake by plants. From the estimate of carbonyl sulfide uptake by plants, we infer a global contemporary GPP of 157 (±8.5) PgC yr⁻¹, which is consistent with estimates from ¹⁸O (150–175 PgC yr⁻¹) and soil respiration (149−23+29 PgC yr⁻¹), but with an improved confidence level. Our global GPP is higher than satellite optical observation-driven estimates (120–140 PgC yr^–1) that are used for Earth system model benchmarking. This difference predominantly occurs in the pan-tropical rainforests and is corroborated by ground measurements¹¹, suggesting a more productive tropics than satellite-based GPP products indicated. As GPP is a primary determinant of terrestrial carbon sinks and may shape climate trajectories^9,10, our findings lay a physiological foundation on which the understanding and prediction of carbon–climate feedbacks can be advanced.

The key takeaways in this abstract.

1)Terrestrial photosynthesis, or gross primary production (GPP), is the largest carbon flux in the biosphere

Layman term;

1. Plants taking in carbon through photosynthesis (GPP) is the biggest movement of carbon in nature."

2)The global annual mean GPP is historically thought to be around 120 PgC yr⁻¹ (refs. ^2,3,4,5,6), which is about 30–50 PgC yr⁻¹ lower than GPP inferred from the oxygen-18 (¹⁸O) isotope⁷ and soil respiration

Layman term;

"Scientists have long estimated that plants absorb around 120 billion tons of carbon each year, but newer methods suggest it could actually be 30-50 billion tons more than that."

Why this matters;
Harmful government policies have been based on the notion that manmade Carbon Methane and Nitrogen gases are responsible for climate change, have been on the basis of incorrect data as shown in the above study among numerous other examples posted in this thread.

[Pargat Perrer]

For those not technically inclined, the importance of this study cannot be underestimated

Understanding "Inferring" in Scientific Research

In scientific terminology, "inferring" refers to drawing conclusions based on evidence and reasoning. It doesn't imply uncertainty but rather indicates that the conclusions are supported by the data collected. In this study, researchers used carbonyl sulfide (COS) as a proxy to estimate GPP, a method grounded in established scientific principles.

Exactly. We have all kinds of "inferring" going on in the world today ... none of it is ironclad proof of anything. The weasel word is "reasoning" .... everyone has their own method of reasoning, based on their BIASES. Many people REASON that God doesn't exist, just to give one example.

So you want people to stop assuming .... LOL what a hypocrite

Credibility of the Study

The research was published in Nature, a leading scientific journal known for its rigorous peer-review process. This indicates that multiple experts in the field have evaluated and validated the study's methodology and findings.

Expert Endorsements

Several reputable scientists and institutions have recognized the significance of this study:

• Dr. Lianhong Gu, a distinguished staff scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), stated: "It's important that we get a good handle on global GPP since that initial land carbon uptake affects the rest of our representations of Earth's carbon cycle."
  Oak Ridge National Laboratory
• Dr. Peter Thornton, Corporate Fellow and lead for the Earth Systems Science Section at ORNL, emphasized: "Nailing down our estimates of GPP with reliable global-scale observations is a critical step in improving our predictions of future CO₂ in the atmosphere, and the consequences for global climate."
  Oak Ridge National Laboratory

....

What we don't see in the words of those 2 scientists is the word "proof". In fact, they don't even HINT at proof.

This is called "reaching" ... when desperation sets in because of all the growing evidence of climate catastrophes around the world due to global warming ..... grab onto any lifeboat you can Sid. PUN INTENDED.

and EVEN IF proof eventually comes out about this ability of trees to absorb CO2 ... we have to ask, first of all, why AREN'T the trees absorbing it if they are so much able to absorb it? But also, there is the aspect of methane perhaps being the real culprit here and CO2 is nor teally relevant in comparison to that.

[Sid Belzberg]

Exactly. We have all kinds of "inferring" going on in the world today ... none of it is ironclad proof of anything

Another pearl of wisdom from you: you are correct about lots of "inferring" in science; however, based on reproducible evidence,
If you want to dismiss reproducible evidence as invalid because it is not "ironclad proof," while you expect everyone to consider countless statements you make backed by ZERO reproducible evidence, there is nothing further to discuss.

Scientific conclusions come from cumulative, reproducible evidence, reviewed by experts—not from individual biases or assumptions. If you’re inclined to dismiss science as “reaching” or “desperation,” you’re missing the point of the scientific process entirely. Science is about building understanding through evidence, and that’s precisely what this study contributes to.

Also, it’s important to note that scientific research, especially peer-reviewed work published in Nature, doesn’t claim to be “ironclad proof.” Science builds models and conclusions based on the best available evidence, which is continually tested and refined over time. The study's findings are based on rigorous, reproducible methods validated by experts in the field. Dismissing this kind of research is akin to ignoring reality in favor of speculation.

Ironclad proof is rare outside of mathematics, but reproducible evidence reviewed by experts is the closest thing to truth we have in understanding natural phenomena. That’s what science delivers, and it’s more valuable than conjecture or unsupported opinion.

and EVEN IF proof eventually comes out about this ability of trees to absorb CO2 ... we have to ask, first of all, why AREN'T the trees absorbing it if they are so much able to absorb it?

Have you forgotten your grade 7 biology? Are you unaware of photosynthesis? The trees are absorbing it. Your depth of ignorance is astounding.

[Pargat Perrer]

Another pearl of wisdom from you: you are correct about lots of "inferring" in science; however, based on reproducible evidence,
If you want to dismiss reproducible evidence as invalid because it is not "ironclad proof," while you expect everyone to consider countless statements you make backed by ZERO reproducible evidence, there is nothing further to discuss.

Scientific conclusions come from cumulative, reproducible evidence, reviewed by experts—not from individual biases or assumptions. If you’re inclined to dismiss science as “reaching” or “desperation,” you’re missing the point of the scientific process entirely. Science is about building understanding through evidence, and that’s precisely what this study contributes to.

Also, it’s important to note that scientific research, especially peer-reviewed work published in Nature, doesn’t claim to be “ironclad proof.” Science builds models and conclusions based on the best available evidence, which is continually tested and refined over time. The study's findings are based on rigorous, reproducible methods validated by experts in the field. Dismissing this kind of research is akin to ignoring reality in favor of speculation.

Ironclad proof is rare outside of mathematics, but reproducible evidence reviewed by experts is the closest thing to truth we have in understanding natural phenomena. That’s what science delivers, and it’s more valuable than conjecture or unsupported opinion.

Wow ... you used the phrase "reproducible evidence" 5 times.

YET YOU HAVE NO REPRODUCIBLE EVIDENCE!!!

Even the 2 scientists you quoted did NOT MENTION reproducible evidence.

You have NOTHING but conjecture. That is all you have, and yet you wrote in post 2026: "Well, it turns out that plants absorb a lot more than was known a year and a half ago."

No ... it DOESN'T TURN OUT ANYTHING LIKE THAT. YOU HAVE CONJECTURE AND THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE.

That is why I wrote about your desperation ... you are so much WANTING it to be true that you DECLARE it to be true based on CONJECTURE.

What's incredible is that in the post where you claim "it turns out" ... you are asking US to stop assuming.

YET YOU ARE ASSUMING! YOU ASK US TO STOP DOING WHAT YOU ARE DOING!

"Do as I say, not as I do".

Have you forgotten your grade 7 biology? Are you unaware of photosynthesis? The trees are absorbing it. Your depth of ignorance is astounding.

Of course you KNOW I was referring to the so-called 31% EXTRA CO2 that you are claiming trees can absorb.

If they can absorb it, why aren't they absorbing it? Why do we have rising CO2 levels if trees can absorb so much EXTRA CO2?

IDIOT.

It doesnt' matter. You are not going to Spain to explain to the flood-ravaged regions there that it is all a hoax. Nor to California, nor to Florida, nor to the Amazon, nor to anywhere that climate change is happening in REAL TERMS.

You are sitting at a computer and typing your garbage. You ARE NOT IN THE REAL WORLD.

Conjecture all you like .... dufus.

P.S. I wonder if your precious BANK in Bangladesh is going to survive after the FLOODS IN BANGLADESH that wiped out over 60% of the farms there. I guess that precious bank isn't going to get their money back. LOL Can you spell "bankruptcy"?

[Sid Belzberg]

Wow ... you used the phrase "reproducible evidence" 5 times.

YET YOU HAVE NO REPRODUCIBLE EVIDENCE!!!

Even the 2 scientists you quoted did NOT MENTION reproducible evidence.

You have NOTHING but conjecture. That is all you have, and yet you wrote in post 2026: "Well, it turns out that plants absorb a lot more than was known a year and a half ago."

No ... it DOESN'T TURN OUT ANYTHING LIKE THAT. YOU HAVE CONJECTURE AND THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE.

That is why I wrote about your desperation ... you are so much WANTING it to be true that you DECLARE it to be true based on CONJECTURE.

What's incredible is that in the post where you claim "it turns out" ... you are asking US to stop assuming.

YET YOU ARE ASSUMING! YOU ASK US TO STOP DOING WHAT YOU ARE DOING!

"Do as I say, not as I do".




Of course you KNOW I was referring to the so-called 31% EXTRA CO2 that you are claiming trees can absorb.

If they can absorb it, why aren't they absorbing it? Why do we have rising CO2 levels if trees can absorb so much EXTRA CO2?

IDIOT.

It doesnt' matter. You are not going to Spain to explain to the flood-ravaged regions there that it is all a hoax. Nor to California, nor to Florida, nor to the Amazon, nor to anywhere that climate change is happening in REAL TERMS.

You are sitting at a computer and typing your garbage. You ARE NOT IN THE REAL WORLD.

"Conjecture all you like .... dufus."

You seem to think that floods and extreme weather events are caused by the 1% of atmospheric CO₂ emissions attributed to human activity, which makes up only 0.04% of all greenhouse gases—an almost negligible fraction in the grand scheme. Even methane and nitrogen gases contribute far less. Yet, you’ve presented no data to back this up, nor have you shown any understanding of the complex interactions within the carbon cycle.

Let’s address your lack of evidence, starting with my point about Canada’s forests. I’ve already presented data showing that Canadian forests likely absorb all human-produced CO₂ emissions in Canada, making them an effective carbon sink. You haven’t countered this with any substantive argument, let alone any data to suggest that human emissions alone are responsible for the observed increase in atmospheric CO₂. You ignore the fact that oceans—by far the largest carbon reservoirs on Earth—play a dominant role in CO₂ fluctuations through both absorption and release, depending on sea surface temperatures and other factors. Your insistence that rising CO₂ levels are purely a result of human emissions completely disregards this reality.

Furthermore, your argument that floods and “bad weather” are proof of human-caused climate change is both ignorant and unsupported by rigorous science. Bangladesh has been prone to floods for centuries due to its geography and monsoon patterns. Claiming these natural events as “evidence” of human cause of climate change, while ignoring historical data, is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

As for my “precious Grameen bank,” let me clarify a few things for you, you ignorant little troll. Grameen-style banking has been instrumental in lifting millions of people out of poverty and empowering vulnerable communities, including in disaster-prone areas like Bangladesh. Mocking a system that has provided financial stability and resilience to food-insecure regions isn’t just ignorant—it’s cruel and frankly despicable. Your flippant attitude toward those who rely on these services to survive and rebuild after crises speaks volumes about your lack of empathy.

Your responses offer nothing but handwaving and name-calling, with zero empirical data to counter my arguments. You dismiss well-documented findings about natural carbon sinks, yet you have no answer for the recent studies showing that these carbon sinks are more effective than previously thought—by 31%, in fact. Climate modeling that ignores these factors is fundamentally flawed, and your attempt to substitute shallow insults for evidence only highlights the weakness of your position.

If you can’t provide any substantial data or coherent argument, don’t waste time with empty rhetoric.

[Pargat Perrer]

....

your argument that floods and “bad weather” are proof of human-caused climate change is both ignorant and unsupported by rigorous science. Bangladesh has been prone to floods for centuries due to its geography and monsoon patterns. Claiming these natural events as “evidence” of human cause of climate change, while ignoring historical data, is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

AHHHH but you see I have NOT ignored historical data. All of the extreme climate events of the past decade or so have been called "1000 year events". Sure, Bangladesh has had annual monsoons ... but NOTHING LIKE what they just experienced, a 1000 year event. Ditto the floods in Spain. Ditto the wildfires in California, the Amazon rainforest fires, I could go on and on. But you ignore all of these because they are the INCONVENIENT TRUTH that Al Gore alluded to 20 years ago ... and I'm sure you will launch into a criticism of Al Gore now as a diversionary tactic, you loser.

You cannot ignore the problems in places like Florida where homeowners insurance is practically no longer available. It is going to cause to total collapse of the Florida real estate market, and that will spread around the U.S.. How's that for "historical data"?

As for my “precious Grameen bank,” let me clarify a few things for you, you ignorant little troll. Grameen-style banking has been instrumental in lifting millions of people out of poverty and empowering vulnerable communities, including in disaster-prone areas like Bangladesh. Mocking a system that has provided financial stability and resilience to food-insecure regions isn’t just ignorant—it’s cruel and frankly despicable. ......

The dot-com bubble of 1999 also lifted several thousands or millions of people out of poverty ... until it popped. Lifting people out of poverty isn't any good if it all collapses because the foundation was sand. The people are thrown into poverty even greater than what they had before.

[Sid Belzberg]

Your argument about “1000-year events” and “inconvenient truths” shows a lack of understanding about statistical probability and historical context. Let’s clarify a few points:The “1000-Year Event” Misconception: Calling extreme weather events “1000-year events” doesn’t mean they are unprecedented or humn caused. It’s a statistical term that refers to the probability of an event occurring in any given year, not a guarantee that it will only happen once every thousand years. Additionally, natural climate variability has produced extreme events throughout history. It’s unscientific to claim that these are definitive proof of human-caused climate change without considering the broader, historical data. Claiming otherwise ignores the role of natural cycles and other contributing factors, including the Urban Heat Island effect and ocean temperature shifts, which heavily influence climate dynamics, as I posted earlier in this thread for those who know how to read.

1. Ignoring Historical Climate Data: You accuse me of ignoring data, but you’ve yet to provide any empirical evidence that these events are driven by human CO₂ emissions rather than a combination of natural factors. Your narrative is based more on alarmist headlines than on rigorous scientific analysis. If you want to claim that these recent events are entirely new or unprecedented, I invite you to present concrete, peer-reviewed data that definitively attributes them to human activity—rather than cherry-picking statistics or invoking Al Gore’s “inconvenient truths” without context.
2. Florida and Homeowner Insurance: Rising insurance costs in Florida are largely due to a combination of natural disaster risks and economic factors—not exclusively climate change. Florida’s exposure to hurricanes, for example, has been a fact for centuries. Yes, insurance companies are reacting to increased risk, but attributing this solely to recent climate events is ridiculous and ignores the underlying complexities of the insurance market and real estate speculation.
3. Grameen Bank vs. Dot-Com Bubble: Comparing Grameen banking to the dot-com bubble shows a fundamental misunderstanding of economic impacts and long-term value creation. People who speculated in dot-com securities, despite potential losses, fueled one of the most significant eras of technological progress in history. That speculation built a robust technological infrastructure, established a global ecosystem, and laid the groundwork for the modern internet economy that benefits humanity to this day.
   
   The Grameen model, by contrast, is rooted in sustainable, community-focused lending that offers real stability and resilience to impoverished communities, especially in regions vulnerable to economic shocks. It’s not about speculation or quick gains; it’s about incremental, sustainable growth that empowers people. The comparison to speculative markets fails to recognize the impact of Grameen’s approach to poverty alleviation and community resilience—values that speculative investment alone could never achieve.
   
   So, while speculative investments can spur innovation, comparing them to a system like Grameen misses the point. Both forms of economic activity have their place, but Grameen is designed to withstand crises and uplift communities, not create bubbles.
   
   If you’re serious about discussing real-world impacts, focus on the proven resilience and societal benefits that these models offer instead of attempting to draw irrelevant comparisons.
4. The Role of Natural Carbon Sinks: My point about Canada’s forests, oceans, and other natural carbon sinks stands. These systems absorb far more CO₂ than you seem willing to acknowledge. Your argument that human emissions alone drive climate change ignores the data on carbon cycling and natural CO₂ fluctuations influenced by ocean temperatures and biological processes. The 31% increase in GPP (Gross Primary Production) only underscores the importance of natural carbon sinks, which are more effective than many climate models have accounted for.

You’re conflating natural variability with human-caused effects, overlooking critical data on carbon sinks, and trivializing sustainable financial models like Grameen. Your position isn’t grounded in science, just alarmist rhetoric and handwaving. If you want to contribute to this discussion, bring forward empirical evidence instead of dismissing complex scientific findings with oversimplifications and insults.

[Pargat Perrer]

Your argument about “1000-year events” and “inconvenient truths” shows a lack of understanding about statistical probability and historical context. Let’s clarify a few points:The “1000-Year Event” Misconception: Calling extreme weather events “1000-year events” doesn’t mean they are unprecedented or humn caused. It’s a statistical term that refers to the probability of an event occurring in any given year, not a guarantee that it will only happen once every thousand years. Additionally, natural climate variability has produced extreme events throughout history. It’s unscientific to claim that these are definitive proof of human-caused climate change without considering the broader, historical data. Claiming otherwise ignores the role of natural cycles and other contributing factors, including the Urban Heat Island effect and ocean temperature shifts, which heavily influence climate dynamics, as I posted earlier in this thread for those who know how to read.

1. Ignoring Historical Climate Data: You accuse me of ignoring data, but you’ve yet to provide any empirical evidence that these events are driven by human CO₂ emissions rather than a combination of natural factors. Your narrative is based more on alarmist headlines than on rigorous scientific analysis. If you want to claim that these recent events are entirely new or unprecedented, I invite you to present concrete, peer-reviewed data that definitively attributes them to human activity—rather than cherry-picking statistics or invoking Al Gore’s “inconvenient truths” without context.
2. Florida and Homeowner Insurance: Rising insurance costs in Florida are largely due to a combination of natural disaster risks and economic factors—not exclusively climate change. Florida’s exposure to hurricanes, for example, has been a fact for centuries. Yes, insurance companies are reacting to increased risk, but attributing this solely to recent climate events is ridiculous and ignores the underlying complexities of the insurance market and real estate speculation.
3. Grameen Bank vs. Dot-Com Bubble: Comparing Grameen banking to the dot-com bubble shows a fundamental misunderstanding of economic impacts and long-term value creation. People who speculated in dot-com securities, despite potential losses, fueled one of the most significant eras of technological progress in history. That speculation built a robust technological infrastructure, established a global ecosystem, and laid the groundwork for the modern internet economy that benefits humanity to this day.
   
   The Grameen model, by contrast, is rooted in sustainable, community-focused lending that offers real stability and resilience to impoverished communities, especially in regions vulnerable to economic shocks. It’s not about speculation or quick gains; it’s about incremental, sustainable growth that empowers people. The comparison to speculative markets fails to recognize the impact of Grameen’s approach to poverty alleviation and community resilience—values that speculative investment alone could never achieve.
   
   So, while speculative investments can spur innovation, comparing them to a system like Grameen misses the point. Both forms of economic activity have their place, but Grameen is designed to withstand crises and uplift communities, not create bubbles.
   
   If you’re serious about discussing real-world impacts, focus on the proven resilience and societal benefits that these models offer instead of attempting to draw irrelevant comparisons.
4. The Role of Natural Carbon Sinks: My point about Canada’s forests, oceans, and other natural carbon sinks stands. These systems absorb far more CO₂ than you seem willing to acknowledge. Your argument that human emissions alone drive climate change ignores the data on carbon cycling and natural CO₂ fluctuations influenced by ocean temperatures and biological processes. The 31% increase in GPP (Gross Primary Production) only underscores the importance of natural carbon sinks, which are more effective than many climate models have accounted for.

You’re conflating natural variability with human-caused effects, overlooking critical data on carbon sinks, and trivializing sustainable financial models like Grameen. Your position isn’t grounded in science, just alarmist rhetoric and handwaving. If you want to contribute to this discussion, bring forward empirical evidence instead of dismissing complex scientific findings with oversimplifications and insults.

You attribute words to me that I've never said. Never said human emissions alone drive climate change.

Your statement "It’s unscientific to claim that these are definitive proof of human-caused climate change without considering the broader, historical data" ignores that I AM considering the broad historical data .... namely the frequency in the past few years of these 1000-year events. To get so many of them in such a short time, and spread all around the world, speaks to a message being given to us ... and it is this message that propels governments and scientists around the world to consider more radical actions.

Sure, we can listen to "waving hands" like you .... the King of waving hands, even going on to an obscure chess forum and posting repetitively despite the fact that for you time is money ... we can listen to you saying we don't need to do anything because things were even worse some hundreds of thousands of years ago .... yeah, worse for the woolly mammoths LOL.

But to listen to you and do nothing and let Earth gradually turn into Venus and possibly wipe out the human species and many other species besides is the height of arrogance and stupidity.

You are mocking in another thread here the people who didn't listen to the message from Twitter (X) about the movement towards Trump in the US election. The situation is comparable because there was no iron-clad scientific evidence that voters were moving en masse towards Trump, so we had to listen to all the messages available to us, and many messages were saying "No, everythlng is up in the air, we have 7 states that will decide and they are all toss-ups." This was all based on polls in which people can lie.

Similarly, you are asking us to listen to YOU tell us "No, nothing is wrong, we need MORE CO2 not less." all based on data you've gathered in which people can lie, and WILL lie to prevent things like carbon tax, renewable energy, phaseout of gas-powered vehicles, etc.

Notice I still haven't said ANYTHING about human emission being the sole driver. Yes, climate change COULD BE a natural cycle event. That's not what's important. What's important is to figure out what TOOLS we have to fight the cycle, and the biggest tool is to REMOVE CO2 and METHANE from the atmosphere.

You talk about natural carbon sinks as if they are all going to miraculously absorb all the extra human-caused emissions. BUT THEY AREN'T DOING THAT! So any scientific paper that conjectures that plants can absorb 31% more CO2 than we thought previously IS IRREVALENT. THE PLANTS ARE NOT ABSORBING IT! THE CO2 IS CLIMBING YEAR AFTER YEAR NOW!

We aren't built to, or capable of evolving fast enough to, live in a much hotter world.

Therefore we must act. The Spains, Bangladeshes, Californias, Floridas, etc etc. all give us this message. And I haven't talked about the FINANCIAL imperatives to act ... the breakdown of our entire financial system because gigantic insurance companies all go bankrupt from claims due to climate change events, leaving no one anywhere able to insure assets against losses, imploding the value of those assets.

Go ahead, KIng Hand-Waver, go ahead and wave your hands and shout "No! We don't need to do anything!" You will be dutifully ignored.

Grameen Bank: if that were a government, taxpayer-funded program, I have NO DOUBT you'd be deriding it as government waste! Thats' all I need to say about that. I don't know who is putting up all the money, but they are all going to lose it all. It doesn't matter that the Bangladeshians (?) are all hard-working and responsible and want to pay the loans back, unlike in America where half the people would run away with the money, making the model unworkable there. In Bangladesh catastrophic floods are very likely, and now even MORE likely to be MUCH MORE severe and widespread, leading to massive losses.

[Sid Belzberg]

You attribute words to me that I've never said. Never said human emissions alone drive climate change.

Your statement "It’s unscientific to claim that these are definitive proof of human-caused climate change without considering the broader, historical data" ignores that I AM considering the broad historical data .... namely the frequency in the past few years of these 1000-year events. To get so many of them in such a short time, and spread all around the world, speaks to a message being given to us ... and it is this message that propels governments and scientists around the world to consider more radical actions.

Sure, we can listen to "waving hands" like you .... the King of waving hands, even going on to an obscure chess forum and posting repetitively despite the fact that for you time is money ... we can listen to you saying we don't need to do anything because things were even worse some hundreds of thousands of years ago .... yeah, worse for the woolly mammoths LOL.

But to listen to you and do nothing and let Earth gradually turn into Venus and possibly wipe out the human species and many other species besides is the height of arrogance and stupidity.

You are mocking in another thread here the people who didn't listen to the message from Twitter (X) about the movement towards Trump in the US election. The situation is comparable because there was no iron-clad scientific evidence that voters were moving en masse towards Trump, so we had to listen to all the messages available to us, and many messages were saying "No, everythlng is up in the air, we have 7 states that will decide and they are all toss-ups." This was all based on polls in which people can lie.

Similarly, you are asking us to listen to YOU tell us "No, nothing is wrong, we need MORE CO2 not less." all based on data you've gathered in which people can lie, and WILL lie to prevent things like carbon tax, renewable energy, phaseout of gas-powered vehicles, etc.

Notice I still haven't said ANYTHING about human emission being the sole driver. Yes, climate change COULD BE a natural cycle event. That's not what's important. What's important is to figure out what TOOLS we have to fight the cycle, and the biggest tool is to REMOVE CO2 and METHANE from the atmosphere.

You talk about natural carbon sinks as if they are all going to miraculously absorb all the extra human-caused emissions. BUT THEY AREN'T DOING THAT! So any scientific paper that conjectures that plants can absorb 31% more CO2 than we thought previously IS IRREVALENT. THE PLANTS ARE NOT ABSORBING IT! THE CO2 IS CLIMBING YEAR AFTER YEAR NOW!

We aren't built to, or capable of evolving fast enough to, live in a much hotter world.

Therefore we must act. The Spains, Bangladeshes, Californias, Floridas, etc etc. all give us this message. And I haven't talked about the FINANCIAL imperatives to act ... the breakdown of our entire financial system because gigantic insurance companies all go bankrupt from claims due to climate change events, leaving no one anywhere able to insure assets against losses, imploding the value of those assets.

Go ahead, KIng Hand-Waver, go ahead and wave your hands and shout "No! We don't need to do anything!" You will be dutifully ignored.

Grameen Bank: if that were a government, taxpayer-funded program, I have NO DOUBT you'd be deriding it as government waste! Thats' all I need to say about that. I don't know who is putting up all the money, but they are all going to lose it all. It doesn't matter that the Bangladeshians (?) are all hard-working and responsible and want to pay the loans back, unlike in America where half the people would run away with the money, making the model unworkable there. In Bangladesh catastrophic floods are very likely, and now even MORE likely to be MUCH MORE severe and widespread, leading to massive losses.

"Stop talking nonsense, you very, very nasty troll', agreed! Your argument is riddled with contradictions and lacks any serious basis in fact. On one hand, you declare that the “only solution” to climate change is to remove carbon and methane from the atmosphere, yet you simultaneously insist you’ve “never claimed human emissions cause climate change.” So, which is it? If these gases are truly the only solution, then they’re the problem—and your denial of their significance makes no sense.

This double-talk shows a lack of understanding and only serves to confuse the issue. You can’t argue that CO₂ and methane must be eliminated, while also implying they’re irrelevant. If you truly had a grasp on this topic, you’d present coherent evidence rather than this contradictory, baseless rhetoric.

Moreover, your attempt to speculate about how I value my time only reveals the emptiness of your position. Personal assumptions about my priorities are irrelevant, off-topic, and do nothing to strengthen your case. They are a weak diversion at best.

If you’re here to present actual data, then do so. If not, your stupid trolling and rhetorical floundering will only continue to be ignored for the noise it is. Stick to facts or stop wasting everyone’s time.

[Pargat Perrer]

"Stop talking nonsense, you very, very nasty troll', agreed! Your argument is riddled with contradictions and lacks any serious basis in fact. On one hand, you declare that the “only solution” to climate change is to remove carbon and methane from the atmosphere, yet you simultaneously insist you’ve “never claimed human emissions cause climate change.” So, which is it? If these gases are truly the only solution, then they’re the problem—and your denial of their significance makes no sense.

This double-talk shows a lack of understanding and only serves to confuse the issue. You can’t argue that CO₂ and methane must be eliminated, while also implying they’re irrelevant. If you truly had a grasp on this topic, you’d present coherent evidence rather than this contradictory, baseless rhetoric.

Moreover, your attempt to speculate about how I value my time only reveals the emptiness of your position. Personal assumptions about my priorities are irrelevant, off-topic, and do nothing to strengthen your case. They are a weak diversion at best.

If you’re here to present actual data, then do so. If not, your stupid trolling and rhetorical floundering will only continue to be ignored for the noise it is. Stick to facts or stop wasting everyone’s time.

I guess you skipped over the lines I wrote about climate change could be at least partly due to a natural cycle, where slow incremental warming beginning say 200 years ago leads to eventual melting of the permafrost in Siberia and the Arctic, releasing methane and CO2 into the atmosphere. I did write that in one of my recent posts, so there you go, the point being the problem IS the CO2 and methane but the causes MIGHT NOT be solely human emissions. If anyone is guilty of lack of understanding, you are the one.

So yes, the CO2 and methane MUST be removed from the atmosphere. again you put words to me I never said, I did not say these greenhouse gases are irrelevant. You claim I say human emissions are solely responsible, and no I do not claim that, but I do claim the greenhouse gases are if not solely, at least primarily responsible. But there is a LOT of methane and CO2 locked up in that permafrost! Lots more to come in the next few decades as things accelerate.

Anyway, now that Trump is returning, oil drilling and fracking will rise again and I think we can safely say now that the goose is cooked (literally, along with almost all species) and climate change will continue to accelerate and the human species has less than a century left on planet Earth, assuming there is no divine or extraterrestrial intervention in the matter.

You and Dilip, always resorting the "TROLL!" when you are exposed for being a troll yourselves.

[Sid Belzberg]

Your latest response only confirms the contradictions and baseless fearmongering at the core of your argument. You admit that climate change could be part of a natural cycle, yet you insist we must remove CO₂ and methane as if human activity alone is the primary driver. You can’t have it both ways. Either present actual evidence that human emissions are responsible for “cooking the goose,” as you so melodramatically put it, or admit that your conclusions are pure speculation, devoid of scientific grounding.

Your claim about imminent climate catastrophe and mass extinction based on speculative future emissions is the height of alarmism. Waving around unproven theories about permafrost methane and “extraterrestrial intervention” doesn’t strengthen your argument—it highlights its absurdity. If you truly believe CO₂ and methane are the culprits, then present concrete data to show how they alone drive climate trends, rather than floating unscientific hypotheticals.

As for your off-topic jabs about Trump, oil drilling, and divine intervention, these are nothing but distractions. If you’re here to have a fact-based discussion, stick to climate science and present peer-reviewed data instead of veering into inflammatory political side notes and apocalyptic predictions.

And for the record, labeling you a troll isn’t an “exposure”—it’s a reality. Your responses are full of inflammatory rhetoric, personal attacks, and baseless claims. If that isn’t trolling, I don’t know what is. Come back with facts or save your handwaving for someone who buys into it.

I have no problem seeing man as a cancer .

https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...409#post231409

[Bob Armstrong]

Earth's Rising Temperature (Whatever may be the cause)

It IS really happening!



"This year [2024] will be the hottest on record, and the first to exceed the target set at the Paris climate conference in 2015.

The temperature in 2024 will likely be more than 1.55C above the pre-industrial level, the Copernicus Climate Change Service said Thursday. The landmark Paris Agreement called for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the hope of limiting global warming to 2C (3.6F), and ideally 1.5C, above temperatures at the outset of the Industrial Revolution.

But maintaining that threshold has been all but discarded as nations fail to move quickly. Scientists warn that the acceleration of global temperatures will lead to more and bigger climate disasters while pushing the planet closer to a series of tipping points from which there will be no return."

Bloomberg - Evening Briefing Newsletter - 24/11/7

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Bob, as I pointed out in a prior post https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/chesstalk-s-non-chess-discussion-board/217060-anthropogenic-negative-climate-change-ancc?p=232039#post232039, the global climate estimates by Copernicus, IPCC et al. are grossly distorted by the urban Island effect, When this is removed climate variations are not significantly different than they have been for millennia, A peer-reviewed climate science journal has vetted the data.\
For months, you did a thorough analysis of the data on the US election from polls from legacy mainstream media when an uncensored platform of crowdsourced data of amateur journalists on X said that a landslide was inevitable.
Legacy Mainstream Media is dead with everything from corrupted climate data to omitting the dangers of the vaccines to who made the viruses. Decentralized crowd source data is the most accurate "polls" one will see these days as the betting markets proved to be accurate.

Sorry Bob, when it comes to legacy Mainstream Media as a data source, in the words of William Shakespeare :"I have as much faith in thee as a stewed prune".

Cheers,
Sid



New study suggests global warming could be mostly an urban problem


Updated: Oct 3, 2023



A new study published in the scientific peer-reviewed journal, Climate, by 37 researchers from 18 countries suggests that current estimates of global warming are contaminated by urban warming biases.


The study also suggests that the solar activity estimates considered in the most recent reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimated the role of the Sun in global warming since the 19th century.


It is well-known that cities are warmer than the surrounding countryside. While urban areas only account for less than 4% of the global land surface, many of the weather stations used for calculating global temperatures are located in urban areas. For this reason, some scientists have been concerned that the current global warming estimates may have been contaminated by urban heat island effects. In their latest report, the IPCC estimated that urban warming accounted for less than 10% of global warming. However, this new study suggests that urban warming might account for up to 40% of the warming since 1850.



Source: Maps taken from NOAA Climate.gov.


The study also found that the IPCC’s chosen estimate of solar activity appeared to have prematurely ruled out a substantial role for the Sun in the observed warming.


When the authors analysed the temperature data only using the IPCC’s solar dataset, they could not explain any of the warming since the mid-20th century. That is, they replicated the IPCC’s iconic finding that global warming is mostly human-caused. However, when the authors repeated the analysis using a different estimate of solar activity – one that is often used by the scientific community – they found that most of the warming and cooling trends of the rural data could actually be explained in terms of changing solar activity.


The lead author of the study, Dr. Willie Soon, of the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES-Science.com) described the implications of their findings,
“For many years, the general public has been assuming that the science on climate change is settled. This new study shows that this is not the case.”

Another author of the study, Prof. Ana Elias, the Director of the Laboratorio de Ionosfera, Atmósfera Neutra y Magnetosfera (LIANM) at the Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, Argentina, explained:
“This analysis opens the door to a proper scientific investigation into the causes of climate change.”


This study finds similar conclusions to another study that was recently published in a separate scientific peer-reviewed journal, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics. This other study involved many of the same co-authors (led by Dr. Ronan Connolly, also at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences). It took a different approach to analysing the causes of climate change – using an additional 25 estimates of solar activity and three extra temperature estimates.




For media inquiries, please contact Dr. Ronan Connolly (Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences) at ronan@ceres-science.com.




Links to both studies mentioned:

• W. Soon, R. Connolly, M. Connolly, S.-I. Akasofu, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, A. Bianchini, W.M. Briggs, C.J. Butler, R.G. Cionco, M. Crok, A.G. Elias, V.M. Fedorov, F. Gervais, H. Harde, G.W. Henry, D.V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D.R. Legates, A.R. Lupo, S. Maruyama, P. Moore, M. Ogurtsov, C. ÓhAiseadha, M.J. Oliveira, S.-S. Park, S. Qiu, G. Quinn, N. Scafetta, J.-E. Solheim, J. Steele, L. Szarka, H.L. Tanaka, M.K. Taylor, F. Vahrenholt, V.M. Velasco Herrera and W. Zhang (2023). "The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Data", Climate, 11(9), 179; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11090179. (Open access).
• R. Connolly, W. Soon, M. Connolly, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, C.J. Butler, R.G. Cionco, A.G. Elias, V. Fedorov, H. Harde, G.W. Henry, D.V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D.R. Legates, N. Scafetta, J.-E. Solheim, L. Szarka, V.M. Velasco Herrera, H. Yan and W.J. Zhang (2023). "Challenges in the detection and attribution of Northern Hemisphere surface temperature trends since 1850". Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23(10), 105015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/acf18e. (Open access).