Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 25
» Latest member: Robertlekly
» Forum threads: 105
» Forum posts: 202

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 27 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 27 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
Forum: Introduction
Last Post: Sunsettommy
07-20-2020, 05:57 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 271
Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet
Last Post: Sunsettommy
07-18-2020, 06:06 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 177
Ocasio-cortez On Millenni...
Forum: Climate Change Politics
Last Post: Sunsettommy
07-03-2020, 04:07 PM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 4,401
Greetings from the high d...
Forum: Faith and Beliefs
Last Post: Sunsettommy
06-29-2020, 02:49 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 183
The Scientific Method-Ric...
Forum: Video
Last Post: old dog
06-29-2020, 01:53 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 1,465
Climate Statistics 101: s...
Forum: Science Presentations
Last Post: Sunsettommy
06-19-2020, 04:58 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 228
Registration Closed
Forum: Site Announcement
Last Post: Sunsettommy
03-08-2020, 05:11 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 1,598
Don Easterbrook
Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet
Last Post: Sunsettommy
01-07-2020, 04:50 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 975
Polar Sea Ice
Forum: Published Science Papers
Last Post: Sunsettommy
12-14-2019, 05:23 PM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 5,558
Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet
Last Post: Sunsettommy
12-11-2019, 03:05 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 705

Posted by: Sunsettommy - 07-18-2020, 06:01 PM - Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet - Replies (1)


Hmm, comments not preserved. The ideal setting for a little stir up.

I solved the climate riddle to my satisfaction almost two years ago. I didn’t get to it through hypothesis-driven science, the bane of scientific discovery, but I stumbled upon it through good old-fashioned evidence-driven science. The kind that Popper and Feynman defended. Go where the evidence takes you and only when you arrive at destination make your hypothesis. Hypothesis-driven science inevitably leads to a confirmation-bias trap. Climate is extremely complicated and to have a chance to understand it a good thermodynamics understanding is a must. I started laying out the clues in a series of articles here at WUWT, but I didn’t like the response. Probably not the right audience. Here people that do correlation analysis using sunspot numbers to shun a solar effect are revered as the scientific apotheosis.

People have been looking for a simple answer to the climate problem. Most think is the CO2, a few think is the Sun, others think is the clouds. The answer is not that simple, obviously, or it would have been solved long ago. Scotese has the answer right in front of him when he analyzes the equator-to-pole temperature gradients of the past.


The temperature of the Earth is determined by how much energy moves along that gradient, and the Sun is a key regulator in a way that could never be detected with sunspot number correlations. Arctic amplification is not what it seems. And natural variability is a huge confounding factor because the 60-year oscillation that affects the entire climate system essentially takes energy from the surface and returns it 30 years later. Although in the long term the oscillation is neutral, on multi-decadal timeframes it determines whether there is warming or not, regardless of what the real causes are doing.

I even wrote an article on January 2019 entitled “How the Sun cools the Earth” where the main evidence I had found was to be shown, but finally I decided not to publish it. My past experiences had shown that WUWT was no longer a place for scientific discovery. The place where people like Bill Illis or Ferdinand Engelbeen came to show and discuss what they had found. It has become a sort of tribal outlet where one tribe supporters come for reinforcement and very few commenters are genuinely interested in learning and discovery.

I’ve been trying to publish what I have found in a scientific venue since, but I have the same problem. Everybody thinks they have the answer and nobody is ready to listen. To my knowledge what I have found has not been published, not even discussed elsewhere. It is a weird feeling to think that perhaps I am right and I am the only (or one of very few) person to know why and how the climate has been changing over the past century. Something that if told would make most people think I am a loony. “Hey, Javier thinks he understands climate change and nobody else does. What a loony.” And if I tell, most people would not understand it, would not have any reason to trust what I say, and would just shrug and continue. Nobody that has a different hypothesis would abandon it and they would come to refute or find a different explanation to what I say. Only time can settle this issue, so I will just sit down and wait to find if I was really one of the first to stumble upon the answer or just a loony. I don’t really care that much if people know the truth or not. I am not an evangelizer. For me this was always about me knowing the truth, and I now think I know it.

If somebody else wants to find out they can start from my 2018 articles and continue from there. The answer lies at the end and the fun is the journey.

Print this item

  Greetings from the high desert
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 06-29-2020, 02:49 AM - Forum: Faith and Beliefs - No Replies

I can create one, move this to the new subforum.

By the way, WELCOME!

Big Grin

Print this item

Posted by: old dog - 06-29-2020, 02:46 AM - Forum: Introduction - Replies (2)

Since you don't have a sub-forum for new members to introduce themselves, I'll do it here with an outline of my faith and beliefs in no particular order..

1.  I don't adhere to any rigid ideology.  They are all just an excuse for taking positions without thinking them through on your own.

2.  I have a scientific background but nothing that would make me an expert to comment on climate change other than:
          GREEN is the new RED

3. I am a fallen away Roman Catholic of many decades.  I have come to believe in spirituality through the evidence of Ian Stevenson in reincarnation.  I am studying the historical evidence of Jesus and am struggling to come to terms with the resurrection as described in the Gospels.  If there is such a thing as heaven then, to quote Will Rodgers: "When I die, I want to go where dogs go".

4.  I believe in the Republic and the U. S. Constitution as 50 experiments in democracy and the Bill of Rights, all 10 of them.

5.  I don't automatically label all liberals as the enemy.  They are (usually) wrong or misguided but some of them love America, respect the rule of law and are needed in a two party system.

6.  Although it would never have crossed my mind a decade ago, in out changing world, I never go anywhere without a weapon.  I subscribe to the 3 rules of the late Charlie Mike of Bladeforums:  I. Don't be an a$$hole.  II.  Don't hang around with A$$holes  III. If you really think you need a gun to go somewhere ... don't go there.

7.  I've listened to every election since '64 described as the most important of my lifetime.  This time I strongly believe that it is.  

Good luck to Sunsettommy on his new adventure.

Print this item

  Climate Statistics 101: see the Slide Show AOC Tried, and Failed, to Censor
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 06-19-2020, 04:58 PM - Forum: Science Presentations - No Replies

Watts Up With That?

Climate Statistics 101: see the Slide Show AOC Tried, and Failed, to Censor


This is the slide show and 20-minute talk that Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Chellie Pingree tried to censor at the LibertyCon 2020 conference in Washington, D.C. After Dr. Rossiter gave a climate talk at LibertyCon 2019, they wrote to sponsors of the event, such as Google and Facebook, and asked them not to fund any event with an appearance by “climate deniers” from the CO2 Coalition. See http://co2coalition.org/2019/01/30/representatives-ocasio-cortez-and-pingree-and-climate-change-debate/

LibertyCon indeed lost some sponsorship, but because of its commitment to the free exchange of ideas still invited Dr. Rossiter back to speak in 2020. This is the talk he had prepared, before the coronavirus crisis forced the cancellation of the conference.

As background to this topic, we suggest that you watch the CO2 Coalition’s “CO2-Minute” video, “Carbon Dioxide: Part of a Greener Future,” at 

Now, on to the talk! (You can also download and distribute the slides themselves in a PowerPoint file at:


Print this item

  Don Easterbrook
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 01-07-2020, 04:49 PM - Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet - Replies (1)


Measurements of oxygen isotopes in Greenland and Antarctica ice cores allow reconstruction of ancient temperatures back 800,000 years and measurements of radiocarbon and Beryllium-10 indicate the intensity of cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmosphere.

Sunspots are a reflection of the strength of the sun’s magnetic field, which acts as shield for cosmic rays approaching the Earth. When the strength of the sun’s magnetic field is reduced, more cosmic rays enter the atmosphere. In every case, when sunspot numbers are low, the Earth’s climate is cool, and whenever sunspot numbers are high, the Earth’s climate is warm.

The intensity of incoming cosmic rays determines the rate of production of beryllium-10 and radiocarbon. Radio‒carbon is taken in by plants and other life forms and preserved for thousands of years where it gradually decays. Age measurements based on the amount of remaining 14C can be compared with independent calendar years, allowing determination of 14C production rates. Measurement of production rates 14C can be used to determine the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the Earth in the past.

Beryllium-10 is produced in the upper atmosphere by collision of cosmic particles with oxygen. The higher the incidence of cosmic rays, the more 10Be is produced. Beryllium-10 falls out of the atmosphere with snow and is incorp‒orated in glacial ice. Thus, measurement of the amount of 10Be in ice cores can be used to determine the intensity of cosmic rays in the past. High amounts of 10Be in ice cores means high levels of cosmic rays in the atmosphere then.

Sunspot numbers, indicating solar magnetic strength, and 10Be and/or radiocarbon production rates, indicating cosmic ray intensity, were examined for every period of cooling or warming for which data are available. In every case examined in this study, whenever sunspot numbers were low and/or 10Be and/or radiocarbon levels were high, the Earth’s climate was cold. In every case when sunspot numbers were high and/or 10Be and/or radiocarbon levels were low, the Earth’s climate was warm . Thus, what these data show is that fluctuations of the strength of the sun’s magnetic field is the principal control of the Earth’s climate, including the origin of the Ice Ages.

Print this item

Posted by: Sunsettommy - 12-11-2019, 03:05 AM - Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet - No Replies



Since you demonstrate knowledge of IPCC reports, it is unclear to me why you are lying about this.

Exact quote:

Quote:How quickly will global climate change?
a If emissions follow a Business-as-Usual pattern
Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C) This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value (about 2°C above that in the pre-industrial period) by 2025.

First Assessment Report. Working Group I. Policymakers Summary. Page XXII.


Print this item

Posted by: Sunsettommy - 12-11-2019, 02:59 AM - Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet - No Replies



Those predictions, whether new or not, have been and still are being widely circulated through the mass media to scare people silly about climate change, so the point is not that some predictions are bound to be incorrect. The entire alarmist building is raised on false premises.

1 & 2. Just read it

They are very specific about what to expect by 2025. Of the 35 years, 28 have already passed. The expected increase and rate of increase has not happened by a big margin.

3. They talk about the consequences of milder winters because milder winters were expected. They did not talk about the consequences of harsher winters due to global warming until harsher winters appeared.

4. NH Snow cover unchanged. Not my problem if you can’t find the data.

5. The first prediction of water stress due to lack of precipitations was shown unsustained, as eventually all drastic predictions will.

6. You don’t read the press, do you? We are constantly bombarded by claims from alarmist scientists that climate change is making weather extremes oh so much worse. Do I have to look for the link where Michael Mann was saying how Harvey was made worse by climate change? Failure to predict shows they are bogus.

7. Can you prove that wildfires have increased? I can prove that in the EU wildfires have decreased. This is consistent with the article that clearly states that overall fires are decreasing. Not precisely the promised scenario.

8. Munk’s enigma was published in 2002. The predictions and explanations that go the opposite way were published later. Mitrovica’s explanation of Munk’s enigma is controversial. William Peltier, who was Mitrovica’s thesis advisor, says it is wrong.


9 & 10. Well known Arctic sea ice predictions and well laughed at.

11. The glacier prediction showed what the IPCC considered acceptable sources, and how much they took into consideration their own reviewer warnings. The whole IPCC process is contaminated by bias from its very set up as a panel dedicated to find an anthropogenic effect on climate change.

B1. Oh yes, Sherwood Idso did predict the greening
Industrial age leading to the greening of the Earth?

But as he was immediately labeled as a skeptic, or worse, I don’t think you can count that on the side of the warmists, or even consensus builders.
Sherwood Idso label at Wikipedia:

So that one is a score for the skeptics.

B2. Deforestation was believed to be a more important factor driving a global loss of forests. Just the opposite has been found.

B3. The missing sink was all the fuss in the early 90’s carbon budget accounting. They weren’t able to predict the observed increase in the sinks and they could not understand it for quite some time after observing it. Clearly it was not expected.

B4. The Pause was never predicted. The possibility that the warming rate could actually go down while CO2 was increasing was not considered in the literature before it happened. Most of the literature on the pause is from 2013 onward. Finding an earlier paper disproves nothing. The issue was ignored until it became impossible, and attempts are still being made at erasing the pause from the records.

Since you are not an alarmist. Why would you defend them when they are clearly and demonstrably so wrong?

Print this item

Posted by: Sunsettommy - 12-09-2019, 09:18 PM - Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet - No Replies


US Climate Research Network was specifically designed and set up to avoid measurement errors, changes in technology, changes in procedures and UHI. It covers the entire country. It shows the US is not warming since it was initiated. In fact, 2018 and 2019 are both colder than the first three years (2005, 2006, 2007) that the system was up and reporting.


USHCN has a lot more long term data and it shows that the 1930’s were way hotter than the present in the US. Some of these stations are compromised by UHI and other changes so the results are subject to cherry picking and data manipulation. Check out Tony Heller at realclimatescience.com if you want good analysis of other temperature histories.
I am like every other skeptic who has looked at the temperature histories and I think the NOAA/NASA version (the cleaned, adjusted, homogenized, V4 of their global temperature report) is hopelessly confirmation biased.


Print this item

  Climate Hustle
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 11-15-2019, 04:20 PM - Forum: Video - No Replies

Amazon LINK

Print this item

Posted by: Sunsettommy - 11-01-2019, 09:30 PM - Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet - No Replies


Your web comments are good. But the following 6 links best describe the whole global warming situation.
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
GCM General Circulation Model (many, based on IPCC CO2 assertions)
Shows that temperature change over the last 200 years is due to 3 things: 1) cycling of the ocean temperature, 2) sun variations and 3) moisture in the air. There is no significant dependence of temperature on CO2.
Connolly father & son
Shows the vertical temperature profile follows the ideal gas laws and is not caused by CO2. Millions of weather balloon scans and trillions of data points have been analyzed to come to these conclusions. One important conclusion is that there is no green house gas effect.

Pat Frank
Shows that GCM results cannot be extrapolated a few years, let alone 50 or 100.
Joe Postma
Shows that the “flat earth model”of the IPCC is too simple. Their real models are built into the GCMs which don’t fit the real data.

Print this item