The effect of the sun's activity on climate change has been either scarcely known or overlooked. In this momentous book, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr Sebastian Luning demonstrate that the critical cause of global temperature change has been, and continues to be, the sun's activity. Vahrenholt and Luning reveal that four concurrent solar cycles master the earth's tempeThe effect of the sun's activity on climate change has been either scarcely known or overlooked. In this momentous book, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr Sebastian Luning demonstrate that the critical cause of global temperature change has been, and continues to be, the sun's activity. Vahrenholt and Luning reveal that four concurrent solar cycles master the earth's temperature – a climatic reality upon which man's carbon emissions bear little significance. The sun's present cooling phase, precisely monitored in this work, renders the catastrophic prospects put about by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change and the 'green agenda' dominant in contemporary Western politics as nothing less than impossible....
|Title||:||The Neglected Sun (Independent Minds)|
|Format Type||:||Kindle Edition|
|Number of Pages||:||356 Pages|
|Status||:||Available For Download|
|Last checked||:||21 Minutes ago!|
The Neglected Sun (Independent Minds) Reviews
If you want to understand more about the NATURAL (not human-made) aspects and causes of climate change, read this. If you like to feel guilty for something you haven't done, then read a newspaper. It turns out humans are contributing to global warming, but to a much lesser extent than the media and governments might have you believe. Humans won't destroy the plant with fossil fuels any more that we could flood the Mississippi river by pissing in it. But if it makes you feel better, Toyota will gladly sell you a battery powered car at about a $5,000 premium over a regular car. But ask yourself where the energy to charge those batteries comes from.
With Climate Change, the Past is the key to the Present and to the FutureThe words “climate change” can technically mean a number of things, but usually when we hear them, we understand that they are referring to something in particular. This would be a defined narrative, an idea which has been repeated so often in the media that it is taken as almost axiomatic. This narrative goes something like this: “Carbon dioxide produced by mankind is dramatically changing the climate and is leading to unprecedented temperature extremes, storms, floods, and widespread death. If we fail to apply the emergency brake now, and hard, then the climate will be irreparably damaged and there will be little hope for averting the approaching cataclysm. In just a few more years it may be too late. The measures proposed for averting disaster are costly, very costly, but the anticipated damage from climate change will be even more expensive, so there is little alternative but to act quickly and decisively.” Furthermore, we are told, the science is settled, it represents a scientific consensus, and opponents are rightfully called “climate deniers,” deserving the rhetorical connotations and stigma attached to the label because they might as well be denying the reality of the Holocaust. Now is this true? Are we even allowed to ask the question? If it is not true, how could we tell? The authors, coming from different backgrounds and having different reasons for developing suspicions of the received narrative, present a detailed, 400-page argument which carefully (and I think persuasively) makes the case that the sun, and only secondarily human activities, are the primary driver for climate change. This book gives public exposure to the work of many, many climate scientists whose conclusions are deemed politically incorrect and are thus ignored. In the authors’ own words, “We were able to cite hundreds of scientific studies showing that the changes in the sun’s activity and oceanic decadal oscillations are responsible for at least half of the recent warming, which means that the contribution of CO2 is at most half.” Most of us have no way of evaluating the computer models which predict, to varying degrees, catastrophic future warming with CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning being the sole culprit. The authors maintain, however, that “the past is the key to the present and to the future,” meaning that it is better to gather data on how the climate has acted in the past, and use this to calibrate projections into the future, than it is to create models calibrated to agree with a pre-ordained conclusion. This approach reveals a few surprises. First, neither the degree nor the rate of warming we are currently experiencing is unprecedented. Second, warming in the past was not caused by rising CO2 levels. Third, cycles of warming and cooling occurred at regularly repeating intervals over the past several thousand years and beyond, and closely match cycles of increased and decreased solar activity. Fourth, currently accepted climate models which are centered on CO2 cannot reproduce these past warming and cooling events. And finally fifth, the current halt in global warming since the year 2000 was not anticipated by these models, but it is completely consistent with a sun-centered approach which takes into consideration not only CO2 but also solar cycles and ocean oscillations. So here I, the average Joe, the taxpayer who doesn’t have in-depth scientific knowledge of the issues, is being asked to adjudicate between two opposing claims. And it does matter, because the choice I and the rest of society make will have a significant impact on the world our children inhabit. If the alarmists (if I may use that pejorative label for the sake of simplicity) are right, we have a moral obligation to give up our financial prosperity in order to maintain a world that is inhabitable for future generations.And it just so happens that it is this position (that of the alarmists) that “holds the microphone,” so to speak. We are bombarded with claims that the “science is settled” and only the ignorant and those with financial interests in maintaining the status quo would disagree. It seems to me that if this boils down to a matter of trust, and to some degree it does, then we are entitled to see if that trust is earned. And we can do that in a few ways. One is by listening carefully to the alarmists and trying to see if they are telling us the whole story, or are they selectively publicizing information that furthers their cause on the one hand, while withholding information that does not, on the other hand. One testable example that leaps to mind is Al Gore’s new book, “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.” Early in the book he prominently displays a graph of increasing temperatures over the past number of decades. No comment is given to the stagnating temperatures between the years 2000 and 2014, but we see an apparent resumption in the warming in the final two years, 2015 and 2016. So here Mr. Gore has told us part of the story. But has he told us the whole thing? No. He has utterly ignored the vast literature cited in “The Neglected Sun” which carefully shows how natural climate oscillations, and particularly an unusually active sun, have contributed, not only to recent temperature fluctuations, but also to those seen throughout the historic temperature record. And second, he has neglected to mention what our authors have made clear, namely, that it is inappropriate to include El Niño years in long-term projections, because these phenomena, which can produce remarkable short-term increases in global temperatures, are just that: they are short-term blips that vanish after a couple of years. Al Gore leaves us with the impression that these two years are further evidence of man-made global warming when the reality is nothing more than they are in fact El Niño years.Another way the average Joe can navigate this confusing terrain is to spend some time reading “The Neglected Sun.” It is not hard to read, the citations to peer-reviewed literature are numerous, and as it does give a place, albeit a secondary one, for CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, it gives a feeling of balance, and also an admission of the infancy of much of our knowledge, an admission that is entirely missing from popular presentations from the other side, in particular from Al Gore.Spend some time reading the book and it will become clear that the claims of scientific consensus and that the science is settled are false. And it seems to me that when what we can test is found to be wanting, this gives us reason to be suspicious of that which we cannot test. In other words, it looks sneaky and it looks like they haven’t got the goods.Now the authors make it clear that they are not denying that we need to move away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, but they are arguing that because projections based on solar activity are actually going to give us a few decades of cooling, we can make the change in a rational, rather than a panicked, way. The stakes are high, as we are on the verge of decisions that can dramatically alter the prosperity of not only our children and grandchildren, but of those in developing countries that need at least short-term access to fossil fuels in order to keep from sliding further backwards in poverty. Al Gore and the alarmists are right about one thing: the climate debate is a moral issue, but just not in the way they see it. Because if our authors are right, then we are faced with the following reality: as much of an economic inconvenience that an abrupt shift away from fossil fuels would be for those of us in the wealthy West, it is actually a life-and-death situation for those in the developing world whose ability to move out of poverty would be taken away from them. And that is immoral.
This book’s explanation of the sun’s influence on climate provides an important alternative hypothesis for global warming. The authors show that climate change is more closely linked to solar output than to carbon dioxide levels and support this claim with hundred of studies. They demonstrate how patterns of solar radiation and magnetism account for centuries of heating and cooling. If you are concerned about this issue, but sense misinformation in the news coverage, this book may be of interest.
This is a very good book, and does justice to the fact that we - or scientists - do not take the effect of the sun into their calculations when talking about climate change. I have been surprised that Germany has so many solar power installations, considering that it has very little sunshine.Yes, indeed, there does seem to be a case for taking the sun's effects into the calculations while estimating climate change, and if indeed the sun is going through a cooling phase, it may explain, in part, why there are such cold winters in certain parts of the world.I am not sure about the 1,000 year cycles, as we cannot estimate the accuracy of measurements 1,000 years ago.Also, I am a little wary of the rather strident tone in the book. This can seem colored, and I wonder if their own bias sometimes overshadows the effects of the other factors on climate change. The book uses a lot of data from Europe, and many parts of the world seem to be neglected in it's analysis. Does pollution in Asia affect the climate?This is a good book, and it raises some very valid points.
Oh, I liked this, especially Chapter 3 with all the solar and cosmic cycles described. The Nir Shaviv chapter is also to my liking, others too. It's worth noting that this book, I'm told, caused something of a sensation in Germany because one of the authors was a well known and highly regarded Warmist. The book spends a lot of time checking the IPCC, but for anyone who has been following closely the time spend doing that seems redundant. Given the time it was written though I can't really fault them for that.
Good summary and balanced approach Very complex issue handled in what appears to be an objective manner and backed up with a ton of referenced scientific works. They give what appears to be a more rational number to the effect of CO2 on global warming and also the effect the sun through the variously described mechanisms. Excellent read. Pity more people on both sides don.t read this...