I did not answer your question. From the cosmic ray theory of Nir Shaviv & Henrik Svensmark it is implicit that the variation in the solar and the earth's magnetic fields deflect or increase cosmic rays striking the atmosphere. Interaction causes cloud condensation nuclei which results in more clouds and a net cooling effect therefore it has a significant bearing on global temperatures.
A belated comment to further debunk the man-made CO2 global warming hoax.
The Keeling Curve graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration is often portrayed as a proxy for relentless man-made global warming, see https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/. The full record runs from 1960 and shows a total increase from 1960 (315) to 2024 (420) of approximately 33%.
This shows that the Keeling Curve is a poor proxy for alleged man-made global warming as the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the 1960 to 2024 time period is only about 11% of the increase in man-made CO2 emissions over the same period.
The control of the narrative has been significant. Ernst Georg Beck's final paper (submitted 2010) on the reconstruction of past carbon dioxide levels based on a review of historical analysis took 12 years to be published!
Adrian thanks for your comment. I have read your paper; interesting study. I have performed a reasonable amount of analysis that strongly supports the influence of cosmic rays on the earths climate. I have presented on the Tom Nelson podcast on this subject. During the discussion section of #275 he asked me is there any evidence of the influence of the earth's magnetic field on climate. I stated that it has a significant influence but I was unaware of any supporting studies. So thanks for enlightening me. If you have any further work in this area please keep me posted. I will email you to establish contact details.
Thanks for your comment. It would be good to have debates on some of the fundamentals CO2 driven climate change . My analysis is not that fundamental to the understanding of current changes to the climate. I discuss this with Tom Nelson in the related podcast (see link in this article and it is at the very end of the Youtube video). There is very little good science in the world of climate change due to the massive financial interest and fear driven cult that has emerged. To find "good science" you need to go to people who have no skin in the game and this is primarily from people who are at the end of their careers.
Thanks for reading and your feedback. It does take a bit of time and effort to perform this analysis but it has been an interesting journey. One of the things that worries me the most is why someone has not done this already? If you are interested this is my presentation on the Tom Nelson podcast: https://youtu.be/OohKukdfF8o?si=7QuKBH9yRU_IGitC
Thank for this interesting contribution. As a co-contributor on Tom Nelson’s podcast, may I add my latest paper about a concept of atmospheric carbon that considers both anthropogenic as well as temperature dependent natural emissions, with the result that all known measurement including the bomb test C14 data fit nicely together: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202504.2305/v1
Thanks for making me aware of your work. The analysis you performed in this preprint is significantly more sophisticated than mine. As you hopefully have ascertained, I have focused my efforts on the premise that cosmic rays in conjunction with heat transport are the major contributors to recent climate change and CO2 (thankfully) is pretty irrelevant. All data I have seen aligns well with these two theories. I will view your Tom Nelson podcast shortly.
Thank you for all your hard work. Very interesting and convincing.
I really hope your work gets taken up and supported by appropriate interests, and debated at the highest level with those who are invested in the dominant paradigm.
I did not answer your question. From the cosmic ray theory of Nir Shaviv & Henrik Svensmark it is implicit that the variation in the solar and the earth's magnetic fields deflect or increase cosmic rays striking the atmosphere. Interaction causes cloud condensation nuclei which results in more clouds and a net cooling effect therefore it has a significant bearing on global temperatures.
A belated comment to further debunk the man-made CO2 global warming hoax.
The Keeling Curve graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration is often portrayed as a proxy for relentless man-made global warming, see https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/. The full record runs from 1960 and shows a total increase from 1960 (315) to 2024 (420) of approximately 33%.
A graph of annual global man-made CO2 emissions running from 1940 is given by Statistica, see https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/. It shows an increase from 1960 (9.39) to 2024 (37.4) of approximately 300%.
This shows that the Keeling Curve is a poor proxy for alleged man-made global warming as the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the 1960 to 2024 time period is only about 11% of the increase in man-made CO2 emissions over the same period.
The control of the narrative has been significant. Ernst Georg Beck's final paper (submitted 2010) on the reconstruction of past carbon dioxide levels based on a review of historical analysis took 12 years to be published!
Adrian thanks for your comment. I have read your paper; interesting study. I have performed a reasonable amount of analysis that strongly supports the influence of cosmic rays on the earths climate. I have presented on the Tom Nelson podcast on this subject. During the discussion section of #275 he asked me is there any evidence of the influence of the earth's magnetic field on climate. I stated that it has a significant influence but I was unaware of any supporting studies. So thanks for enlightening me. If you have any further work in this area please keep me posted. I will email you to establish contact details.
Thanks for your comment. It would be good to have debates on some of the fundamentals CO2 driven climate change . My analysis is not that fundamental to the understanding of current changes to the climate. I discuss this with Tom Nelson in the related podcast (see link in this article and it is at the very end of the Youtube video). There is very little good science in the world of climate change due to the massive financial interest and fear driven cult that has emerged. To find "good science" you need to go to people who have no skin in the game and this is primarily from people who are at the end of their careers.
Thanks for reading and your feedback. It does take a bit of time and effort to perform this analysis but it has been an interesting journey. One of the things that worries me the most is why someone has not done this already? If you are interested this is my presentation on the Tom Nelson podcast: https://youtu.be/OohKukdfF8o?si=7QuKBH9yRU_IGitC
Thank for this interesting contribution. As a co-contributor on Tom Nelson’s podcast, may I add my latest paper about a concept of atmospheric carbon that considers both anthropogenic as well as temperature dependent natural emissions, with the result that all known measurement including the bomb test C14 data fit nicely together: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202504.2305/v1
Thanks for making me aware of your work. The analysis you performed in this preprint is significantly more sophisticated than mine. As you hopefully have ascertained, I have focused my efforts on the premise that cosmic rays in conjunction with heat transport are the major contributors to recent climate change and CO2 (thankfully) is pretty irrelevant. All data I have seen aligns well with these two theories. I will view your Tom Nelson podcast shortly.
Interesting to see Nir Shaviv mentioned. I vividly remember his cancellation, the threats he faced following the Forbes interview. Happy to see.
Although correlation does not prove causation take a look at this and see if you can think of a cause.
https://adriankerton.wordpress.com/climate-change-and-the-earths-magnetic-poles-a-possible-connection/
Thank you for all your hard work. Very interesting and convincing.
I really hope your work gets taken up and supported by appropriate interests, and debated at the highest level with those who are invested in the dominant paradigm.
Thanks for your hard work.
Thanks for this very interesting and informative post. The late Murry Salby argued this very point for years.
Thanks for reading and your feedback. I have started to view Murry Salby on Youtube.If you are interested this is my related presentation on Youtube:
https://youtu.be/OohKukdfF8o?si=7QuKBH9yRU_IGitC
Wonderful work; thanks!!