Climate: The Movie: Nir Shaviv on the Science Against Climate Change Alarmism By James Reed

Dr Nir Shaviv is featured as a climate change sceptic in the new movie, Climate: The Movie, which is discussed in another blog post today. He has given a tweet/X, where he cites some background research supporting his position which is critical of the carbon dioxide fetish of the UN's IPCC. He sees warming a product of the sun's radiation and cosmic rays, and humans have nothing to do with it, let alone carbon dioxide. Yet, that is all that UN looks at because the goal is to point the bone at Western industrialism, which they seek to eliminate.

https://twitter.com/nshaviv/status/1771269753274781862

Durkin's "Climate the movie" is out. Here are some links to the science behind it (at least the stuff that I and my close colleagues worked on). Link to the movie: https://vimeo.com/924719370 a) The sun has a large effect on climate. There are many studies showing this (all the way from Sir William Herschel's work in the late 18th century). Here are two examples that *quantify* this link and show that more than an order of magnitude larger than changes in the solar irradiance (which is the only component the IPCC is willing to admit that exists): https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2007JA012989… https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JA020732… These by themselves don't indicate that the link is through cosmic ray flux variations. The fact that it is through cosmic ray flux variations is totally irrelevant to understand 20th century climate change. The only thing relevant is that the sun is important, yet it is ignored by the "mainstream" community. Nonetheless, we believe that the link is through cosmic rays because of the following: b) We discovered microphysical processes (theoretically and in the lab) which link the atmospheric ionization to the production condensation nuclei and their growth to become cloud condensation nuclei, e.g., https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AGUFM.A53K0300P/abstract… https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018EGUGA..2014456S/abstract… c) We see empirically that changes in the cosmic ray flux following Forbush decreases translate into changes in the atmospheric aerosols and other cloud parameters, e.g., https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016JGRA..121.8152S/abstract… https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022EGUGA..24.1732M/abstract… d) We see that changes in the cosmic ray flux on geological time scales (of millions of years) translates into changes in the climate: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003NewA....8...39S/abstract… https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423.1234S/abstract… https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014NatSR...4E6150S/abstract… https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nyas.14920… Yet the IPCC ignores all of these, because it would imply that the story is little more complicated and significantly less catastrophic…