The Sun and Climate Change (Guest: Dr. Willie Soon) — The Climate Realism Show #151 - Environment and Climate News Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Joe Biden (00:06):
And that's what climate change is about. It is
literally not figuratively aclear and present danger.

Greta Thunberg (00:13):
We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.

Jim Lakely (00:16):
The ability of c o two to do the heavy work of
creating a climate catastropheis almost nil at this point.

Anthony Watts (00:23):
The price of oil has been artificially elevated
to the point of insanity.

Sterling Burnett (00:27):
That's not how you power a modern industrial
system. The ultimate goal ofthis renewable energy, you know,
plan is to reach the exact samepoint that we're at now. You
know who's trying that? Germany.Seven Straight Days of no win
for Germany.
Their factories are shuttingdown.

Linnea Lueken (00:46):
They really do act like weather didn't happen
prior to, like, 1910. Today isFriday.

Jim Lakely (00:57):
That's right, Greta. It is Friday. It is the best day
of the week, not just becausethe weekend is almost here, but
because it is the day theHeartland Institute broadcasts
the climate realism show. Myname is Jim Lakeley. I'm the
vice president of the HeartlandInstitute.
We are an organization that hasbeen around for forty years, and
we are known as the leadingglobal think tank pushing back

(01:17):
on climate alarmism. Heartlandand this show brings you the
data, the science, the truththat counters the climate
alarmist narrative you've beenfed every day of your life. And
there is nothing else quite likethe Climate Realism show
streaming anywhere, so I hopeyou will bring friends to to
live to view this live streamevery Friday at 1PM eastern

(01:37):
time, and also like, share, andsubscribe, and leave your
comments underneath the video.These all convince YouTube's
very mysterious algorithm tosmile upon this program, and it
gets this show in front of evenmore people. And as a reminder,
because Big Tech and the legacymedia do not approve of the way
that we cover climate and energyon this program, Heartland's
YouTube channel has beendemonetized.

(01:59):
So if you want to support thisprogram, and I surely hope you
do, please visitheartland.org/tcrs. That's
heartland.org/tcrs, which standsfor the Climate Realism Show,
and you can help make sure thatthis show happens every single
week. Any support you can giveis warmly welcome and greatly
appreciated. And we also want tothank our streaming partners,

(02:21):
Jungscience dot com, CFACT,Climate Depot, What's Up With
That, and The CO2 Coalition.Welcome to everyone watching
this stream on X via thosechannels.
Today, we have with us AnthonyWatts, senior fellow at the
Heartland Institute and thepublisher of the most
influential climate website inthe world. What's up with that?

(02:41):
We have Linea Lukin. She is aresearch fellow for energy and
environment policy at Heartland.And we are so happy to welcome
back a friend and our veryspecial guest, astrophysicist
Willie Soon.
He's one of the world's leadingauthorities on the sun's effect
on the climate and he's with theCenter for Environmental
Research and Earth Sciences orCERES and has spoken, I think

(03:02):
Willie, at least 10 of our 15international conferences that
time has changed. Yes. Sowelcome, Willie. Great to have
you here.

Willie Soon (03:11):
Oh, thank you for inviting me. It's an honor.

Jim Lakely (03:15):
Yes, we could. We've got a lot of. We have a very
lively chat here on both YouTubeand Rumble and your name comes
up all the time. And so we'reglad to satisfy those chatters.

I wonder why.

Jim Lakely (03:26):
Yes. You you do. You are quite popular. In fact, I
was telling you before you wenton the air, you're you're able
to or your ability to land aninterview with Tucker Carlson
was kind of game changing. Ikeep seeing it.
What was that? It was like atleast six months ago and that
has been viewed millions oftimes on X, so congratulations

(03:46):
on that.

Yeah, on X it's at least 6,400,000 that I know.
It's a big number. Anyway, it'sreally a blessing, of course, so
that we can spread the messageof science, all the great work
by Heartland Institute as well.You know, you are my oldest
friends. You always been very,very kind to me and allowing me
to speak in all in all yourconferences.

(04:08):
Yeah. Anyway, we are we are weare hanging out with good
people, so it's never gonna gowrong. So

Jim Lakely (04:13):
Yes. Well, apparently, the standard for
having Willie Soon on yourprogram is 6,000,000 views. So
we're gonna hold you to that.Yeah. I hope video gets viewed

Subscribe and donate. Do all you can, please.

Jim Lakely (04:26):
All right. Well, let's get to it. Got a lot to
get into today. I mean, as Isaid, Willie is one of the
world's leading experts on thesun's effect on climate. And
he's going to be talking thatduring this program.
But let's start off as we alwaysdo with the crazy climate news
of the week. Hit it, Andy. Yes.Thank you very much, Bill Nye.

(04:56):
So, our first item today is, theclimate cult got snowed in.
This is from SF Gate. 300California conference attendees
need snow rescue after runninglow on food. I love stories like
this. We call this the Al Goreeffect. So here we go.
San Bernardino CountyFirefighters had to rescue

(05:17):
attendees of a climate actionconference near Big Bear on
March 13 after they becamestranded due to heavy snowfall.
The incident occurred at YMCACamp Whittle in Fawnskin, the
department said in a post on X.Some of the 300 attendees tried
to reach buses waiting nearcleared roads by trekking
through approximately two feetof snow, but the buses became

(05:39):
stuck almost two miles away fromthe camp near San Bernardino
County Fire Station ninety six,the LA Daily News reported. San
Bernardino County Fire CaptainAnsley Muscarello described the
immediate chaos to the dailynews. Within a few minutes, we
had a couple hundred peoplestanding in a blizzard in front
of our station, waiting to geton these buses that were getting

(06:00):
stuck and didn't know the bestway to get down.
So firefighters had to use thestation's snowcat to evacuate
dozens of attendees who hadremained at Camp Whittle before
nightfall, the expo said, justas the facility had run out of
food. Oh my gosh. Muscarellotold the Daily News that people
had left facing a long trek. Ittook them like an hour to walk

(06:22):
down in a blizzard and two feetof snow, and these people really
weren't prepared for anything ofthat nature. Now, Anthony, I
mean, how could they not beprepared?
Aren't these the same peoplethat tell us that global warming
causes all kinds of extremeweather, including blizzards?
So, and on top of that, how cansomebody in the twenty first
century with weather forecastsand radar literally in their

(06:43):
hands and their smartphone atall times possibly get caught in
a situation like this?

Well, no one ever said climate activists were
smart. So let's just leave it atthat. That's about really all I
can say. But you know, if theyjust don't think things through
and that's the problem with alot of climate alarmism, It's
all faith based, you know, andthere's not a lot of logic
behind it. And so this isperfectly illustrated in this

(07:11):
event where they go to a climateconference, get snowed in, and
have to be rescued.
They just didn't think itthrough because logic and so
forth is not part of theirmindset.

Don't forget, they have peer reviewed science that
says that the snow is gonna goaway. I mean, I checked that for
sure. They have peer reviewedscience. I mean, come on. So
Yeah.
They can't back it off from now.It's just nonsense from day
zero, actually. Every time theysay something, you have to
really, really recheck, you haveto look, you have to really be

(07:44):
very careful or else you'll bereally smelly after that. These
people are just up to no good.There's not a single thing that
they say is of any use to us.
Thank you.

I'm thinking maybe Heartland should sponsor a
yearly conference in thesnowiest place on Earth called
the David Viner Memorial SnowConclimate End of Snow
Conference. Yes.

Right. We have checked all of them. We
published papers showing themit's all nonsense. I mean, it's
just not a not nothing they sayis good, especially on snow. I
mean, specifically on snow.
Just no such data to supportthem. In fact, the counter goes
against them, and so they areyeah. I don't know how they're
gonna dig themselves out of thisbig snowstorm. Who knows?

Jim Lakely (08:24):
Yeah. I with with the description in the story,
you know, they had to get a snowcat up there to to get these
people out. Or I I immediatelythought of Scatman Crothers in
the snow cat in the shining whenhe had to go and rescue. Yeah.
Hopefully, nobody got hopefully,nobody entered the hedge maze
and the disaster was averted.
So alright. Let's move on to oursecond item here. Sleepy, dopey,

(08:47):
or both. This comes from theaforementioned What's Up With
That website written by CharlesRoder. Climate change is ruining
your nap.
The stupidest study of the year.Far, it is early. Yo, yes. So
here we go.

Really come close. Yeah, I would say

Jim Lakely (09:06):
for sure.

Holy cow, this is a very prestigious place. You
would have to pay almost 5 to$10,000 to get this printed
actually. I'm just telling youhow expensive this science
nonsense has become. All right.Well, okay.
Remember, you are givingintellectual property, but you
had to pay to get this publishedbecause it's so called open
access, right? I mean, it's allour taxpayer funded money.

Give you No need for communications has become
essentially the tabloid ofclimate science. It really Yeah.

Jim Lakely (09:40):
Well, let me let me read some from it. This is a
very expensive joke then,Willie, of a study. Very
pleasant. Somewhere, probably ina temperature controlled office
lit by taxpayer fundedfluorescent lights, a gang of
climate hysterics decided it wastime to sound the next false
alarm. Global warming is comingfor your dreams.
That's right. If the planetwarms by a couple of degrees,

(10:01):
you won't just sweat a littlemore. You'll sleep less. And if
you sleep less, according tothese clowns, you might die. Cue
the dramatic music and the UNPowerPoint.
This deeply unserious studyabout Out of China, blessed of
course by Nature Communications,a publication that has long
since traded rigorous sciencefor progressive activism, makes
the mind numbing claim thatrising temperatures are causing

(10:23):
people to lose sleep. Theculprit? Not noisy neighbors,
too much screen time or China'sbrutal urban density. Nope. It's
climate change.
The all purpose demon invokedevery time someone stubs a toe
or misplaces their AirPods. Thestudy boasts about analyzing
23,000,000 sleep records fromover 214,000 people in China

(10:43):
using Huawei smart devices.Because when it comes to
objective medical data, nothingsays trustworthy like consumer
gadgets from a surveillancestate. The researchers conclude
with a straight face that a 10degrees Celsius increase in
average temperature leads to atwenty point one percent
increase in sleep insufficiencyand a devastating hold onto your
pillow loss of nine point sevenminutes of sleep per night. Deep

(11:08):
sleep is reduced by

five

Jim Lakely (11:10):
eight minutes. Oh, the humanity. So, yeah, I think
that I titled this right. It'sboth sleepy and dopey. This
study.

I want to point out that the study author is
actually in the chat right nowor not the study author, the
article author, our good friend,Charles Roder, who writes for
What's Up With That and who isvery funny.

Yeah. Congratulations to Charles
Rondo. Excellent.

Yeah. Everybody say hello to Charles.

Yes. Hello, Charles.

Jim Lakely (11:42):
He wrote the

hours of sleep a year by 02/1999. Holy cow.
Where's where's the the artistformerly known as Prince? Yeah.
You know, like

Jim Lakely (11:56):
If they're having trouble sleeping

He's in Finland right now. He's over there doing
some super secret thing. I don'tknow what it is.

Okay. Well,

Jim Lakely (12:06):
if these people are having trouble sleeping, they
can just, play an Al Gore speechat, at a climate summit, and
they'd go right out. Noproblems.

Holy cow.

Jim Lakely (12:15):
Alright. Let's move on to our next item because I
know we got a lot to do herewith Willie. This is Just Stop
Oil, Just Stops. This is fromReuters. UK climate protest
group, and we have a lot ofviewers and listeners in The UK.
Hello, everybody. UK climateprotest group Just Stop Oil says
it will stop direct action.British climate protest group

(12:36):
Just Stop Oil, whose highprofile stunts have included
throwing soup at a Van Goghpainting and disrupting sporting
and theatre events, said onThursday that it would end its
campaign of direct action. Thegroup, which campaigns for
Britain to end the extraction ofoil and gas by 02/1930 and has
become one of the country's bestknown protest organizations over
the last few years, said itwould be, quote, hanging up the

(12:57):
high vis at the April. In thelast few months, its activists
have poured liquid latex over arobot at a Tesla store, sprayed
orange paint on a section of theUS Embassy building in London,
and painted over the grave ofBritish naturalist Charles
Darwin at London's WestminsterAbbey.
Previous stunts have includedspraying paint on Stonehenge
nice job guys while twoprotesters were jailed for

(13:20):
throwing tomato soup on VanGogh's sunflower paintings in
London's National Gallery. Manyof his activists have been given
long jail terms for theirprotests and critics have
derided their actions, sayingthe disruptions were pointless
and just inconvenienced ordinarypeople. Yeah, that's all. So
it's the end of soup on VanGogh's, cornstarch on
Stonehenge, and slow marching inthe streets, just Stout Boyle

(13:42):
said in a statement. Ascorporations and billionaires
corrupt political systems acrossthe world, We need a different
approach, it said, vowing thatit would hold final protest
outside of parliament on April26.
Now, guys, maybe start with youhere, Willie. I mean, did they
did they stop this tacticbecause it was becoming
counterproductive? Some of themy favorite videos on X and

(14:03):
other places are fed up to hearBrits dragging these just don't
stop oil or just stop oil peopleoff the road so they can get to
their job. Or is it because theyhave now won and it worked? I
mean, didn't under this leftistUK government they have now,
they're still all in for netzero and didn't they just triple
down on that?

No idea. All I know is that especially many of the
videos that I've seen that isvery tragic is all these
ambulances and all this stuffthat people have to bring their
wives or to kids or hospital andthese people are blocking the
road. That's ridiculous. I thinkI saw one from Portugal that did
that. God bless them.
I mean, these people really needto be in jail. I mean, they need

(14:47):
to plant their own food in thejail and then feed themselves. I
mean, we're not gonna pay forthat food. Your life is just too
easy, I guess, to create thatkind of nonsense. I mean, stop
it, you know?
It's embarrassing. Somehow,shame is not that. Guilt is not
one of these people justcreating really delusion,
serious delusion. This is reallya mental disease. I mean, to be

(15:09):
honest, it's a bit sad andsomehow I don't know how to help
them, Except on I think somevery stern kind of things like,
yeah, look at this.
These are the ones that is, thatkind of action that is going on.
Yeah. Well, you know, part ofthe No comment from everyone,
silence. Yeah, it's it's true.You're just numb.

(15:31):
I mean, but I think we shouldn'tlet them keep doing this. I
mean, these people, first minutethey do this, you put them in
jail somehow.

Jim Lakely (15:37):
Well, the the happy news is that they have gotten
long jail sentences over therein The UK, which I was surprised
when that started happening.That's gotta have been a factor
on on why this is being done.But of course, now you have here
Starman in there basicallyimplementing the full climate
agenda, so it's a good time forthem to stop.

Yeah, the one that glued themselves and all those
things. I mean, come on, why doyou want to take out the glue
for them, the concrete? Let themstick to that place. Let them
figure it out themselves. I'mnot going to help them.
Anyway, too much. Anyway, Ithink this is another one of
those loser, guys.

Jim Lakely (16:10):
Yep. For sure. Alright. Let's get to our our
next item here in the crazyclimate news of the week, and
that's cherry blossom time. Andthis comes from our climate
realism site.
That's climaterealism.com, wherewe do the counterspin to the
alarmist narrative in themainstream media almost every
single day, but every singleweek. So definitely bookmark
ClimateRealism.com and check itout all the time. The headline

(16:33):
here is Sorry ABC News. Earlycherry blossom bloom is due to
urban heat island and notclimate change. ABC News ran a
story this week reporting on theearly bloom of the cherry
blossom trees in Washington DC,attributing the early bloom to
climate change.
This is false. Although thecherry blossom bloom has arrived
earlier in recent years, thecause is from the population

(16:55):
increase in DC and thedevelopment has caused localized
heat biases from the urban heatisland effect causing fewer late
season freezes and higheraverage nighttime temperatures
in the area. The same is truefor Tokyo. The reporter in ABC
News item, quote, Cherryblossoms blooming earlier due to

(17:15):
climate change says that quote,Washington's iconic cherry
blossoms are approaching peakbloom, and it's happening
earlier due to human amplifiedclimate change. This change,
while not catastrophic, isdisrupting travel to see the
blooms, causing travelers whocome to DC to see the bloom
annually to have to plan forearlier vacations.
Oh my goodness. It may be truethat the cherry blossoms are

(17:36):
reaching peak bloom days earlierin recent years than they have
in past decades, but if so,population growth and the
associated UHI effect are toblame, not a modest rise in
global average temperatures ifyou care about that. Tokyo's
unbiased average annualtemperature has declined since
1997. The impact of the UHIeffect there has been to

(17:56):
artificially boost the averagetemperature in Tokyo by 5.4
degrees Fahrenheit over the pastcentury. That is far above the
average rise measured for theisland nation as a whole.
This bias results in earlierspring like conditions, with
higher nighttime lows resultingin the earlier bloom. Sterling
Burnett not here today, but hewrote this item for us on

(18:18):
Climate Report.

I hope I'm mindful

this so I can comment on it.

Yep. Yep. Sure. Go ahead.

Well, you know, it's just a perfect example of
how cherry picking is the normthese days for climate science
and also for the coverage by themedia. In this case, they just
completely ignore the idea ofUHI, but they also completely
ignore the fact that citiesproduce a lot of particulate
matter. You know, there's lotsof soot, there's dust, there's,

(18:47):
you know, all kinds of smallparticulates that get stirred up
in cities. And it is a wellknown meteorological fact that
have been documented in thebulletin of the American
Meteorological Society and otherpeer reviewed journals that
cities create more condensationnuclei. With more condensation
nuclei in the air, you get morerain.
It's the same principle as cloudseeding. So UHI combined with

(19:10):
more particulates, you get morerain in the cities. Climate
change has nothing to do withany of this, folks. Right. You
know, they just completelyignore that fact because they're
on a mission.

Yeah. Let let me put up on

Jim Lakely (19:22):
let me before we get more comments here, let me put
up on the screen. Not that.There we go. Yeah, this is a
chart. This is from the story onClimateRealism.com.
This is a chart of the peakbloom date for cherry trees
around Washington, D. C. Tidalbasin. You can see that 2024 was
the last date it has, and that'sover there on the right. That's
it's high, but it's or I shouldsay it's earlier March 21, but

(19:45):
it's almost exactly the sameplace it was in 1920.
And so this the idea that it'sunusual is is crazy. And I might
note, I doubt very much that themainstream media cared a whole
lot about when the cherryblossoms bloomed back in like
what 2012, '20 '11, '20 '12 whenit was on April 10.

Right. This is why they are very afraid of data,
right? You guys are such a sucha such a realist that you show
data. That's it. That's yourproblem.
But anyway, I I don't want tosay too much because I can tell
you that we have a very, veryexciting manuscript that we just
submitted. Analyzing the cherryblossom data. You can imagine,

(20:28):
and I don't know I want to makesure my colleagues know that I
didn't leak anything, but we gotsome really powerful work that
is ongoing in peer review. So ifwe come out in next six months,
you gotta invite some of myfriend on. I shouldn't be
talking all the time, but it'sreally beautiful piece of work.
And it go back to the longesttradition, right, which is in
Japan. Cherry blossom. For themis the holy grail, you know? So

(20:50):
from Kyoto, we can get data thatgo back 1,200 years, eight
hundred AD. So this is veryinteresting.
And exactly what is causing allthose changes? You guess, it's
the sun. And then you show therecent time is mostly urban heat
island effect, really. So it's avery interesting coincidence
that the insight from SterlingBurnett coincide with what we

(21:12):
actually come up withscientifically, guess, in actual
paper that we are writing. Nice.

Jim Lakely (21:21):
Yes. Well, yeah, you know, the urban heat island
effect is like people just don'ttalk about it enough. And that's
why this show talks about it.

No, no, no. The argument is as local. But I
guess even when we go to thenext part, when I talk about sun
climate, I just at least mentionthat. I mean, we prove it's
actually on wider averages. Soit's a very serious thing.
It's real. And then everythingthey say is always, like, not
only exaggerated, it'scompletely the opposite
direction. Yeah. They always sayurban heat island is small. No.

(21:50):
And they got rid of No. Theyhaven't done any such thing.

It's very interesting because it's I don't
know. You could plan a calendararound the types of articles
that come out from themainstream media with regards to
climate change. We at ClimateRealism, the website
ClimateRealism.com, where wedebunk a lot of this stuff as it
comes up in the media. So if youguys see a major story floating

(22:15):
around, there's a very goodchance that we have already
covered it with our own, youknow, coverage of the actual
data. And that's mostly what wedo.
They make crazy claims based onmodel projections. And then we
go back and look at the actualmeasured observable data. And
nine times out of 10, it's noteven close to what they're

(22:36):
reporting. But like I said, youcould you could plan like a
liturgical calendar aroundaround how the media reports on
issues with climate change. Sothis time of year, it's cherry
blossom in Washington, D.
C. Alarm season. A couple ofweeks ago, it was the beginning,

(22:57):
not the peak, but the beginningof the allergy alarm season for
the climate news in a couple ofweeks when spring starts further
north of us in earnest, we'llget the major hits of all of
that. Then this summer, in acouple of weeks here, probably
we'll have hurricane alarmismseason start. So it's you could

(23:20):
you really you could plan awhole calendar around it.

Yeah. Every year it comes around again. Yeah. Same
thing.

Yeah. You know, we could we could make a
predictive doom calendar,climate doom calendar every year
in January predicting what isgoing to be said by the media
and at what times. And I thinkwe would probably hit the mark
more often than not with thatthing.

Jim Lakely (23:40):
I think a %. It's it's interesting you use the
word the term liturgicalcalendar, Linea, since, you
know, this is a time that cultswere talking about, and it's
quite a religious movement forthem. But that makes a lot of
sense. We'll have to think aboutthat, see if we have time to
work on that. Alright.
Let's get to we have a, I have ameme this week. This was, I
guess, well, we'll just call ita meme shared by Anthony Watts

(24:02):
with me earlier this week. Thisthis comes from Copenhagen. I
know we have viewers in Denmark.It says here that Copenhagen has
taken a creative yet powerfulstep in raising awareness about
the future impact of climatechange.
They've installed high benchesaround the city that represent
the height of the water levelexpected in February due to

(24:22):
rising sea levels. These benchesaren't just for sitting they're
a visual reminder of the urgentneed for climate action. Placed
in areas most vulnerable toflooding. They invite us all to
reflect on the future of ourplanet and the importance of
working together to protect it.Seems kind of silly to me, but
at least you get a better viewof what's across the river.

Well, for those who don't know, that region is
actually the Fanderskandia icesheets during the last glacier
maximum. Actually, that place,the land is rising up now. I
mean, just sea level isdecreasing, it's going down. I
mean, at that place, I have mygood friend who is a chief

(25:02):
geologist of Denmark, JansMorten Hansen. I mean, he is the
guy who actually traveled withthe queen of Denmark.
I mean, he he actually tookthose kind of measurements
around that area. So, oh, forgetit, man. This is them, then
these people are also very muchbought into this It is high of
stupidity.

Jim Lakely (25:19):
That's right. Good. Good. Good joke there, Chris
Shattuck in the chat. I got it.
I got it. All right.

Yeah, really good. Yeah.

Jim Lakely (25:28):
All right. Well, let's let's move on to our main
topic. This might be the fastestwe've gotten through the crazy
climate news of the week.

Oh, you want to save time for me to perform,
right?

Jim Lakely (25:36):
So gotta save time for Willie. You get more time
than most of our guests though.You'll enjoy So, hey, we'll just
set it up. You have a slideshowpresentation and I know we have
a lot of Yeah, question and youguys don't want to for you.
Let's roll.

Sorry. Yeah. Alright, guys. Thank you for
having me here. And then Jimasked me to provide some update
on sun climate and what mythinking is.
So again, this is just a briefslideshows. It's just to
capture. If you need anything,you come to seres science, c e r
e s science dot com. We haveplenty of publication. We got

(26:11):
news item.
Of course, we're trying to buildour own little YouTube channel.
And then our focus obviously isvery different caliber from the
heartland type. We areinterested in science education,
not quite in communicationbecause in communication, you
cannot use technical sciencelanguage, this and that, right?
Okay, let's move to the nextslide. The first main point

(26:31):
about science, about sun climateis is very important.
You can quote in unit of power,which is watt, or even in energy
will be in joules. I mean, here,just look at the numbers. These
numbers are important. By theway, every time they say the sun
cannot cause the earth to tochange, you just give them four

(26:51):
times 10 to the 26. I thinkthat's easy enough to remember,
isn't it?
And then as to how much theearth actually have is two times
10 to the 17. Even the two times10 to the 17 is actually
converted energy becauseintrinsically the radiogenic
heat, the what you call theradioactive decay energy from
the earth core, right? It's onlyanother 10,000 times smaller,

(27:14):
two times 10 to the 13 comparedto two than 10 to 17 between all
the energy, 99.999, I it's allcoming from the sun, right? So
that's very serious. Don't letthem fool you.
It's not it's just not possiblefor the sun to not do much.
Let's go to the next slide. So,oh, oh, wait, wait, six, go back
to that one. This is actually toput in context. You can even put

(27:37):
a number into the so calledpower by CO2 molecules.
Please read the number. 10 tothe minus to the power minus 22.
I hope some of you knowscientific notation, right? This
number is not meant to scareyou. It's just to provide you a
relative context.
Right? What is what? I mean, youcan have 10 to the 19 cubic CO2

(27:59):
per centimeter. I mean, it'sjust nothing. Even if you
multiply by that, it's stillvery small amount.
So there's just no way the CO2can do anything actually, right?
Next. So the most direct, youwanna bear witness to the power
of the sun? Take a look at whatthe sun is happening today,
tomorrow. Actually for the pastthree days, the sun, this one is
actually on the left is an imageof the sun more or less in x-ray

(28:22):
already, two eleven angstrom.
So that one can sensitive besensitive to actually
temperature from the plasma ofthe of the sun that is on the
order of 2,000,000 degree. Theone on the right hand side, by
the way, is up to 20,000,000degree. Okay, this is very
serious, what you call coronaheating that puzzled solar

(28:43):
scientists for a very long timealready. But regardless of that,
I want you to focus on thatblack region, which is called
corona hole. These are theregion in which the magnetic
field line, instead like asunspot, it closed magnetic,
it's actually open.
This field line come all the waytowards the earth. That's why
they channel this thing called afast solar wind coming. And that
thing is traveling at one to2,000,000 miles per hour, okay?

(29:06):
The category five hurricane isactually 150 miles. This
2,000,000 miles per hour.
So you can imagine, this thingcome real quick. Next, what
happened? So there's a directimpact. Of course, there's a big
hole, right? Big corona hole.
We call it corona hole. It'svery different from sunspot by
the way. So next please. Whatthe trigger effect, you get this

(29:27):
beautiful aurora. By the way,this is for Charles Rhodder.
I didn't know he was in Finland.That's what two days, two nights
ago that you get thisphenomenon. Next. And then you
can for US, Duluth, Minnesota,you can see that too. I'm sure
tonight also you will have someevents somewhere.
Next, please. Another one Ithink I want to show is this one
is because to prove to you thatthe sun impact is not only in

(29:48):
one place as like this inSouthern Hemisphere. I saw
somebody from New Zealand waslogging into this this podcast
as well. So it's on Dunedin,which is of course the South
Island. It's it's it's this isthe clear clear saying that, you
know, you can't escape the sunbecause we are bathed inside the
sun's sphere basically.
That's why it's called theheliosphere, right? Now let me

(30:09):
just quickly run through thenext slide please. This is
actually want to mention abouthow you study sun climate
connection. I just, on thispart, I want to point to one
problem, which is of course thethermometer data, which Anthony
Watt is the true expert on thistopic. And this is the graph
that you see a million times.
In fact, if not a million, couldbe more than a hundred million

(30:30):
that you have seen this graph.They all look the same. It's go,
go, cook, and then warm up tonineteen forty, then 50, and
then boom, rise up. I want toremind you that this graph, we
mentioned urban heat islandeffect. Yes, this is not a
legitimate graph to study globalwarming, by the way, because
this has nothing to do withanything related to the

(30:51):
atmosphere.
This has something to do withthe urban heat island effect. We
have already published severalpaper on this. Anthony himself
have published quality of thethermometer data. So next slide,
just to prove to you that we cando it. So you look at the orange
kind of blurting, there's a lotof curve in there.
I can tell you it's from Englandclimatic research unit, it's
from this group, these twoscientists from England, Carlton

(31:15):
and Wei, and then Chinesemeteorological administration,
Berkeley Earth, NASA GoddardInstitute for Space Study, the
NOAA. And then the black curveis actually what we can do. We
already published that manyyears ago. What does this say?
This actually say that, yeah,you can do that, I can do it.
So it's called replication inscience. But the only way we get

(31:38):
this curve is what? You have toinclude the urban station that
is contaminated by urban heat.And in fact, that's what I'm
trying to tell you. So to studyactually climate change in the,
what you call studying thedifferent causal factor instead
of just concrete and all thisother stuff, you really need to
remove this urban station, okay?
That you need to remove this.The oils, you cannot study this,

(32:01):
okay? That's basically, you canread all about it and come to
series.sign, C E R E S sign Comto get the details paper and
explanation. If I may say, wepublished a layman summary for
this, for the heritagefoundation, I think two, three
months ago. So you can also findthat report, which is coach in

(32:21):
more access language, more easyto access language.
So please read them or tell morepeople about this. Don't buy
into the IPCC nonsense. So next,please. Yeah, that's just to
show you that, yeah, we can doall of that, right? It's called
replication.
I think the next slide, I don'tremember what is the next slide.
Oh, therefore I want to showthis. Yes, I like this quote

(32:43):
very much. It's from JohnClauser, which is a friend of
ours. He said that the IPCC isone of the worst sources of
dangerous misinformation.
It's not only misinformation,it's dangerous misinformation.
And John Clauser, please nextslide, just to show who he is.
He's actually the Nobel PrizeLaureate in physics, right? I
mean, he is the guy whoactually, I would say,

(33:04):
politically, I'm sure he'sleaning on the left, a bit
liberal and this and that, buthe believed in science. Those
whoever that think that scienceis valuable, I don't think you
can escape the conclusion thatIPCC is indeed very
manipulative.
It's not about science. It'salways anti science and it's
causing the world a lot ofproblem, I think. Even all us an

(33:25):
apology in the future if weactually would be able to bring
them down to some justice, somesense of, you know, confession
that they are wrong, things likethat. But IPCC, I kind of give
up on them, you know, they justgonna keep doing what they're
doing because they are mandatedto do this, right? To manipulate
the information, but they aredefinitely not a place to look
for signs.

(33:45):
If you want signs, you come toHeartland Institute, you go to
Anthony Ward's page, or you cometo series.sign.com, right? Even
Heritage Foundation has somegood signs in that sense. Next,
please. Now I want to quicklyjump over this graph that I
think maybe not often see eventhe next click this just to show
you the range of thetemperature. If you plot the

(34:06):
monthly temperature data of TheUS average temperature, you will
see that the average temperatureis run very large amplitude.
45 degree of a seasonalamplitude range. This is the
whole US. And let's go next. Ijust want to summarize for you.
If you put that in season, youdo it every year.
This one, you take the twentytwenty to '20 '20 '4 data.

(34:27):
Indeed, it's 45 degreeFahrenheit or 25 degree Celsius.
Let me show you then how muchthe actually sunlight is coming
in on the seasonal sense. Next.You'll see it's of the order.
This is the same contaminantsUS, it's of the order from
winter to summer. Of course, youcan see time of the year, right,

(34:48):
on the horizontal axis.Somewhere middle middle hundred
and eighty, that'll be in June,right? So from winter to summer
is on the order of twenty andtwenty ten watt per meter
square. I wonder if how many ofyou realize that if you take
this and then you try toquantify this thing called the
climate sensitivity, what do youthink you will get?
Have a look. Click next, please.Yeah. Show the next slide. So to

(35:11):
show you, if you put the numbertogether, you overlap them, it
implies of the order of onedegree for doubling co two.
This is telling you that this isvery powerful. Instead of model
from the data itself, youalready can see that any climate
model from IPCC that promotesthree degree, four degree or
whatever, or even two degree isalready over a % or exaggerated.

(35:33):
Okay? It's just from number likethis. If you wanna live in the
real world, I think we will havebetter stick to some of this
number.
Okay? Next, please. Okay. If Igo a little too fast, you guys
can have have the slideobviously. Right?
This is just an example to showyou. If I were to do that in
terms of the temperaturechanges, and then you plot the

(35:54):
What your best estimate of thesun output. This is basically
trying to revisit some of theold issue for those who are not
familiar. Remember I told youthat if you just take the rural
station, you will see, you willnot be able to see this high
warming trend at the tail end ofit, right? And this shows you
that indeed there are someplausible and possible
connection between the sun andthe climate in US, right?

(36:16):
So I think I'm almost there, butI just show you that some
update. These are results thatare already published in 2021.
So I don't want to embarrassmyself giving you all result,
but this is not all, this resultis not gonna change by the way.
There's just nothing wrong withthis. So that's the point.
And all result doesn't mean it'snot good. It's actually very
valid result. We published inabout three papers actually

(36:38):
explaining in details. Canreally, really have any crack at
it to see what's wrong withthis. There's nothing wrong with
these things.
Okay, we are working very hard,of course, to try to quantify
now how much what we call theurban heat island effect and all
these other factors Anthony Wardwould be able to tell you all
about it, right? You know, thesighting effects and the time of

(37:01):
day of observation. We'reworking very hard. Anthony, we
got delayed, but we're gonnaproduce that paper that we
promised to work with you onthis topic. So my goal in life
is actually to produce what youcall peer review publication,
right?
To really provide this so thatwe can be on equal stand with
IPCC or any one of those guys,right? From Noah Wa, from NASA,
so that they cannot, quoteunquote, ignore us because we

(37:24):
publish in the same place thatthey do, right? So this is why I
think that working on sciencevery seriously, very carefully,
you know, of course, there's alot of work than to just
chitchat, right? I mean, producemuch more important, what do you
call, benchmark for them toreally chase after us instead of
us constantly chasing aftertheir headline and all this

(37:45):
stupid thing from the snow thingand to the sleeping, you know,
caused by the global warming oreven the cherry blossom thing.
It's all basically big lies inthat sense.
Alright. Next, I think we justskip to this new paper that I
was able to catch since youasked me to update some. I just
provide two papers that justrecently been published. Okay.

(38:07):
Let's show the first one.
The first one, I think, is justpublished about a week ago or
thirteen days, two weeks now.This is based on a cave in
Vietnam, I think NorthwesternVietnam, where they collect,
they go inside, they got thispaleotherm, this staglerite,
right, to try to cut them offbecause this staglerite form

(38:28):
layers because of precipitationdrip, so they actually have
annual resolution. And this isvery interesting. This shows
indeed that there is strongevidence of how even the Asian
monsoon, which is the rainfallseason, right? Monsoon is
basically the land sea contrast,right?
Of the rain. And and the way thesun works is actually very

(38:48):
simple. It's always the samething. Like the curve that you
saw the sun connecting with theearth US temperature. Guess
what?
The simplest solution is thatjust a simple evaporation from
the ground or from the ocean. Imean, I can show those kind of
sample graph, but idea here isbasically that this thing is
also able to moderate regionalclimate mode, like monsoon

(39:10):
system. Monsoon system isoperating not on a global scale,
it's more on the land seacontrast. We have a North
American monsoon, which isMexico, know, the Southern East,
Southwest of US, and then youhave this South Asian, which is
India, you know, and Indochinaarea, right? Monsoon intensity.
I mean, the proof is basicallythey study the data record

(39:32):
because they have annualresolution. So they were able to
find a lot of this, what youcall solar fingerprint, because
the solar activity does changesin some very interesting way
beside the eleven years famoussunspot cycle. It has that one
hundred and eighty year cycleand things like that. You can
actually show. Next slide,please.
Just to put through. You canread all you want about this. Of

(39:55):
course, I'll give you the slideand Harlan should put it up.
That actually there arecorrespondence. The compile TT
is the one that from thisstaculamide data sets, and then
you have the beryllium 10, whichis a measure of solar activity.
You will see some similarity insome of these periods, right,
that they've been detected inthe record. And this is actually
not even the most recent period.This is during the glacial time.

(40:16):
I think I they cover like thirtythirty thousand years ago to
some, I forget what year. Yeah.
You can see roughly the timeperiod. But anyway, let's go to
the next graph. The next graphis telling the same story. Here
is on a even finermeteorological scale actually.
Talking about how how you canfind solar fingerprint in a lot
of this, what you call paleodata, right?

(40:37):
This one is from a carbonaccumulation rate in peatland.
In actually Northeast, I thinkvery near North Of Korea.
Northeast Asia, yeah, it'sactually one of the place where
you have this big region whereyou drill the core and then you
can actually date the the theage of the core and then each of
the layers and then you'reactually trying to study what

(40:58):
does it do. This is the kind ofstudy that I think is useful.
And the data is a lot, ofcourse.
This is just sample of tworecent papers. I mean, over my
lifetime, I'm quite sure that Ihave accumulated more than a few
thousands of such work, right? Imean, some days I'm still hoping
to put it all together to towrite this major super duper

(41:19):
report. We already wrote a fewto try to explain you that it is
not one evidence like the IPCCinsisting carbon causing global
warming, carbon dioxide. We aregonna show you that this is
massive evidence all over theway.
Because of course, not some, notall places will show this. It's
just the place happen to beconducive to be able to produce

(41:40):
a signal. It's that's also verykey fact that we need to know.
Because there are meteorologicalfactors. There are some local
regional factor.
There are some geologicalfeature that's gonna cause you
from not seeing the signal. Butnot seeing the signal, not say
doesn't mean that the actualphysics, actual physical
connection doesn't exist.Whereas we find so many, like I

(42:01):
said, thousands and thousands ofthose kind of this kind of
empirical evidence. This is thisis part of the problem with with
basic science obviously becausewe have a lot of problem to try
to fully explain everything. Butas far as I'm concerned, after
some By the way, this is mythirty fifth years of doing this
kind of work as a professional.

(42:23):
I'm still a professional eventhough I'm out of Harvard
University, but I've been outsince 2022, but I am very happy
now because I'm free from theslavery system. Thank God. But
in any case, I think that'senough for now. Yeah, this this
this paper you can read in myslide. They also show, of
course, all this solarfingerprint they show.

(42:44):
By the way, actually show this,show this, show this. I want to
show because there's anothervery interesting timescale that
is not often talked about.Because the sun is not only
changing on eleven years or evenhundreds of years, there's a
very well known period that isactually a thousand year. They
known it as a eddy solaroscillation, named after a solar

(43:04):
astronomer name. The next slide,it has a thousand years.
I think this one detected athousand year cycles in quite a
few of these data sets, right?So that shows you the two
hundred years is very wellknown, similar to the one
hundred and eighty. And then the88 is well known, it's called
Glybur's cycle. The two twohundred one is called the
DeVries cycle. And then the1,001 called the Eddy cycle.

(43:27):
So these are all well known interms of the solar literature.
And of course, you can really doall you want. Science is always
never the final conclusion.There's always open ended. But
we have learned so much now.
I would say that we are fairlyfairly confident that this is
something that IPCC willcontinue to ignore. And we will

(43:49):
continue to put it out becauseit is the truth and the whole
truth. And if anybody can pointout that we're wrong, we're more
than happy to correct ourselves.This is the kind of work that I
think, because we're not here tojust hit and run, right? Just
like many of these bad peopleand even bad scientists are
doing that.
Because apparently these peopleare not so serious about
science. So I think by nowyou'll be fine for me to stop.

(44:13):
And then if I guess I'm morethan happy to answer any
question at all. Thank you.

Jim Lakely (44:20):
All right. So, most

important thing that you presented is the graph
that shows the TSI versus therural temperature dataset.

Yeah. Maybe

Andy can do That is that's gold as far as I'm
concerned. Sunspot cycles, everytime we we analyze those on
WhatsApp with them, they don'treally come together with a
solid answer. We get all kindsof, you know, all across the
board answers about the solarcycles. But the TSI versus the

(44:56):
temperature, that is important.That right there is, you know,
now someone might say, well,correlation is not causation.
But I don't know, what your,your correlation number is on
this, but it looked pretty goodto me just by my, mark six
eyeball right here. So I I thinkthis is the thing that really

(45:16):
needs to be pushed about solarto the exclusion of some of
these other things like solarcycles because solar cycles and
temperature don't always matchup. Yes, there's differences in
THI but TSI but this is reallythe thing that that's that gives

No, no, thank you for your comment, Anthony. You,
it's valid. All your, these arethe thing that I can say that,
of course, it cross our mind. Westudy this very carefully. In
fact, we're not only showing itfor US, right?
We can show it for many otherregions, you know? We can show
for the Arctic Arctic. EvenArctic is very hard to get rid
of some of this non climaticfactor because it's not all

(45:53):
clean, even though you see thatthere's no population in Arctic
region. Just another projectthat we are diving into, but
it's a it's the hard part is ofcourse, gaining those, what you
call the meta state historystation data. For for European
station, I'm happy to report toAnthony.
We we got 800 of those stationhistory. So, kind of we're in in
good shape to try to study someof those for the European

(46:16):
record, right? I like to touchAustralia but you know, those
guys are all cleaning up andnobody know where the meta
station history is. That sort ofproblem, yeah. Well, we'll keep
trying because this is the wayactually to get closer to the
truth.
I totally agree with yourcomment. It's completely valid
because, for example, on theeleven year cycle, I can tell

(46:37):
you, it's a bit like this. Theearth is a very strange kind of
filter, okay? It does filterthings out. For the fast
transient, it's very hard todetect them.
But if you actually are able to,let's say record things in the
troposphere or stratosphere, theeleven year signal is there
actually, the sunspot type isthere. It's just that when you

(46:59):
come down near to the surface,things sort of disappear. So
they turn into instead of highpass filter, people who know
this electronic thing become alow pass filter. So the the
effect of those longer term likethe the multi decade old thing
shows up much more clearly. Infact, in rainfall record, you
can kind of see something.
You're right. I don't wanna getinto this. I know Willie Sachem

(47:21):
Bach, some of your good people.Absolutely top notch kind of
thinker who actually kind ofvery skeptical, and I I am also
skeptical. Same way, I think thesame like you.
But but I think that it's hardto escape the conclusion when
you think it from the bigpicture. This is why I start
with the with the picture of theenergetic constraint. Because

(47:42):
you have to remember there's noother sources of energy around.
So the rest is like a littlepuzzle searching for all these
details. And then plus thatweather and climate operates on
such a different spatial andtime scale that is you gotta be
much more careful about that.
Yes, we, you, the most importantthing that you can also show
actually a lot of this solaractivity, kind of solar

(48:04):
irradiance type can affect a lotof this mode, this different
what you call large scaleoperation mode. It's hard to
show for ENSO, but you can showfor the AMO, for example, right?
You can show that a publishedpaper on that explaining the
relationship with the Arctictemperature and the hydrology,
things like that. So, yes, a lotmore work to be done.

I I have a question. Andy, if you can bring
that graph back up in the splitscreen. So, we all know why the
temperature series doesn't goprior to 1980 because it just
wasn't anything. Right. Untilthe weather bureau formed, you
know, the cooperative observernetwork and that spread around
the world.
But what about the TSI from 1800to 1880? How did that get

(48:50):
measured or is that some kind ofan estimate or a proxy?

It is an expert proxy, yes. I can tell you that
we recently, I just hope thatmaybe we invite my colleague,
come out, Ronan Connelly, he'salso a pretty good guy, And we
just produce a paper thatresolve this satellite part.
That I can tell you that theykeep in fact, they always have
paper that only say that thedistant satellite going down. We

(49:14):
show that not so. This is a hugebreakthrough because the whole
solar physics community arestuck.
They refuse to work on theproblem properly. We work on it
properly. Therefore, we come outwith the best what you call long
lasting results. That I hopethat some of them will start
looking into this or else theproblem gonna persist for
another fifty years. I'm verysorry.

(49:36):
But we publish now to say this.And it's the pain is that I have
to find $5,000 to pay for thesedamn papers. Okay? It's a very
painful thing that these peopleare taking the Don't

you get don't you get millions from big oil? That
should be chomping.

I live in my one of my smaller house. One of my very
smaller house that, you know,just for me to drink beer.
Anyway, well, let's not get toldthis, but there's a lot to do.
I'm just saying that step bystep, signs you have to tackle
also the problem, not all at thesame time with taking a chunk.
But we actually, I felt veryproud.
This published was probablyaround December of twenty twenty

(50:10):
four of Astrophysical Journal. Imean, it's expensive place to
publish. But it's a good placebecause it's a place where
everybody, serious people on onsolar physics ought to pay
attention to this. So I'm veryproud. Come to series-sign, C E
R E S sign Com, you will findthe paper under publication by
Connolly Soon et al inastrophysical journal.

(50:31):
I think that paper is kind ofnot yet been discussed. We
haven't been also going around.We are busy working on the
cherry blossom. We are workingon so many other problem. So, so
we we are very, very, what youcall hard at work?
Put it this way. And I hope morepeople will make aware of this
paper, of course, of all ourworks, and then, in fact, it's
not just one work, it's everywork. I mean if you like, I mean

(50:54):
we even work on COVID-nineteen,right? Things like that so. All

Jim Lakely (51:01):
right. Well thank you very much Willie. Put a link
to a PDF version.

Yeah, I'm just let them have to

Jim Lakely (51:09):
start your presentation in the in the chat.
And I've actually, as you werefinishing up there, amended the
description of this video. Firsttime I've ever done that in the
middle of a stream. And so Ithink there's a hyperlink that's
working. You could just click onit to where you can get it from
the Heartland website.
So anybody in the chat, if youwant to test those test out my
attempt to give it to you live,let us know how it went, that'd

(51:31):
be great. But we do have a lotof questions for you, Willie. So
I'm just going to hand this overto Linea. Take it away.

Absolutely. Okay, thank you very much to everybody
who has submitted questions.There are a lot of them to get
through. So I'm going to readout the questions for our audio
only listeners so they can getthe benefit of understanding
what the what the full contextis that we're responding to
here. So we're we are going tostart with this one that is

(51:58):
simple.
I think Doctor. Soon, you'll beable to respond to it very
easily. And that's from Marciawho says, what causes variations
in TSI?

Ah, okay. It's solar magnetism. You know, the
sun is basically a fluid that isplasma because which mean which
mean the atom would not be ableto remain as an atom. So it's a
neutral, so there's an electronbeing stripped. For example, the
corona picture that I showed,the the iron atom is being
stripped about 23.
There are 56 electron outsidethe iron. It's been stripped, so

(52:29):
they become charged. So it'smagnetism. So when you have a
flow, so immediately you you youhave electricity and magnetism.
It's the magnetism.
Because the magnetism canproduce dark region and bright
region. So you see the netbroad, it's basically the battle
within the dark and the brightregion, right? And then the dark
region is operating on hundredthousand kilometers or 10,000

(52:54):
kilometers scale. And then thesmall one goes down as small as
we can measure them down tometers. I'm sorry if you know
number.
Therefore, it's very difficultto do the bright one, but in the
net is the is the bright regionwhen the sun is more active, the
bright region win over the darkregion. So it get net bright.
Okay? When you have more active,the sun is brighter. Okay?

(53:17):
And then of course, associatedphenomenon will be the flare,
the corona mass ejection, so onand so forth that produce you to
actually this famous Aurora,right? So I think that's about,
there's a lot more details, butbasically the simple answer is
solar magnetism, yeah.

Okay, awesome. All right. So this is one that
this is for Doctor. Soon, but Ithink Anthony would probably be
able to weigh in on this aswell. But Ted Clark asks, is the
modern warm period ending aboutnow, followed by another little
ice age corresponding to thegrand solar minimum of two
thousand and thirty.

What grand solar minimum of two thousand thirty?
It hasn't happened yet.

Yeah. These are because of literature that
people want to rush. Yeah, yeah.Prediction of future is always
very dangerous, and they alreadyput a label and it's not right.
I believe that it come from thework of Zakova, but by the way,
I myself have made some of thatforecast, but I'm much more
cautious than that.
Because first of all, there's avery famous meteorologist by the

(54:23):
name of Andrea Monin fromRussia. He's a Russian
academician obviously. He saidto to believe in sun sun climate
connection is big troublebecause you not only have to
know about the climate, you haveto know what the sun is doing,
right? You have to predict thesun in the future. And that's a
very And then not only that, youhave to figure out the
connection has to work.

(54:43):
So it's a long story. And Iwould say that we just have to
keep learning. We don't haveenough adequate knowledge, by
the way. The problem is themissing link of what is weather,
what is climate, I think. Thatbecome a very difficult problem
that I think it would take awhile to figure this out.
So at best we can do is actuallyto keep updating our knowledge.

(55:07):
And for now there's no majorunderstanding that can make me
convinced that this is actuallythe true answer. So a lot of
people are tending to rush toconclusion. So I don't totally
agree with them. I think youhave to approach much more
carefully.
That's it. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. And and that related to that
would be a question from one ofour very frequent viewers,
Albert. I don't think I've seenhim miss a show. So we really
appreciate you, Albert.
And he says, do you know aboutZarkovas work, which you do? And
do you agree with?

Her? Short answer is no. And no about agreeing
with her. Absolutely not. Andthen about knowing her work, I
got very, very bored after afterrepeated.
I mean, are the I I I don't knowanybody know about her or not.
She's very aggressive. Thesepeople who she would even attack
you if you don't sign her paperin your own paper where you

(56:04):
don't depend on her. So put itthis way. That is not a very
nice thing to do.
I can tell you my badexperience. I would might as
well just say, she has actuallyeven written to a journal editor
one time to tell me to retractmy paper or have to have to cite
her paper. That's a very nicetry. I say no, Because I didn't

(56:25):
depend on any of your work. Imean

Yeah.

If I'm gonna have to depend on her, I mean, that's
a bit aggressive. I mean, theseare the people. I have, I want
to let it be known. I, but Idon't want to answer to all of
this nonsense. It's a bit bad,you know?
I don't behave like that toanybody. You don't do work like
that. And plus that always,there's a lot of huge
misconceptions. She apparentlyis trying to say that the sun
and the earth is like a billetball. I mean, he say that she

(56:51):
actually is trying to say thatthe earth can move closer to the
sun so easily because ofplanets.
I mean, she doesn't do any ofthis orbital planetary
calculation, which I did withsome of my colleague by the name
of Gustavo Sianso fromArgentina. We are the one that
produced the first solution, thecorrect solution to all of that
for the last ten thousand years.There are other problem, much

(57:12):
harder problem. But we solvethat problem. And we are I think
everybody should use our data.
Because remember, the assignedearth is not a billboard. They
coevolve to gravitationalpotential. They just move
together. There's no there's nopossibility for the sun suddenly
have extra input to the sunbecause the sun and earth the
the sun actually move in theinertial plane. The sun actually

(57:37):
is not stable.
It's not in a center place.Actually moving around. It's
called center of mass. But whenthe sun move this way, the earth
move this way. When the sun movethat way, we move this way.
We are, the relative distancedoesn't get adjusted so easily.
We can prove beyond doubtactually. You just have to take
all this current and filament.If we have that kind of problem,

(57:57):
we would be lost long time ago.No satellite will be put up
there.
Believe me. So, there's a lot ofissue, but I'm just saying
technically, this is not a veryinteresting area to pursue. So
therefore, I no longer want tostudy that kind of issue. Of
course, she's very popular. Shewill have thousands and
thousands and thousands of view,but I also have 6,000,000 view,
I can tell you, on TuckerCarlson show.

(58:18):
Thank you. So science isimportant. Please follow the
science, not any human being orsomebody's claim who actually
absolutely cannot be verified.

All right. So I'm going to give Doctor. Soon a
break here for a second andpitch a question to Anthony,
which comes from our friendhere, Jeff Boy RD, who says,
with climate change, which Ithink no one denies as the
climate is constantly changing,what do the alarmists say is the
normal temperature we're tryingto achieve, and how is it

(58:54):
determined?

Well, I think it was determined much in the same
way that the most importantnumber from the Hitchhiker's
Guide to the Galaxy wasdetermined, 42. It was just
pulled out of thin air.Seriously, I mean, what is the
Goldilocks temperature? Right? Imean, I would say, you know,
we're living in the Goldilockszone now.

(59:17):
We are thriving as humans. Wehave so much productivity,
agricultural productivity, andindustrial productivity that did
not happen and got suppressedwhen temperatures were colder.
So honestly, you know, I don'tknow what the exact perfect
temperature of the Earth is oris supposed to be and neither do
they. But I think we're doingpretty good right now with the

(59:38):
temperature that we have that isslightly elevated over what it
was a hundred years ago. Andevery time we go back in history
and look at this, like in theRoman warm period, the medieval
warm period, and so forth and soon, elevated temperatures
promote humanity, coldertemperatures suppress humanity.
So I'll leave it at that.

Well, don't forget you can make more wine and beer.

That's true.

Willie Soon (01:00:00):
That's very, very true. It's very necessary.

Jim Lakely (01:00:04):
Absolutely. Pleasure of living. Right?

Linnea Lueken (01:00:08):
Here's a question from my friend Chris, who has to
get up very early because Ibelieve he's in New Zealand or
South Africa to watch this show.So he says, are we affected much
by the stuff we fly through inthe galaxy? Would any effects
only occur over very long timescales?

Is this

a dumb question?

No. It's not a dumb question. It's it's a bit like
how Valentina Zagobamisunderstand how the the earth
motion through the solar system,right? Even within the solar
system. This one, it's a verylong answer.
I'm gonna give a very shortanswer. Look up spiral density
wave. We don't fly through thegalaxy. It's really a very

(01:00:48):
interesting phenomenon of massesthrough the, what you call the
galactic rotation. There's noreason for a galaxy to rotate by
itself, isn't it?
It should just sit still, whywould it rotate, right? So that
kind of thing, it's angularmomentum obviously, so there's a
lot of factors involved. But theproblem in that kind of galaxy

(01:01:08):
dynamics is related to thingsthat we don't see, which is the
dark matter. That's anotherphysics problem. But long ago,
we kind of roughly understandthat you've got to look through
this.
The motion is complicated.Remember, it's not a billet
ball. That's another thing.Please, it's not mechanic billet
ball. It's much morecomplicated.
It's group behavior, things likethat. So look out spiral density

(01:01:30):
wave. We wanna understand ourmotion through the galaxy. So
it's a very interesting thing.Wikipedia answer is adequate, I
would say.
So study that and that's a verygood hint.

Man I had a gym moment darn it. Okay so question
and Jim had a gym moment.

I had a gym moment.

Right. Kite Man Music asks, does Venus have a
runaway greenhouse atmospheredue to a lot of carbon dioxide?

You can flip it around. It has a lot of carbon
dioxide because it's hot. Idon't know. It's a it's the
problem is that the evolution ofthe planets need require some
serious understanding. I Ithat's I'll put it at that.
Yeah. It's really yeah. Yeah.You can you can use Mars as an
example too because Mars hasvery high concentration of

(01:02:25):
carbon dioxide too, right? ButMars is cold.
Why? It's because of thedistance from the sun. This is
the fake notion that has beenintroduced by people like Jim
Hansen and bunch of this. Idon't know. They are not very
good scientists.
Put it this way. It's veryconfusing when you hear from
them with director title, withprofessor title, with so many of

(01:02:46):
this title and gold medal andNobel prizes, this and that.
It's so confusing when you hearfrom all these kind of people.
It just get even more confusingif you cannot think for
yourself. So, I would encourageeverybody think for yourself.
I can say that please come toseriesdesign.com. I think we
have some minimal standard. Imean, we may not know

(01:03:07):
everything, but we knowsomething. And we are much more
careful than spilling answer tothings that cannot be answered
so easily. So let's be careful,that's all.

All right. This is a question from Kevin Burke,
who says I do solar photography,so I'm interested in the sun.
When looking for TSI record,have you seen evidence of Mega
Carrington events every thousandyears or so?

Mega Carrington, too many things at the same
time. Of course, H alpha is goodbecause H alpha is a very nice
filter that is in the visiblewavelength, I would say because
that filter has been inventedlong ago, about 6,000 some
angstrom. Because that's whereyou can see the chromospheric
layer and then you can see a lotof this motion where the spots
beginning to merge together tocreate these things called solar

(01:03:57):
flare. By the way, today I wasworking on a the longest solar
flare record that we have frominstrument with my colleague,
Ronan Connolly, and my Mexicocolleagues, Victor Velasco. We
clearly wanted to understandthat, but the only way to get
those information, I would say,would be through what you call
observation of a sun like stars.

(01:04:17):
The European Space Agencyproject called Kepler has
already died of course, thesatellite, but we have already
recorded quite a lot of stars. Iwould say close to a few hundred
thousand stars of sunlight star.And then we have a statistical
record of over five years orfive years of record. And in a

(01:04:41):
time that is enough to catchsolar flares, a flare event,
which mean within minutes. Sothat's a lot of data and the
Japanese group has alreadyproduced a lot of interesting
evidence to say that there aremega flares, no doubt about it.
That bigger than what we haveobserved on the sun. I would say
10,000 times even bigger, the 10to the 35 ergs kind of thing. So

(01:05:01):
it's bigger. We do able to see,which means the sun can have
much bigger flare flaring eventactually. So things like that.
And a thousand year kind ofcycle, the best confirmed thing
is basically through a lot ofthis, what you call, cosmogenic
isotope, right? Carbon 14 dataand beryllium 10, and then it's

(01:05:21):
possible through titanium 44through meteorites, and then you
can also do it through anotheruseful one that I find it useful
is actually nitrate in ice core.We've been able to show that it
can give you information on thetwo hundred year cycle, the
eighty eight year cycle, thingslike that. And the thousand one,
no one is able to get such along record yet. So to get a

(01:05:42):
thousand years, you need tenthousand years of data,
actually, right, at least to seesomething like that.
Yeah. It's it's evidence is isthere. It's evidence is there, I
would say. Yeah. For the for theADDI cycle, the thousand year
one.
Like, it just show in one ofthat work, right, that just
produced. Yeah. They're able tosee a thousand year cycle. Those
are quite long data, so they cansay something like that. It's

(01:06:03):
quite good.

Yeah. Like our our commenter John Z says no one
knows what the Carrington of noone knew what the Carrington
event was until we had wires.How is anybody going to track
that?

And Carrington was was interesting. September 1859.
It was accidental. It's about09:10 o'clock in the morning. If
he were to not regularlycollecting sunspot data, he
would not see it.
But the fun part about RichardCarrington is, of course, he own
a brewery for beers. He he wentout. He have a small little
telescope. He went and do this.And then he just happened to see

(01:06:38):
this bright thing.
And then along somewhere inScotland, there's somebody by
the name of Richard Hodgson. Healso saw that simultaneously. So
it's good. But in history,there's also one time, I think
in 1715 or 1716 by a guy, he hethat guy do a cloth cloth
coloring thing. He also sawwhite light flares actually.

(01:06:59):
That was another very wellrecorded, very interesting
eyewitness kind of thing. Yes.Yes. Detecting solar flare is
tough, I tell you. Of course,the 1859 is famous because we
have already by then telegraph.
We have really directdocumentation of that effects
impact on the on the ground. Nodoubt about it. So it's a very
beautiful thing. In fact, we areworking on that today. Trying to

(01:07:21):
talk about solar flare of alltimes and I can report to you.
We can confirm that the May 2024flare event that we have, pretty
big, dude. That's a big event.That one just happened. That's
why I want to start with the thecorona hole to show you but
corona had nothing to do withflare but the sun is a
magnetized body that have, Idon't know. You know, you you

(01:07:45):
saw the Hindu god that havemultiple hands.
I mean, these are the one thathave many many more hands. Does
so many more things. And yougotta think in terms of
wavelengths and and you know,energetics, of course, the sun
is just had that free energybasically. Well, maybe not all
gravity. You have nuclear fromthe inside and then the
magnetism, all the motion andthe because the temperature is

(01:08:07):
high, so it's very energetickind of bodies.
Yeah, a lot more to do. No oneknows all about the sun. Believe
me. It's very hard. I can put aplug.
Someday you guys should watch amovie by me because I I'm very
proud. You know what I wannasay? Let me say. Let me say. For
a long time, I've been studyingsunspot.
I haven't published a paperuntil, 2021. So for thirty

(01:08:29):
years, I didn't publish. Ipublished that paper because I
think my paper is important.Then, ever since then, I've been
chasing one thing called whatcan I find the first sunspot
drawing from colonial America?I'm a naturalized citizen of
America.
And it took a long time, andI've been many people tell me
the best Sunspot scholar tell methat, no, it cannot be found.

(01:08:50):
It's already disappeared. About2022, I got lucky. Hit the
jackpot. I found it.
Alright? So we're gonna tellthat story. Maybe somebody
should make a movie because it'squite interesting. You know,
what this picture is about. Ah,come on, you know, for America's
sake, we gotta know this.
You know, because after a longloss, many scholars say it's
loss. It's not possible. Don'teven look, right? Do I look like

(01:09:13):
somebody's gonna give up? No,sir.
I was so happy. In fact, thefirst thing I tell was my two
sons. Boys, come on. Those guynamed Benjamin and Franklin.
Okay?
Come on, boys. Let's check this.Put it on your name. It was fun.
That one is good.
I I try to encourage a filmmakerlike Martin Durkin, my friend
that did Gorilla sign. Please, Iwanna put put a plug for them

(01:09:34):
too. These are all good friendwho did climate, the movies. We
all work very hard because wedon't believe in the nonsense
that these people are creating.I mean, this is actually beyond
our self already.
It's about the future generationand this like that. How can you
live in a world with with antiscience all the time, right? So,
it it it's just not good. Wehave too many anti science

(01:09:54):
element. Never mind about freemarket, which is hot and think
tank, which I agree with.
Free market ideas, it's a verygood thing. But people can
argue, of course, communist,we're not like that. But too bad
for communist. We're not we'renot in a communist state yeah.
Anyway.
I I say science. Free sciencework. Science need to be free.

(01:10:15):
Science is not free at all. It'scompletely captured by by all
these technological elites andall these different tools that
they're trying to confuse youwith.
If I may put another plug tolast week, we just published a
paper using Grok three betawriting the paper all by
himself. I didn't do anything.We just keep talking to Grok
three and make him write apaper. All we did was to improve

(01:10:38):
on the kind of weaknesses inGroktree system right now, at
least in beta state. That Ithink this is significant just
to prove a point that remember,this system now are fairly
intelligent.
This system have These are IQ of400. You all know about IQ
system, right? 100 is themedian, 15 is one standard

(01:10:58):
deviation. So you add another15. So no one can even reach IQ
of 200, put it this way.
So people who talk about IQ of200 is ridiculous. It's not
possible. Right? This kind ofsystem has IQ of minimum of 400
or more. So, very smart.
No one can beat them in chess.No one can beat them in any of
this normal game now. No one canread 10,000 papers. Not in

(01:11:22):
hundred years, days, weeks,quickly. Okay?
Hundred thousand. So, it cansynthesize things so quick. So
we produce this thing in aproper way. Taking advantage of
how this smart system can do.They can know and connect 10,000
papers at the same time, right?
And then put it together to giveyou a synthesis, a summary,

(01:11:45):
right? So, and you have to knowhow to use this system. This
system is pretty much corrupted,right? So my good friend
Jonathan Kola, his name shouldbe mentioned because he was the
driver behind this because he'sa geek. He's a computer
scientist.
He's a Harvard Physics graduate.He's also a clarinetist. So
we're constantly having fun bythe way. So that paper, I think

(01:12:06):
should people should think aboutit and then look into this
because this also, for me, itprove a very important point.
This open system, actually, ifyou allow it to be free, if you
don't capture it using all this,what they call alignment, then
you know, it's actually able togive you a very fair and open
discussion, open summary.

(01:12:27):
And I think it really gonna putIPCC. IPCC is completely not
necessary now. I mean, they aregone. I mean, I don't know. I
still wish that they can bedisabandoned, but I think they
are not gonna go away.
They're gonna find way to keepgoing, keep telling the lies,
but I think the sooner we canforget about IPCC, the better we

(01:12:50):
will be. I mean, hopefully, wecan have that power to resist
IPCC because they are trying tocapture you by saying that
everybody is saying IPCC istrue, but IPCC is not even true.
I mean, it's not even wrong. Putit this way.

Anthony Watts (01:13:04):
Well, the good news is is that Trump, by
withdrawing from the IPCC, haspretty much nullified it, at
least for The United States OfAmerica. So, you know, the next
time they publish something, Ithink it will be pretty randomly
ignored except by the highlyalarmist media such as, you
know, The Guardian or, you know,The Washington Post.

Hey. Yeah. But, my point is also that, yes, I
totally appreciate that. I lovethat very much. I'm a Trump guy
myself.
But, you know, we don't wantthings to be temporary. We want
it to be long lasting. Scienceought to be free, free, free.
That's it. Because societyshould demand this.
You don't want your kid to betaught by Michael Mann. Put it

(01:13:46):
this way. I am not confident atall that too many people will
benefit from taking a class fromhim. I will openly say that.
That's why my kid would never goto UPenn.
No way. Even if you give themfood to eat and everything, hell
no. Run away from people likethat because this is not useful.

(01:14:06):
You're gonna ruin yourself inthe process no matter how much
the prestige is.

All right. I've got this question from someone
who is new to this channel whosays, why do we not challenge
the science of carbon dioxide toinclude its full effect in the
atmosphere to include underclouds? Whoever wants to take
that. I'm not quite sure what'sbeing asked here. Correct.

I don't either. I have no idea what that question
means.

No. No. It it it's it's actually the people have
attempted. People have attemptedvery detailed calculation.
Right?
The the most insane and veryvery detailed calculation is the
one by professor William Harperand his colleague William Van
Vingarden from I think he's fromYork University in Canada. And

(01:14:54):
they have looked into thisquestion. But tackling that
together with cloud, it's a verydifficult, I would say
unresolved problem, but theyactually make already first few
attempt. There are someinteresting result coming out
from them, but I think that areais also not so interesting, not
so fruitful. I would ratherstudy how the irradiance can

(01:15:15):
modulate the the cloud field,you know, from evaporation,
separate from what the peoplecall about the Schwannzmark
effect from cosmic ray.
I'm less enthusiastic about thatfactor, but that's another open
discussion that everybody shoulddiscuss. Yeah. My view is on
Schwannzmark is that, yeah, hehe have worked very, very hard,
but I I think that one has tounderstand. Cloud is a very

(01:15:38):
strange beast. In my humbleopinion, cloud by the way, I I
already found evidence.
By the way, I I need empiricalevidence because we don't have
enough brain. Our theory is notpowerful enough to to handle
cloud in a very comprehensiveway. Cloud may be known as what
you call a forcing in the shortterm like minutes to to days and

(01:16:04):
all that. Because every time youhave a cloud, the lower anything
below that will be cool, right?Especially low cloud, it will
reflect sunlight, so for it'scool to local region.
But we found out from a set ofdata, basically from studying
isotope data, carbon 13 orcarbon eight eighteen stable
isotope. In three rings, that isannually resolved. In places

(01:16:27):
basically, it's in HighScandinavia area, Norway and
those places where under theslope where it's not limited by
water and all that. It's onlylimit not by temperature. It's
limited by sunshine.
So, this isotope is telling yousomething about sunshine. When
you have sunshine information,what does that mean? It tells
you about the transparency ofthe atmosphere. So, you have a
way to diagnose the cloud. Whenyou study those record, it

(01:16:51):
actually tell you that on thosemulti decade or time scale, you
have to figure out somethingelse because cloud is not at all
enforcing.
It turned into a feedback in asense. So, that's why the
concept of forcing and feedbackis very artificial. This is what
I mean by we don't understandthe connection between
meteorology and climate, right?That's the problem. There's no

(01:17:12):
separation of the skill.
Sorry that you're getting into alot of details, but someday, I
mean, you guys can all drinkbeer with me together and then I
will talk much more fluently.But it's a lot easier. There's a
lot of problem, but it's very,very interesting to resolve
this. I'm pushing really hard onthis topic also myself. But we
need more empirical data tostart even because we don't know

(01:17:34):
where to begin on this problemon the cloud thing.
So the cloud, I would say, yeah,the smart time is good, but it's
also not gonna go too farbecause you're ultimately still
defeated by the problem of whatcloud is and what does it do.
And plus, I remember, you cannotjust focus on the low cloud. You

(01:17:55):
have to do so ice cloud. You doall the Linzan. Richard Linzan
from MIT have a hypothesis thatvery famous, right?
It's called the Iris hypothesis.Because through through this ice
cloud, the high iCloud, icecloud, I think I would say near
the tropopause region. Able tomodulate the IR emission long
wave outside. So it's actuallyone way to also study that. And

(01:18:18):
I think that mechanism ought tobe studied a lot more.
It's just that we don't haveenough good enough of data
because all this cloud ismanifesting in minutes and
hours. If you don't have goodenough time resolution, you can
do anything. You can always keepspeculating, scratching your
head, and talking nonsense allday long. So I think yeah. Yeah.

(01:18:39):
That probably is enough for onepodcast, but it is that very,
very interesting. I think Itruly believe that if people
give me a lot of money, I canstart my institute, my whole
university, can beat JordanPeterson that we will focus on
this Because I actually know alot of talent, so I'm trying to
recruit. My group now has aminimal amount of things that we

(01:19:00):
have at series that sign,please. Please, but we are
trying our best to put outnothing but science. You know, I
really you you cut the bloodhere.
You will see blood out the wordwith the letter s c I n c e.
Yeah.

Well, unfortunately, we're kinda
running up on our time here, andwe have a bunch more questions,
but we're not going to be ableto get to all of them. But I'm
just going to put this one upbecause it's funny and it's from
a friend of ours who hasattended some of our
conferences. He also knowsDoctor. Soon. And he says, Dear
Willie, have practiced yourFrank Sinatra songs lately?

Fly me to the moon. Yeah, I did that one. It was
good. It was only playing withmy daughter. My daughter Emily
was very young at that time.
It was just fun. Yeah, very fun.

Yeah, well, I can attest from personal experience
that Willie Soon actually doesbecome more coherent after about
at least two beers.

Yeah. Yeah. Minimal. It's true.

He's not like. Anyone else have another comment
before we wrap?

Yeah. Jim, I'd like to point out after
listening to all this and, youknow, seeing the relationship
between the sun and the earthand and thinking about it
deeply. You know? And this issomething that you can tell your
liberal friends on social media.That everything here on earth,
whether it's the temperature,our minerals, our bodies,
whatever it is, is all nuclearpowered by the sun.

(01:20:22):
That'll get them.

Yep. It's all converted energy. Everything we
see here, the ocean, themovement of the air, the
movement of the current,everything. There's no energy,
intrinsic energy from the fromthe earth, the radiogenic. It's
been measured through geometrymeasurements, okay?
It's 10 times smaller than theactually converted energy from

(01:20:45):
the sun. Period. Science is allmeasurement, buddy.

Yes. Well, that will do it for today's show. Gosh,
Willie, that was a whole lot offun, I know we're gonna have you
back on again sometime for sure.Maybe we'll do it late at night
when we can have an adultbeverage instead of the middle
of the day. Who knows?
Fine. Thanks, Willie Soon forjoining us. He's at the Center
for Environmental Research andEarth Sciences. That's

(01:21:11):
seriesscience.com. Definitelycheck out that website.
They also take donations, so hiswork can be supported. Always
visit heart, climaterealism.com,climate@aglance.com. What's up
with that? And always visitheartland.org where you can
subscribe to our weekly ourclimate change weekly newsletter

(01:21:32):
and also donate to help supportthis program. Thank you very
much, Anthony Watts.
Thank you, Lanea Lewin LaneaLuken. And thank you, Willie
Sue, for being on the showtoday. And thanks you, everybody
in the audience. We wouldn't behere without you, and we will
talk to you next week. Bye bye.

All Episodes

The Sun and Climate Change (Guest: Dr. Willie Soon) — The Climate Realism Show #151

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Sun and Climate Change (Guest: Dr. Willie Soon) — The Climate Realism Show #151