What's your "clear and unambiguous experimental and observational falsification" of Big Bang cosmology?

See Halton Arp's observations of the redshifts and angular correlations of quasars. Since he started this work, it has been corroborated by a vast body of additional observations. A good overview is given in his book "Seeing Red".

The essence of it is this: according to the Big Bang model, red shift is cosmogenic, and quasars should be, on account of the vast distance implied by their red shift, distributed isotropically. Turns out that quasars are, in terms of angular separation, correlated with "foreground" galaxies to an extent that is so far away from any possible chance statistical fluctuation resulting from an intrinsically isotropic distribution that the quasars have to be causally correlated, and hence their redshift is not of cosmogenic origin.

A might be expected, he has been treated as a heretic, was denied further observation time, and now lives in effective exile.

A measure of doubt in science is justified because much of science has devolved into religion (theories elevated to dogma). As these things come out in the open, people will be utterly amazed at just how much science is bunk. I can say this with confidence because I know of many clear and unambiguous experimental and observational falsifications of sacred theories and models. The Big Bang cosmology, for example.

The article speaks about a 100,000 km high (62,000 mile high) tsunami. Assuming that they are referring to the initial height of the surface wave, that is no doubt a typo since the sun's diameter is only 14 times that. Likely, they meant something rather less such as 100,000 m or 100 km. That's still a big wave though.

If you consider the sun in conventional terms, that is, energized by fusion in the core with a 6000K surface temperature then yeah, it is hard to believe. But observations indicate that the sun is rather different.

Take for example the factor-of-three variation in the 260-330 Angstrom window during the solar cycle (see the graph I linked earlier in this thread). The conventional model says nothing about that.

And why the 1-2M degree hot solar corona? It cannot be thermal heating from the surface as heat flows from warm to cold. There are some hand-waving hypotheses about ions surfing magnetic waves, but these models cannot provide for the high energy flux needed to deliver compensation for the massive coronal emissions.

Then there are the relatively dark sunspot umbra. They are 1000-2000K cooler than the rest of the surface. How can that be if all the energy is supposed to come from the inside?

If you consider the x-ray image I linked earlier, you'll notice that it looks as if energy is being produced in the corona. And anomalous energy production is exactly what is being found in laboratory experiments of hydrogen/helium plasmas. The catalytic mechanism referred to in the referenced paper lacks a good theoretical description, but it definitely explains the hot corona, the variability of the coronal emissions, and some other oddities such as the strong dependence of the solar wind on Helium

.

But what difference does it make that they don't include x-ray and EUV output in TSI if they are cycling in conjunction with the 2000 nm to 200 nm window anyway?

The big difference is that it allows people to reject the sun as causative. The relatively minor variations in the TSI measurements that do not include EUV+X-rays (1365 W/m^2 plus or minus 0.5W/m^2) suggest a global temperature effect of only +/- 0.03K or so. This is markedly less than the 0.1K-0.2K (depending on whom to believe) per decade global temperature rise measured during the 1970-2000 period. That, plus the fact that most of the variation is short-term (goes with the solar cycle) has led people to ignore the sun.

In order for them to be a factor in climate change they would have to be monolithically increasing over time. Do you have evidence that is happening?

Yes, see this paper. Quoting from the conclusion of that paper:

"This finding has evident repercussions for climate change and solar physics. Increasing TSI between 1980 and 2000 could have contributed significantly to global warming during the last three decades [Scafetta and West, 2007, 2008]. Current climate models [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007] have assumed that the TSI did not vary significantly during the last 30 years and have therefore underestimated the solar contribution and overestimated the anthropogenic contribution to global warming."

an 0.1% increase will only increase temperatures by 0.07K. That is negligible compared to the 6K/100 yrs being talked about by climatologists. It seems your alternative theory just doesn't account for the facts

You are calling that 6K/100 years fact? Don't be silly. It is just a figment of a highly politicized set of models. The IPPC is claiming a trend of 0.2K per decade. However the actual temperature measurements only support something like 0.11K per decade for the rise between the 70s and 90s. The solar flux changes we have been discussing happen on a timescale of roughly half a decade...

The more relevant aspects of the debate are actually what biological and ecological consequences can be expected from global mean temperature rise and its rate of acceleration.

Not relevant at all because in the last few years the global temperature has been dropping markedly. The reason that that does not show up in the official data sets being foisted on us is because they have been busy hiding the decline.

Next time you go to the kitchen, do a little experiment with the sugar: does it dissolve more easily in hot water, or in cold water? I think you'll find it's the same with CO2. Better find another explanation.

No it is not the same for dissolved CO2: the solubility of gases in water decreases with increasing temperature. My explanation stands.

This is simply not something that can be kept secret or which isn't studied.

It is surprisingly tricky to study these short wavelengths. You must be in space, and you cannot use normal mirrors or lenses to focus this radiation onto a detector since those will absorb it. But in recent years a smattering of satellites have been sent up that contain the special optics (grazing angle reflectors etc.) needed.

But there is a very good reason for the fact that the results have not been given much exposure. It has to with the mechanism that keeps the solar corona so hot. The corona is mostly a hydrogen/helium plasma. If you study those under laboratory conditions, strange things happen.

The images don't say anything about the Sun's energy output at various wavelengths.

Actually, the 171A image allows you to make a guesstimate. You can calculate the black body flux at that wavelength from Planck's law and the surface temperature. That should give you a number for the output of the surface at that wavelength. It should be uniform across the surface. From the image you can estimate how many times larger the non-uniform corona-based intensity is. The energy output at that wavelength will then roughly be that many times the 6000K black body body output at 171A.

Are you saying that a significant fraction of the Sun's energy output is at EUV or X-ray wavelengths?

Yes I am.

a black body radiator at just 6000K isn't going to have X-rays as its primary radiation.

True, but the Sun is not just a black body radiator at 6000K. The solar corona has a temperature of 1-2 million degrees Kelvin. Though the corona is not really a black body radiator either, it definitely has massive short-wavelength emissions as evidenced by the X-ray image I linked before. Just look at the solar surface in that image: it is relatively "dark".

The coronal emissions vastly outweigh the surface emissions already at 171 Angstrom as can be seen here.

Explaining, of course, why we continue to see verification of those models.

No, why we continue to see "verification" of these models was explained in 1993 when members of the Club of Rome published the book "the First Global Revolution". In it, they give the reasons for why the environmental agenda has to be pushed at all cost. Quoting:

"It would seem that humans need a common motivation...either a real one or else one invented for the purpose....In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

There are too many factors to say for sure that increased CO2 is a good thing.

There are many factors indeed. However more CO2 is of benefit to agriculture. This is not theory: many greenhouse proprietors inject CO2 in order to speed the growth of their crops markedly.

It has been determined that down around 150 PPM CO2, plants can no longer cope. The low CO2 concentration in the (geologically speaking) modern era is the result of plants and algae having depleted atmospheric CO2 (the concentration used to be much higher millions of years back) down to a level where photosynthetic biomass started to reduce, thus establishing the modern low equilibrium.

A factor of 2 variation in 0.1% of the Sun's total power is irrelevant.

Is it? Earth's average surface temperature is 285K or so. Vary the solar output by 0.1% and you can expect an effect of roughly 0.07K (taking into account the T^4 dependence of the earth's black-body flux). That is already significant.

Now consider that we are talking about only a small 260-330A slice of the combined EUV and X-ray bands. The solar emissions in those bands are not determined by the thermal spectrum of the solar surface. Most of the EUV and X-ray emissions are from the corona which is much warmer (1-2 million Kelvin) and as a consequence the peak of those emissions is to markedly shorter wavelengths than the linked graph shows.

I take it you've never tried to grow your own food? A few degrees can mean the difference between getting a juicy tomato or just a leafy vine.

Don't worry, the models are bunk, CO2 is not the driving force behind temperature change. But what the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration will definitely do is be a great benefit to plant growth. Plants are starved for lack of CO2.

Uh, what does that fluctuation in that plot prove?

It proves that the solar output in that band of the EUV varies by over a factor of three during the solar cycle. That is a huge variation and as such should be included in the measurements of the total solar irradiation. But it is not. For example, ACRIMSAT measures only the 2000 nm to 200 nm window.

x-rays and EUV don't make it to the surface of the Earth anyway

True, they get absorbed in the very upper layers of the atmosphere. However, roughly 50% of the energy does reach the earth's surface through secondary effects such as fluorescence, ionisation-recombination emission, heating and conduction, heating and thermal emissions, and so on. The physics behind this is perfectly analogous to why of the infrared radiation captured by greenhouse gases about half the energy still ends up in space instead of being reflected back to earth.