Oh..my bad...so all of those people publishing original research in academic journals aren't even scientists nevermind experts then?
OK, but the Sun brightens as it ages and yet the Earth experienced secular cooling for 50 million years from the peak of the PETM event. The correlation between solar luminosity and temperature is anti-correlated. Ocean circulations cannot solve this faint young Sun problem either because they do not effect the global energy balance.
GHGs do not turn off any natural cycles or other externally driven energy perturbations like the Sun. Those are still very much in play. What GHGs do is put a persistent linear warming tendency on the climate system. An analogy would be that natural cycles mimic a y=sin(x) wave and oscillate around a flat baseline. But when you add a linear term such that y=x+sin(x) you'll get the same sine wave oscillating around a baseline except this time the baseline is sloped up. The point...it is expected that there will still be up and down periods with or without GHGs. It would actually be very unexpected and puzzling if the temperature did nothing but monotonically increase.
Then why does the anti-CO2 scaremonger campaign claim that all the natural forces that caused all of the previous million or so century-scale warming episodes in the earth's history have been turned off? Sure, but the anti-CO2 scare campaign states explicitly that they are not, that none of them can possibly be warming the earth's climate any more. A modest one that is probably a net benefit -- and higher CO2 is unambiguously a net benefit. How many such cycles do you think exist? What are their periods and amplitudes? Are you aware of the fact that while there are rotational cycles of fixed period such as you describe, there are also much more complex chaotic cycles whose periods vary, or may even miss one or more peaks or troughs entirely? How do you tell the difference between a linear term and the up or down phase of a longer-period cycle in a noisy data set?
I'm talking about cyclical solar variation, not the one-way aging of the sun over hundreds of millions of years. Wrong again. You forgot continental drift. Over hundreds of millions of years, the continents move around, affecting both the circulation of the oceans and the crucial balance between land and water at different latitudes.
They might be "experts" in the same sense that people who hold doctorates in economics are experts; but if the climategate emails are any indication -- and they are -- they are not scientists because they are not pursuing the truth.
You misspelled "That one Russian solar scientist who deniers quote exclusively". She seemed to have no idea of how climate worked. Like most deniers, she did a "If solar output drops a little, that means massive cooling on earth, because no other factors matter!". Another amusing thing is that her theory requires a sky-high climate sensitivity (to forcing) figure, yet it's a mandated denier belief to say that climate sensitivity is very low.
LOL, you mean the only one you are aware of. Shows how little you know. Also shows how little you know about the models since they do not take TSI into account yet in the short time we have been measuring it, it has varied 1-2 watts per meter.
What about it? One thing you should have already figured out about me that I never use funding as argument for or against a position. I use evidence. And besides oil companies (at least some of them) already acknowledge that their products contribute to global warming. And for the record, no, I do not think they should be held liable for it.
Other than Valentina Zharkova, which solar scientists are predicting this coming cooling? Svensmark isn't, not anymore. He was predicting cooling in 2009, but now he's backed down to "slow warming". Who tells you these stories, and why do you fall for them? Well yes, it varies by that much during the ~11-year cycle. Yet somehow, the earth does not see a crash cooling episode every 11 years. Your theory has some problems.
Shows what you (don’t) know. The 11 year cycle is a sunspot cycle. The IPCC does not consider TSI to change.
Scientists are aware that TSI changes over the course of a single solar cycle. They are also aware that the mean TSI spread out over several cycles of equal magnitude shows little variation. It's the grand cycles that cause long term changes. And yes, they are aware of this fact as well. In fact, the IPCC acknowledges that some of the warming (about 10%) is caused by the modern maximum.
This does not comprise ALL scientists And what ever they said and did has been a exposed.... and therefore can and has been corrected
I'm not sure what you mean. Models consider TSI and the variations that arise as a result of the solar cycles. What they don't currently do is predict the grand cycles. Instead the timing and magnitude of the grand cycles is an input. Different scenarios are modeled for the grand cycles in the same way different scenarios are modeled for carbon emissions.
Joke, right? They were whitewashed. That means they have carte blanche to falsify scientific evidence as much as they want.
No, just the lying sacks of $#!+ at East Anglia and their fellow conspirators as identified in the emails.
There is no shortage of faked, manipulated, cherry-picked, altered, fabricated, phony and deceitful evidence. Credible empirical evidence, not so much.
You previously noted problems with the email guys now, you are arbitrarily and universally dismissing all evidence....
What was the conspiracy? Be specific. I want to know what you think "hide the decline" and "Mike's Nature trick" are referring to. BTW...when is McIntyre going to be investigated for his role?
To falsify results and suppress dissenting climate research. Fraudulent nonscience. In identifying the facts?
