- Banned
- #1
Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions
and
1) You have suggested that these data actually fit global warming with some sort of lag. Can you quantify that claim?
2) Dana Nuccitelli and others at Skeptical Science show that even a generousTSI is inadequate to have caused the observed warming and is signficantly less than warming calculated for the observed anthropogenic increase in GHGs
3) Several studies on indirect effects: UV radiation and solar-mediated galactic cosmic rays affecting cloud cover: failed to show significant or even discernible effects.
So... I know you think you've told us this a dozen times, but I have to tell you that you're not easy to follow. Could you just one last time, give us a clear, thorough but concise explanation as to why you believe GHGs haven't warmed the planet but that the sun's TSI have. (or have more).
and
1) You have suggested that these data actually fit global warming with some sort of lag. Can you quantify that claim?
2) Dana Nuccitelli and others at Skeptical Science show that even a generousTSI is inadequate to have caused the observed warming and is signficantly less than warming calculated for the observed anthropogenic increase in GHGs
3) Several studies on indirect effects: UV radiation and solar-mediated galactic cosmic rays affecting cloud cover: failed to show significant or even discernible effects.
So... I know you think you've told us this a dozen times, but I have to tell you that you're not easy to follow. Could you just one last time, give us a clear, thorough but concise explanation as to why you believe GHGs haven't warmed the planet but that the sun's TSI have. (or have more).
Last edited: