mamooth
Diamond Member
Somethings smoking.. But I would not call models that are tuned to proxies and proxies that are tuned to models -- a gun..
It has nothing to do with models. It has to do with direct measurements of the heat flux. If no model existed anywhere, it would still be a smoking gun. GHG's are doing exactly what AGW theory said they'd do.
And contrary to your assertion, there is AMPLE evidence of natural perturbations that are capable describing a LARGE portion of the temperature forcing. I've mentioned Nicoli Scaffeta as one who simple took the accepted Surface Temp record and EASILY showed a 60 year cycle that is attributed to planetary motion.
Curve fitting is not science. I could probably find a way to match up climate to Super Bowl Wins, but that wouldn't be science. You need a mechanism, and Scafetti fails to give one. That's why his theory is commonly called "climastrology."
What's more, unlike the mainstream models, Scafetta's model fails completely at hindcasting. Scafetta's 60 year cycle simply fails totally prior to 1600. Why didn't it hold before then? Who knows. It's just magic.
With enough terms, you can fit a curve to any set of data. But outside of your data set, it will fall apart completely. That's what Scafetta did.
Just as there are feedbacks associated with the GHG theory -- there are auxilliary effects to primary solar effects. Including cloud creation from hi energy radiatio interaction with the "window" thru spectral changes and a lot of other science that is being relegated to "whacko" deniers and ignored because it is not politically correct.
Svensgard was discarded because his theory was proven to be completely wrong. He predicted one thing, the opposite happened. There is no observable link between cosmic rays and cloud cover. Sure, cosmic rays can create nucleation particles, but it doesn't matter, because there's no shortage of dust to serve the same purpose.
So how would you score the 1990 to 2020 debate IF other forcing functions turn out to play a major role, but the additional GHG still ENHANCE -- but not CAUSE the warming?
I don't know how to call that a "score". Whatever, 50/50. We wouldn't care about a score. We'd just be very happy for the earth. We aren't invested emotionally or financially in AGW theory, so we'd love to be shown to be half-wrong.