I think that with a science background you will find Shaviv's work fascinating.
Shrug. That stuff is here today and gone tomorrow.
Indeed, but nevertheless it's much more important, over time, as a greenhouse gas than CO2. And it's albedo effect from cloud cover is also important. Apparently what we really should pay attention to is the sun, unless of course it is the Earth's climate that is controlling the Sun.
It's albedo effect is not negating Earth's energy gain. It's growing presence is not a function of solar cycles. We've been down this trail before. Your last hypothesis was urban heat islands warming the planet. Still there?Indeed, but nevertheless it's much more important, over time, as a greenhouse gas than CO2. And it's albedo effect from cloud cover is also important. Apparently what we really should pay attention to is the sun, unless of course it is the Earth's climate that is controlling the Sun.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, however Nir Shaviv does. In this instance I have to defer to him because of his scientific training, experience, and expertise. What Shaviv is telling us from his research is that there is a very demonstrable short cycle associated with the regular reversal of the Sun's magnetic poles. This rides on a very long cycle in geologic time that correlates with the solar system passing through the spiral arms of the galaxy.* The proxy temperature data does not agree with proxy CO2 concentration in paleo time (a fatal problem for Hansen's Hypothesis enthusiasts), but the agreement with proxy temperature over geologic time with our solar system's movement through the galaxy is perfect. This is consistent with Miskolczi's energy balance calculations which showed that CO2 can not have any net warming effect without an increase in energy input.** It's just another way of saying that without a net increase in energy input, if the lower troposphere is warming, somewhere else in the atmosphere is cooling.
I agree, by the way. But I wouldn't use the word "offensive," I would say "ridiculous". And of course the models have proved over and over again to be ridiculous. Will they someday stop being ridiculous? I suppose they might, but that seems a long way off. Of course from the getgo the models considered IR radiated from the Earth's surface. At first they were only interested in what would happen if you doubled the concentration of CO2 and held everything else constant. But that showed nothing happened, so that's when the said, "Oh, we must be wrong. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, if we double its concentration the Earths surface has got to warm." So they made it warm by assuming a positive feedback parameter which they incorporated in all their subsequent models and tuned the parameter to give good agreement with observed temperature rise. But of course, Mother Nature insisted on playing by her own rules and so over time their models became worse and worse predictors of future temperature. What to do? Why not just periodically adjust the models' parameters so the predictions are never very far off. And that's the sorry state of where we are today in modeling the Earths atmosphere. It's really is ridiculous!
