The study by the research associate in the Duke physics department and Bruce West big shot in the US Army research office says that sunspots have an effect on the climate and may very well lessen the proposed impact of CO2 emissions over the IPCC predictions.
The pair accuse the scientific community of incorporating these effects in their climate models very poorly, and perhaps underestimating their impact.
The core issue is the "Total solar irradiance" or TSI
The TSI could account for at least 69% of the increase in the Earths average temperature, depending on the particular TSI reconstruction used.
So that still leaves 31% possible from other sources.
Their own chart shows the temperature rising on a scale much longer that the period of a solar cycle.
So it seems that the climate is warming despite the solar cycle.
The only thing to debate is whether we believe this is carbon, or any other straw man that the "status quo" group can dig up to postpone action.
The business interest care only about keeping the path unchanged, as we possibly damage the environment for our decedents.
I just bought a bag of freekin charcoal for my grill made Argentina. That proves fuel is too cheap if it is possible to bring something so heavy and large and low in value from so far away.
<True sometimes the layman can find an overlooked issue.>
In my example I am not a layman "bluecollar." I am an engineer even though I am not an HVAC engineer nor a mechanical engineer, I understand basic thermodynamics.
That basic understanding did not provide me with the tools to solve the problem but only to see the flaws in the "expert's" solution.
A position being a meal ticket is huge. It was a topic of a lecture in the ethics class.
That is the reason doctors testing a new medicine don't know who gets the placebo, it can alter their "unbiased" judgment.
<So were back to the argument that the majority are just riding this wave of money and lying to the public.>
It is not necessarily lying. Here are the problems with a lot of the "scientists" who are in the "majority" of the mmgw debate. Many are totally out of their field such as psychologists and such.
Others contributed raw data and were put on the list as supporters of the conclusion. Several who disagreed, I believe, sued to have their names removed, ...and then there is the agenda issue.
I do not believe there is a reliable list of qualified for and against scientists.
I am qualified to see the data collection problems and the leaps to conclusions are not scientific due to unaddressed variables in some cases. I am not qualified to draw a conclusion.
Many such as the psychologists and the like may be less qualified than even me have signed on as supporting the MMGW theory.
My position is it is clearly not settled science as Al Gore lied.
Are there interested parties? Sure. That doesn't really prove anything.
"Moral of the story, you don't have to be an expert to see some flaws in some reasoning."
True sometimes the layman can find an overlooked issue. But this is ridiculously rare despite blue collar sentiments about "educated people not knowing anything"
So were back to the argument that the majority are just riding this wave of money and lying to the public. This of course the ultimate unprovable argument, because we need their opinions to draw meaningful conclusions.
Ho Hum. Another expert makes a statement the world is getting warmer. What did he do, make a coin flip to decide? The world is always getting warmer or colder, always has and always will. What's changed is man's conceit that he can alter something so large, so complex, with so many variables. And his willingness to shackle his children with halfwit expensive solutions to problems (that science, history, archaeology, and paleontology have proven that we have survived in the past)that really haven't been accurately demonstrated as problems. Do you really believe that something as magnificent as this creation can be altered by something as insignificant as yourself? For an example, look at Chernobyl. Abandoned by man, reclaimed by nature. Birds, trees, red deer have taken over the city. The soccer field is an aspen grove. Oh, and by the way the background radiation level is perfectly safe. You underestimate creation.
I think it funny in a sad sort of way, one after another world reknowned experts come forward...
Their claim is not assertively that man is no factor, it's that the crowd who says this is "settled science" are FOS.
As a scientist, I knew that the first time I looked at the data and the variables that were totally discounted. That's not science methodology, that's religion.
Anyway back to my point, one after one experts come forward, some strong GW believers before, ALL more qualified than you and Baldy and one by one you pooh pooh what they have to say as if your denials make the reality go away.
<So it seems that the climate is warming despite the solar cycle.>
Actually the last year and collectively the last 10 years have wiped out 50 years worth of warming.
I think its funny that the vast majority of the worlds experts agree that man is warming the planet and there is a campaign to by a relative minority to convince the nascar crowd that there are really disagreements. Yet if you weight the opinions based on the qualifications of the individual you arrive at a decisive positive conclusion that man is warming the planet.
Using a weighted average with qualifications as the weighting factor.
"Anyway back to my point, one after one experts come forward, some strong GW believers before, ALL more qualified than you and Baldy and one by one you pooh pooh what they have to say as if your denials make the reality go away. "
If you cull the quacks out this number is not so impressive.
Where exactly did you look at the "data" and the variables that were used. I find it hard to imagine that a neutral lay person would spend the significant time and energy to really evaluate the volume's of research already done. Hey if you say ya did it, Ok
I haven't done it. I estimate it would take a person full time 6 mo, to really become fluent in the methods and variables used to analyze warming.
"Actually the last year and collectively the last 10 years have wiped out 50 years worth of warming."
Could you pleasure us with some of that scientific training of yours and elaborate as to why the last year and the last 10 have wiped out 50 years worth of warming. Of course your data has been corrected to remove the TSI effect because we are now in a low sun spot activity. This doesn't mean anything because in 6.5 years we will be in a high sunspot activity region and it just may well be hot. And please speak to the variance of the 10 year estimate of a process with such a long time span. Maybe 10 year realizations of the process doesn't provide any statistical significance.