Wayne Stollings wrote:
So that is why we see so many claims of warming being "natural" and "AGW is false"? The actions speak louder.
So if I argue that Global Warming is natural, that automatically makes me not concerned?
Interesting hypothesis. Eventually, if we do warm at the rate of what the IPCC projects, the negatives will soon outweigh the positives. If CO2 starts to become a driver of Climate due to excess amounts of it being pumped into the air in the future, making the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rise to unprecedented proportions, then we need to be concerned. If CO2 as a driver accelerates in concentration in the atmosphere, then temperature itself will accelerate.
Just because of that possibility, I'm concerned.
Which is belied by your actions in so many attempts to claim there is no warming due to human influences over the time I have known you.
Why not? If the solar output decreases even with added CO2 there will be a decrease in temperature potential. The scenarios are run with an "all other things equal" and "over the long term" criteria you seem to always miss when making claims about them.
Yes, which is what makes GCM forecasts very unreliable, because the climate system is a chaotic system.
You do a good job of dancing away from the point. You take the forecasts at a yearly track and claim failure at the scentury mark. That is not accurate nor very realistic.
But you appraoch it as if the ACRIM was correct .... and the other supporting data seems to side with PMOD.
I don't think so.
That would be due to you making up your mind before looking into the issue. You have already claimed others were "cherry-picking" by using the PMOD dataset .....
I'm siding with ACRIM on this issue, only because PMOD uses uncorrected ERBE/ERBS data during the ACRIM gap, which had a totally different slope with the TSI than the higher quality data sources like ERB/NIMBUS7 that were also measuring TSI at the time. This means that the PMOD dataset is in question, because of the data choices it used during the ACRIM Gap, and its lack of corrections for the faulty data.
Of course you are ..... and there is a problem with insufficient data unless you happen to believe in it ....
Then why focus on trying to find every little flaw you can claim makes the difference?
That's what science is about, testing other alternate theories, and seeing which one seems the most plausable.
You do not research, you leap to conclusions after reading one version.
Given the impressive correlation to temperature and TSI over the past 400 years, (including the last 30 years if you use ACRIM) I'm willing to go with a higher Solar influence on Climate than most AGW Advocates would.
So the temperature record for the last 400 years is now accurate eventhough the accuracy past 150 years is questionable to everyone else?
A model works if you believe in it, right?