This climate argument looks persuasive to me. Is there a counter-argument?https://twitter.com/patbhamilton/status/1100131542045806592 …
-
-
My hypothesis is that the modern solar maximum, and its attendant magnetism, influenced cosmic rays and cloudiness and therefore how much energy reached ocean surfaces. That energy is still being distributed via ocean cycles that are decades long. Models ignore this possibility.,
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
That's where I will differ. Variables are not agreed upon. CO2 could be the effect - rather than the cause.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That's one side of the story. The other side you don't hear about from the alarmists is studies like Soon et al (2016) that show a strong correlation between solar activity and global temps; quite a bit stronger than CO2-temp correlation.pic.twitter.com/LfdLfbRQ65
-
This is also my analysis. The sun is the master of our thermostat.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Have you ruled out ozone?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
1) CO2 is the primary forcing of warming (+sun) 2) Water Vapor is feedback that adds more warming 3) Internal variability (e.g. ENSO) just redistributes heat, does not add it 4) CO2 at 410 ppm is highest in 800,000 years 5) Isotopes point to fossil fuel as the fingerprint of CO2
-
6) Volcanoes in this century actually cool the planet, not warm it 7) CO2 has a long adjustment time of several hundred years as opposed to methane which has a shorter time 8) Doubling of atmospheric CO2 leads to 2.5-4.5 C global temperature increase
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.