On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 11:26:24 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 17:07:00 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

In today's world, GW is almost entirely AGW. That is a fact.

That's an unsubstantiated assertion since the effects of increased
cloud cover due to cosmic ray nucleation have not been quantified.

An increase in cloud cover ought to reduce, not increase, the
warming, right? We observe a warming. If this warming occurs despite
increased cloud cover, this implies that the CO2 effect of the
warming is even larger...

Did you even LOOK at the second chart in

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...tures/70004226

that I posted April 22nd? It shows global temperatures dropping
significantly for the past two years.

We're not talking about weather here. Indeed we cannot predict the
weather even a month in advance. But in climatology thes no need
to predict the weather on individual days. In climatology we're
interested in long term averages

Not sure what you're smoking here, but the chart I referenced isn't
about monthly temperatures.

Those long term averages also makes temperatures during one or a few
individual years quite insignificant. But if the trend continues over
decades, then it becomes climatologically significant.

Maybe they are and maybe they aren't.

So instead of focusing on the last two years, you should instead focus
on the last 20-50 years. Don't throw away half a century of data just
because of temporary short term deviations recently.

The short-term deviations ARE significant if a new factor is in play.
We may want a little extra greenhouse gas if we're heading toward another
another Little Ice Age:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

And more cloud cover implies more water vapor in the air, which is the
greatest greenhouse gas of them all. The takeaway from this is that the
LIA resulted in torrential rains that washed out crops in the summer which
was too short to grow abundant crops anyway. I think we may fare better
if this occurs again, but people would still starve. Many countries in
Europe lost 10% of their populations, a significant amount when you
consider that the Plague killed about 30%. And isn't it interesting that
the plague occurred after the Medieval Warm Period when global temperatures
were falling? Maybe some of those deaths could have been avoided if folks
had good food?

Look, I believe in being a good steward of the earth, trying to curb
excesses, keeping the environment clean and all that. But I also believe
in people and that we all have a responsibility there, too. And I also
believe in a Higher Power which many today have disowned. One of the
consequences of that is a vaunting arrogance that WE can handle the
situation. Maybe the solution isn't where some believe it to be ...