On 23/04/2018 01:07, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 7:33:50 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 06:03:48 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

what extent that process affects GW (note: that would NOT be AGW).

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.

It is small enough correction that it isn't going to radically alter the
answers. The 0.1% change in solar output over an 11 year sunspot cycle
is barely noticeable in the climate record (but is detectable).

By comparison the 0.0167 ellipticity of the Earth's orbit represents a
~7% change in solar input from aphelion to perihelion every year.

It is known to be true beyond reasonable doubt, and is accepted by 99%
of climate scientists. A greater consensus than we have for nearly any
other area of scientific knowledge.

Do you mean consensus of those who haven't included the effects of cosmic
ray cloud nucleation in their climate models and who have reduced the
multiplication factor of CO2 effects in their models, to account for the
greatest greenhouse gas of them all, from 6 to 2? If 6 is wrong, what
confidence is there that 2 is the right number?

Time will tell. Your argument is essentially because every last possible
detail isn't tied down we should ignore the major factor we can control
which is altering the Earth's climate. The inexorable rise of CO2.

GW Bush did his damnedest to discontinue funding monitoring of CO2 by
Keeling et al but in the end was forced to give him a congressional
science medal. Science deniers are once again being promoted to
positions of real power in the Trump administration so we expect more
trash the planet for fun and profit policies going forward.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/t...medal-science/

Flat-earther.

Repeated slurs only weaken your already weak responses. You should give
it a rest.

It is pretty much a good description of your position. Only the wilfully
ignorant and professional deniers for hire claim that AGW is not real
today. The latter usually have previous for claiming that smoking
tobacco doesn't cause cancer and that CFC's don't damage the ozone
layer. (it is quite a good litmus test for prostitute scientists)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown