On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 6:29:07 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

On Saturday, January 13, 2018 at 6:24:01 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

One thing is certain, though: Climate models have NOT taken these phenomena
into account. Consequently, there must be some doubt in their ability to
give accurate predictions and more than a little doubt in those who have
loudly proclaimed that the science is settled.

The standard 11-year sunspot cycle is known, and thus can be predicted, but
not unexpected changes in solar activity.

The trend is signaling an "unexpected" change: a weakening over the last 40
years:

https://www.vencoreweather.com/blog/...s-next-minimum

But even if climate models ignored solar activity entirely, all that would
mean is that the effects of an increased carbon dioxide concentration in
the atmosphere might be hastened or delayed.

A Maunder-type minimum might delay it a hundred years or more. If that
happened it might be nice to have a nice warm quilt about the earth.

The greenhouse effect itself isn't in doubt, only the details are.

What have you heard about the possibility of the effect of CO2 being
nonlinear in its concentration?

Using doubt about the details as an excuse to avoid taking the action
needed to prevent a catastrophe is not responsible.

John Savard

We are always on the edge of catastrophe one way or another. The question
is knowing which way to jump. It may be irresponsible to fix the problem
now or it may not.