Gordon, maybe I should have said "comprehend." Another:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Climate_Change
I can do this all day for the rest of the year, and into all of next. There is a large body of work on it.
Steve,
Maybe I wanted to see that you grasped anything beyond sitting there telling me I am stupid. Maybe I needed proof. Saying "your wrong" is just a shit sitter. If you can't prove it, if you can't work it out, you are not contributing but just being an ass. I knew it all along, it wasn't even a hard attempt at anything. It was a setup to get you working with the values to realize both that CO2 increase is a small factor, and to see that the numbers change by a margin of error far larger than solar or CO2 in just a couple years with no real explanation short of a wiggle in a variable that is manually adjusted.
Even then, with the articles I posted to you and Gordon showing a correlation between solar output and temperature changes, neither of you accepted it, no matter how many times I did. And I just did again, showing the range in solar output changes, right as Gordon repeats "No it doesn't."
There is ample proof that solar output varies, and that solar output and climate track together. The Empirical data falsifies the models. Solar has an impact.
Sitting there like Gordon going "No it doesn't" is like a child trying to convince me they didn't poop their diaper. Oh, you figured it out, you looked in the diaper. Congrats. You want a reward for that. I did praise you for it. Good boy. I also told you to look.
But you totally ignored responding to the large margin of error in the 'Known' Energy Balance, how the values are changing by amounts higher than the CO2 contribution, and how that eclipses the CO2 contribution by a significant amount.
So, your shit still stinks kid, and so does your attitude.