Global temperatures have risen at a dramatic rate over the past 100 years
False, the Heartland data shows a rise of 2 deg per century which is nothing, not the 10 degrees that you and the IPCC(CP) shill for.
And no, the sun's activity is not having a significant effect on temperature as the actual luminosity we are receiving hasn't really changed to a statistical margin, and even if it did the angle of the light has a more dramatic impact then the slight diming of one spot on a rotating gas ball 93 million miles away.
Imagine a burning gas station. Imagine you are stairing at it from 10 miles away. Now imagine a bird that is 20 feet in front of the gas station flies past your line of sight. Will you feel any cooler? No, of course you won't. the temporary minor reduction in infrared radiation will be almost impossible to notice. That's the reason why sunspots and luminosity really don't fucking mean much.
Nice strawman, and a useless metaphor to boot.
No one said anywhere that it is the sun's luminescence that matters. It's the 22 year magnetic cycle that changes the amount and energy of cosmic and solar radiation impacting the Earth's atmosphere, thus changing the cloud formation rates and altitudes.
False, the Heartland data shows a rise of 2 deg per century which is nothing, not the 10 degrees that you and the IPCC(CP) shill for.
2 degrees per century is way faster than the average, and the actually disruptive results come from 5 degrees, not 10. The average is significantly less than 1 degree per century, and it's not a linear increase, but a fluctuation. You never see an entire millennia of .5 degree increases in average temperature every century. To see the past 150 years have the largest and fastest rate of change in temperature ever recorded in human history is pretty fucking alarming.
The planet doesn't seem to have a temperature change that dramatic without getting hit by a fucking mile wide asteroid.
No one said anywhere that it is the sun's luminescence that matters
Yes they have for the past decade. That's why so many were harping on "Sun Spot Activity" for so many years. It was literally the predominant anti-anthropogenic argument made as of only a few years ago. You can probably find some Bill O'Riley clips about it.
It's the 22 year magnetic cycle that changes the amount and energy of cosmic and solar radiation impacting the Earth's atmosphere, thus changing the cloud formation rates and altitudes.
That's actually even more silly. We have a magnetosphere for reason. The number of muon particles hitting the atmosphere isn't going to do shit. Changing the composition of your atmosphere by introducing massive amounts of carbon dioxide... does.
False, the Heartland data shows a rise of 2 deg per century which is nothing, not the 10 degrees that you and the IPCC(CP) shill for.
Nice strawman, and a useless metaphor to boot.
No one said anywhere that it is the sun's luminescence that matters. It's the 22 year magnetic cycle that changes the amount and energy of cosmic and solar radiation impacting the Earth's atmosphere, thus changing the cloud formation rates and altitudes.
2 degrees per century is way faster than the average, and the actually disruptive results come from 5 degrees, not 10. The average is significantly less than 1 degree per century, and it's not a linear increase, but a fluctuation. You never see an entire millennia of .5 degree increases in average temperature every century. To see the past 150 years have the largest and fastest rate of change in temperature ever recorded in human history is pretty fucking alarming.
The planet doesn't seem to have a temperature change that dramatic without getting hit by a fucking mile wide asteroid.
Yes they have for the past decade. That's why so many were harping on "Sun Spot Activity" for so many years. It was literally the predominant anti-anthropogenic argument made as of only a few years ago. You can probably find some Bill O'Riley clips about it.
That's actually even more silly. We have a magnetosphere for reason. The number of muon particles hitting the atmosphere isn't going to do shit. Changing the composition of your atmosphere by introducing massive amounts of carbon dioxide... does.
Based on what data? We've only been "accurately" measuring temperatures globally for a little over one century
Eh, not even one century. Do you really think we blanketed the sea with accurate temperature scales back in 1920? Maybe about 50 years of 'accuracy'.
Based on the data I've seen, including ice core samples and the like.