[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

Actually its an appox 11 year cycle, it varries some. There are other cycles that varry at different time cycles, not just billions of years.

The complete cycle is actually 22 years.

TSI Data

According to the TSI reconstruction there is an almost 1W/m^2 difference between 1880 and present, converting that energy change to forcing on a sphere gives approx 0.2w/m^2, the same that is accepted by the IPCC.

Pay attention to the scale on the left side of the graph. The max dT over the whole reconstruction period is (by eyeball) 1.7 W/m^2. Since solar output averages 1361 W/m^2, that's a change of 0.125%. Now for simplicity assume the temperature change is linear, then that change in output would change the Earth's temperature by 0.00125 * 288K = 0.36K in the last 3 centuries.

Considering thermal inertial, it'd be more appropriate to take net change as the average between solar cycle peaks, or about 1.2 W/m^2. Even if we accept that reconstruction as valid*, that's not a heck of a lot of change.

*And why do you accept this reconstruction, but not the so-called "hockey stick" reconstruction? 'Cause you can spin it to persuade the hard-of-thinking that the sun's to blame?

I would trust them. Astrophysisists have had a history of being honest and doing honest science. They are open to critisism of their work and other views and conclusions.

I doubt if they're all that open. I bet Flat Earthers and Young Earth Creationists don't get much of a hearing at astrophysics conferences :-)

Apparent Problem With Global Warming Climate Models Resolved

They couldn't get the direct measurements they were looking for, so they ran another measurement through their model and viola!!! got the data they were looking for. That is not good science.

No? I expect you didn't pay much attention in e.g. math class. If you get an unexpected result, you go back and check your work to see if you've made a mistake. As for example the recent fuss about the neutrinos that apparently travelled faster than light, eventually traced to a false reading caused by a bad cable IIRC .

Actual climate scientists who don't agree with the main conclusion loose their grants, jobs, silenced, and discredited.

Crap. First you have to find an actual climate scientist who doesn't agree with the main conclusion. You might find a couple, but they are still getting grants. You might also find a few self-proclaimed ones who've had their work discredited (the ones who were trying to blame the warming on cosmic rays, perhaps), but that's because their work was either honestly bad, or faked.