I've seen it snow in Miami before. Must have been late 1970's. Which seems, to me, to suggest that not much has changed in the climate since the late 1970's... but normal variation continues.
It wasn't that many years back that my discussions of the global warming fraud pointed out that not only are climate models "not science"... (which is true, even if they do work in the short term... if they can't explain what the models are based on, other than "following the data" and predicting continuation patterns)... but that it was a known that much of what they were based on was wrong.
The models, then, completely discounted the SUN as a driver of climate... (which is incredibly stupid)... and, when you asked them about it, the answer was "Yeah. The sun is there... but, it doesn't change... so we ignore it." I knew that was wrong... said so... and the scam continued, as before, pretending they were doing science... while instead creating computer models that tried to follow change in the data without understanding the reasons for change.
Since then, of course, they've been forced to admit that the SUN actually matters in climate, which is an improvement, since we'd not have a climate without it...
But, they still pretend they've been able to "isolate" the sun and its (now admitted to be) changing output from "influencing" the changes that occur in climate... which is basically insane... but...
The fact is, we don't understand the nature and drivers of solar variation... and we don't have a clue how solar variation interacts with the systems of the planet to influence climate. I suspect climate is driven by variation in things the climatologists aren't considering... and aren't capable of considering... but, of course, wouldn't, anyway... I expect it might be vastly easier (and far more valid) to "prove" that variation in climate can be determined by measuring the changes in luminosity and color of aurora, over time... along with other electrical atmospheric phenomena... with a larger predictive dependence than that claimed for CO2. Can anyone point me to those studies on variation in solar output, parsed by frequency... and the composition of the output relative to the systemic modifying influences of the magnetosphere... and how that interaction alters the average in RF exposure, and its variation... at the level of the planets "climate generator" ?
Maybe "global warming"... is caused by our use of electricity grids and telecommunications ? LOL!!!
Of course, the sun is just a star... So, next time you see an anthropogenic global warming advocate saying "we already understand solar influence"... you need to recognize not just that that is a lie, first because they don't understand the sun, or the linkages between our star, its outputs, and our planet and its systems, but, also because it has them claiming they "understand how stars work"...
The mystery of the North Star: Astronomers baffled to find Polaris is getting BRIGHTER
dailymail.co.uk
|
