Den stora tråden om global uppvärmning/växthuseffekten

Här är ju bara en variabel.

GCR och UV

Du gav en kurva som i princip enbart är negativ, med ett högsta positiva värde strax över 0, och anger att det är "TSI"... Men du anger inte någon enhet, och du anger inte vilken storhet x-axeln representerar. TSI är normalt ca 1366 W/m². Jag får väl anta att du använder samma enhet, och att x-axeln representerar tid på något vis.

Hela "uppgiften" känns som nonsens, men min gissning får väl bli att planetens temperatur kommer att tangera en bråkdel av en Kelvin under de två små topparna över 0. De negativa delarna av kurvan får jag väl anta representerar när solen har expanderat och slukat jorden, så att jorden är en del av solen, och sänder ut solstrålning. Solstrålning lämnar då planeten och skulle då kunna sägas representeras av negativ "Total Solar Insolation".



Det är ju hypotesen om att moln moduleras av GCR jag diskuterat genomgående i tråden, baserat på Svensmark. Sedan har jag på senare tid skrivit om UV baserat på Vinos hypotes om utstrålning i arktis, som jag också försökt diskutera (utan framgång).

Är du dement?
Det skulle förklara varför diskussionen ständigt börjar om från 0.

Climate change denial

The Heritage Foundation rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.[150][151] The foundation is one of many climate change denial organizations that have been funded by ExxonMobil, an oil and petroleum company that is the eighth-largest corporation in the world with over $413 billion in revenue as of 2022.[150][152]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

While his personal website notes that his research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies and not oil companies, he does have a leadership role in groups with financial ties to Big Oil. They include:

* George C. Marshall Institute. Spencer currently serves as a director at the George C. Marshall Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit that receives substantial funding from oil and gas interests -- including Exxon

(...)

* Cornwall Alliance. Spencer is a member of the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance, a conservative Christian public-policy group that promotes a free-market approach to environmental stewardship and whose "Resisting the Green Dragon" campaign portrays the climate-protection movement as a sort of false religion. The Cornwall Alliance has close ties to a conservative policy group called the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which has received over $580,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998

(...)

* Encounter Books. Spencer is the author of three books critical of mainstream climate science: Climate Confusion, published in 2008, and The Great Global Warming Blunder and The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama's Global Warming Agenda, both released last year. All of those works were published by Encounter Books, which is a project of the conservative nonprofit Encounter for Culture and Education. That group's major funders include the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, which in turn is controlled by one of the owners of Kansas-based Koch Industries

(...)

* Tech Central Station. Spencer served as a columnist and a member of the science roundtable for Tech Central Station. Until 2006, TCS was run by DCI Group, a lobbying and public-relations firm that has represented ExxonMobil.

Bottom lines

One final point. I don’t criticize Spencer (and Christy before him) because of any tribal or personal animosity, but rather it is because appropriate comparisons between models and observations are the only way to see what we need to work on and where there are remaining problems. The key word is ‘appropriate’ – if that isn’t done we risk overfitting on poorly constrained observations, or looking in the wrong places for where the issues may lie. Readers may recall that we showed that a broader exploration of the structural variations in the models (including better representations of the stratosphere and ozone effects, not included in the McKtrick and Christy selection), can make a big difference to these metrics (Casas et al., 2022).

Spencer’s shenanigans are designed to mislead readers about the likely sources of any discrepancies and to imply that climate modelers are uninterested in such comparisons – and he is wrong on both counts.