"Start with the major ones and work down the list." What makes you think we even have the full "list"?? I don't think we even know what all the SOURCES of warming are.
Here's some science: 1)the sun's magnetic field has doubled in the time humankind has been able to make measurements, 2) the earth moves around the sun within said field, 3)many systems on earth are conductors (oceans, magma, etc.), 4)a conductor moving in a magnetic field generates an electric current.
Where, in the models, is the energy that enters the earth's energy balance from the above mechanism accounted for?? Physics says energy has to be generated, and it has to go somewhere. How much, and where??
This is a source of energy that has precisely nothing to do with what happens to the photons from the sun that happen to intersect the earth.
"Which pretty graphic are you referring to? Is the Australian Meteorological Organization a sector of the global conspiracy?"
Post 95 "National Climate Dataa Center/NESDS/NOAA" ain't the "Australian meteoroligical Organization", but it seems to me that the Aussies and New Zeland climate "scientists" are having problems of their own, with "adjusted" data. So the answer is probably yes, anyway.
What makes you think we even have the full "list"?? I don't think we even know what all the SOURCES of warming are.I didn't say sources of warming, did I? I thought I said forcings. Sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere are a forcing; negatively (i.e., cooling).
What else could there be?
Here's some science: 1)the sun's magnetic field has doubled in the time humankind has been able to make measurements, 2) the earth moves around the sun within said field, 3)many systems on earth are conductors (oceans, magma, etc.), 4)a conductor moving in a magnetic field generates an electric current.
Even if that's a source of energy, I'm not sure it's a radiative forcing.
Post 95 [actually 92] "National Climate Dataa Center/NESDIS/NOAA" ain't the "Australian meteoroligical Organization", but it seems to me that the Aussies and New Zeland climate "scientists" are having problems of their own, with "adjusted" data. So the answer is probably yes, anyway.
Poor impression. If you're talking about Darwin Zero, that's a hash.
Thanks for bringing up a number of subjects that required references for explanation. I'm glad to see that the references I needed are still there, and a few new ones. I appreciate your efforts.