Lockwood & Fröhlich don’t consider the effect of the vast ocean heat sink on temperature variations.
Florida hotel owners know that if it was sunny two weeks ago but cold today, their open-air pools will be warm. And vice versa. That’s a small-scale version of the ocean heatsink at work.
The ocean heatsink effect is a real effect that buffers insolation change - it can’t be left out of any exploration of insolation forcing.
More pertinently perhaps: there is no way to explain the sinusoidal variance of global climate over (say) the last 2000 years without reference to insolation change. Insolation (including the modulation of the Milankovith cycle) is the only theory that fits all the facts
Among all of the responses to this(citing other studies with more directly linked data), the most cogent response to this balderdash was contained in this statement...
Gee I wonder why scientists receiving millions in government grants continually espouse ideas that give the government tremendous power?
If the "scientific community" is in agreement that the sun isn't the primary cause, I sure as hell didn't get the memo...
BTW, Geophysical Review also published a work concluding that solar output had increased 0.05% per decade since at least the 70's.
And furthermore, any given period you look to where the planet was any appreciable amount warmer than now shows that the profusion of life, biomass and arable land was FAR greater than now. You might have some backup if you go all the way back to the Permian, but all the freakin' continents were in one place then...
Is this just "made up"???
