There is no evidence that solar forcing is significant for climate change.

"All of the modelling conducted over the last 20 years has shown that solar changes do have a discernible affect on the climate of the last 100 years, but that those changes are typically very small compared to those associated with increasing greenhouse gases."

http://theconversation.com/theres-always-the-sun-solar-forcing-and-climate-change-1878

This is just another article manufactured to increase doubt about climate change. I wonder who is paying for it?

The key to controlling atmospheric CO2 lies in understanding its relation to the biosphere. This article suggests that rising sea levels could allow salt marshes to store vast amounts of carbon.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47472602

Efforts to fertilise nutrient poor ocean waters might also help. I don't see much sense in all the money being pissed up against a wall on dodgy climate modelling and the frequent calamity bashes attended by our pollies.

There was Japanese research about 3 years ago that found that any increase in atmospheric CO2 was matched by a reduction in atmospheric water vapour. As water vapour is about 5 times as effective a greenhouse gas as CO2, the research classed increasing CO2 as a cooling agent.

The usual suspects, gravy train riders all, jumped on the researchers, & their institution, & disappeared these findings incredibly quickly. They are now so wedded to the cash flow generated by the scam, their world collapses once this type of factual research, rather than bulldust model "research" starts to get through to real people.

The question at the head of the article asks ... "Why are the public generally unaware of the important research that connects variations in the output of the Sun with climate change?"

We were meant to go into an ice age currently, except warming from greenhouse gases has caused Earth's temperatures to increase .. Geologist Dan Britt.
Ice cores provide data about warming and cooling of Earth, cosmic rays, volcanism and sun are not factors.

http://phys.org/news/2019-01-debunking-solar-cyclenorth-atlantic-winter-weather.html

Quote:

"We had a hunch that some of the theories out in the literature were not really robust, so we revisited using four more sophisticated reconstructions of different data farther back in time than what people have done so far, and used reconstructions that go back to the 19th Century, and we see that these correlations go away. These apparent comings and goings of correlation are really due to atmospheric variability, and not the sun" said Chiodo."

Oceans are very warm, it takes a considerable time for them to cool.

http://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8.epdf?referrer_access_token=CaC3iFrPBg-kkAuZwE4xxtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PPM6F5Tw--xUcDaVyo5KYP7_G9gTDd9jkXQCGLmYVcdiHz9wkwN0E6N2nDZlq4WDQgItGi5ylVScf0yzGnaEVfvjiMb4AD29fhh3xQR3z_DrC_cMrTVL7ZhdR6IhWWEdbaBw61pmJWfJX3nlJ6qnYm0eEGF290YDw0L29Qu1D0Zo3ti9EtUV0eTqh8Y9w5-oUx2QwN2d9ZfvrbV8VI76Jac_wGy8vU0HDJC8kZsxCODUxL-v0-LWQnBluUpq-qsDVGV_FnsfWBY3t9eDW5Z4-YAmGWsK7U9CqUBkBPZgcWuym47_1VtxT74CJE_Bl65D2JD9IkLxfX80W9RBKrmEExeZfoxsqBGM592131t1to5g%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com

Quote:

"Our result—which relies on high-precision O2 measurements dating back to 19916—suggests that ocean warming is at the high end of previous estimates, with implications for policy-relevant measurements of the Earth response to climate change, such as climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases7 and the thermal component of sea-level rise8."

Ocean act as a sink for CO2, their capacity to hold CO2 diminishes with warming.

In another article, Harris wrote about jet streams causing the extreme cold conditions in the US.
So, what's going on when two views are posited?

For gods sake Ant, if the sun went out there would be no climate on the planet. Please explain at just what magnitude of output the sun ceases to be in control of our weather.

Hasbeen,
>There was Japanese research about 3 years ago that found that any increase in
>atmospheric CO2 was matched by a reduction in atmospheric water vapour.

So you keep saying, but I notice nobody else is. The fact that the Murdoch Press and the denials bloggers ignored it should be ringing alarm bells for you.

If the findings were as you say they were, and weren't just the result of a calculation error, the denialists would be shouting them from the rooftops. Indeed they'd probably have been shouting them from the rooftops for a while even if it were a calculation error!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Something contradicting simple logic (and all the other scientists as well) is certainly an extraordinary claim. Yet you have no evidence at all; you can't even provide the names of the researchers, let alone a link to the study.

The most likely explanation is that you've misunderstood its conclusion. Maybe you misread a study saying that increased CO2 reduced the amount of water vapour entering the air through transpiration (which is very good news for arid zone farmers as it mitigates the effect of increased drought, but it doesn't prevent CO2 from increasing the amount of water vapour the atmosphere holds).