Deer in the Headlights

[LP]

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-...te-change/

(noting NASA of course will down play the implications and keep on with the AGW narrative)

NASA doesn't have to downplay anything, because GSM isn't a measure of fluence(the total solar flux over time). GSM(Grand Solar Minimum) is primarily a measure of general solar/sunspot activity, a longer term version of the Suns regular 11 year cycle.

Even Wikipedia gets GSM right, I don't think NASA has anything to worry about being proven wrong by skeptics! ;D

It's uniformed skeptics who attached a significant effect to the GSM in an effort to explain climate change. Confusing and erroneously referencing things like the GSM and Maunder Minimum to "explain" why the Earth was cooler then and hotter now. I gather they erroneously think "Grand Solar Minimum" means something significant in regards to fluence.

[img width=450]https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/1897/[/img]

Of course basic analysis of the data shows the total fluence varies by less than 0.1%, about +/- 1W around an average fluence of 1360W/m² (1/1360 x 100 = 0.07%). You know the mysterious yellow scale on the left of the graph above, which I think some crazy people call the Y-Axis, it's a scale apparently!

While Earth's aphelion(furthest from Sun) and perihelion(closest to Sun) position contributes a +/- 3% change in total fluence yearly, you know more scales and logarithms! ;D

Assuming skeptics accept that the Earth does travel around the Sun in a ellipse and that it's not flat.

Of course if Earth is flat then forget everything I said! :o

So is the skeptics failure to accept primary school math deliberate wilful ignorance, pure stupidity, or perhaps Dunning-Kruger at work again?