No, it isn't.
Nope. True.
No, it's not.
Every climate scientist knows that already and have done for at least 100+ years.
I should hope so. In any case, I wasn't claiming climate scientists didn't know that...in fact, I hadn't mentioned climate scientists at all.
But you've brought them into it, so let's see...
You're saying climate scientists know the sun is the primary driver of climate, and have known that for 100+ years. So
why are they futzing around with secondary, minute effects from atmospheric trace gases? A tiny fraction of a percent change in solar luminance would have far more drastic consequences on climate than any possible greenhousing or other atmospheric(and thus secondary, at most) conditions. The difference is so great, they should never have begun really looking at terrestrial mechanisms until they had a firm grasp on the solar ones....a grasp which they most decidedly don't have. Claim "that's false" all you want, but it is true. Solar science is all observation, no pontification...because we don't know enough about it to pontificate with credibility, yet.
So, having almost no understanding of Solar cycles and "solar climate" as it were, it makes absolutely no difference if "every climate scientist has known for 100+ years" that the Sun is the primary driver of climate, or if every climate scientist was actually completely unaware of the existence of such a thing as the Sun--either way, it wouldn't go into their precious models.
Which means they've been trying to model a dynamic system
without taking into account the primary source of energy for that system.
So yeah.
That's not gonna work. Extrapolating from such models is about as scientific and reliable as faith-healing, except that faith-healing actually works, sometimes.
All in all, it's actually worse, not better, that "every climate scientist has known for 100+ years" that the Sun is the primary driver. That means they are knowingly pushing garbage data.
Not most but many. Variations in many other known things of the past including the Sun and solar system astronomy easily explain almost all shifts in the past climates quite well. Science builds upon itself - errors and misunderstandings are culled as new data and knowledge comes to hand. That is the case for modern AGW/CC as well as for major shifts in paleoclimate of the past. Yes, oddly enough to some, the scientists involved in modern climate science know about all this accumulated knowledge and include it in their own research and literature where appropriate. They also read other scientific papers and speak with each other outside their particular field. And they know all about the Sun and it's influence on earth's climate.
Again, it is one thing to know about the influence, and another thing entirely to have the knowledge and understanding necessary to
model that influence precisely enough such that accurate(repeat,
accurate) predictions can be made.
What is happening today is unprecedented. The current drivers of AGW/CC since 1850 are not the same as they were in the past. However, the laws of physics and chemistry have not changed one bit.
...and mankind's grasp on those laws changes by the day. Fortunately for you, the implications of that can be successfully unrealized. What fun!
I'm disappointed that you entirely ignored my closing paragraph. Disappointed, but not surprised.
Oh well. You said "the current drivers of AGW/CC since 1850 are not the same as they were in the past."
That statement is hilariously incorrect in my opinion, as well as being actually impossible to determine given the current state of understanding of climate.
Even so, let's take it as given, a hypothetical. Are the older, permanent, longterm historical drivers not still there, underneath this new massive anthro-influence? Of course they are.
Let's then say you get to implement all the measures and controls you people want to implement in order to "stop climate change". Let's further assume that these measures and controls actually work as advertised(a huge stretch on the ol' credulity-meter, I know, but bear with me), such that eventually mankind has little to no influence on the climate whatsoever. That means mankind also has little to no energy output and/or ability to shape his surroundings.
That also means, those old, longtimer drivers of Climate are back in charge. So climate continues to change. Eventually, it becomes catastrophic, like it has so many times in the past. Mankind has no ability to do anything about it, having hobbled himself in order to protect the climate from being destroyed.
So the climate, and mankind, are destroyed. Win!! High-fives all around.
Its sort of like fleeing to the rear car in a runaway train, hunkering down, and cowering there. You put the most possible distance between yourself and the inevitable crash, but you'll still be in the crash and will most likely perish.
Perhaps a better strategy would be to run to the
front of the train and attempt to get control of it.