And yes, you can estimate the size of various things affecting climate. And the reality is that for recent decades, the changes from human greenhouse gas emissions are an order of magnitude larger than the net forcing from other changes.
This will be my last response, as you don't seem interested in learning.
There's a lot of reason to think that cosmic rays do impact cloud formation, but very little evidence that long-term changes are a result of cosmic rays. There are several reasons for this:
1. The long-term trend in cosmic rays over the past few decades has been flat, even as the climate has changed a lot
2. The earth's magnetic field means that ionized particles tend to arrive at particular latitudes, so you would expect to see particular patterns of cloud formation depending on latitude. Those don't happen.
3. There wasn't a big change in the climate at the same time as the Laschamp Excursion, when the earth's magnetic field weakened substantially, allowing many more charged particles to hit the atmosphere
Given the fact that there is a supreme court ruling from the Sears days which is in Amazon's favor, I'm really surprised by this.
To help interpret the results, Spencer uses a simple model. But the simple model used by Spencer is too simple
... The model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave.
Clouds mainly occur because of weather systems (e.g., warm air rises and produces convection, and so on); they do not cause the weather systems.
The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. ), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers.
What this country needs is a dime that will buy a good five-cent bagel.