1. For solar wind to relate to global warming then solar wind would have to show a long term trend, as tristanc has said. You have shown us papers that point to 2, 27 and up to 800 day cycles. No trend.
And the science has been talking about this stuff since the 1970's and earlier.
There is absolutely zero evidence that the solar wind has anything to do with global warming over the last 100 years. No matter how much you repeat otherwise. You make zero sense.
2. You then argue that the science is not settled on the last 100 years of global temperatures and that it is only an assumption that global temperatures are accurate.
a) Which argument do you want jopo, that solar wind causes global warming, or that global warming isn't happening? You are irrationally inconsistent if those are your points.
b) You have presented no argument for 'many papers and proxies that cast doubt'' on sciences evidence for the global temperature trend. You have solely posted a bunch of cherry picks, and ignore overall global data. You ignore that science adjustments to the temperature record to address instrument, heat island, location change and other effects actually cools the warming trend overall, not creates it. You have put no coherent evidence that the global temperature datasets are false.
3. If you simply waving your hands saying maybe there is something about the solar wind that casts doubt on the science, then you demonstrated otherwise. You've posted on 50+ years of study on solar wind and it's effects and none of those explain global warming or contradict it.
4. And on water vapour, you have consistently failed to understand even the difference between relative and specific humidity and have provided absolutely zero evidence that water vapour in the atmosphere has not increased. And while measurement of that is challenging, the science has shown evidence that water vapour has increased, as expected. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html https://phys.org/news/2014-07-vapor-global-amplifier.html
But we've been through all this before and your willful blinkers remain firmly on.
5. There is nothing you have posted where you have demonstrated any evidence that climate science has any significant aspect of this wrong to the extent that would negate expectations of global warming with greenhouse gas emissions. There are elements where there is uncertainty in the science, such as the difference between observations and models on the expected impact on diurnal temperature, but your implication that these negate the science overall is simply hyperbolic denial fantasy. And on diurnal temperatures there are already lines of work explaining what is going on and why models and observations differ. We could go on, but a gish gallop of jopo's unsubstantiated climate claims doesn't deserve anything more than dismissal. You have made no coherent case for any of your 'arguments'.
