Global Warming

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey, as usual you lose the salient points in your fanatical fervor about warming? Its like te babblings of an infant.

I'm sorry, are we talking about your posts again?
Let us analyse how flawed your thinking is, and highlight once more how uneducated you are in climate science.

Quote by: xyzer I haven't referred to exact temperature reconstuctions because using proxy sources is ridiculous except to cimate modelers?

Palaeoclimatology is a different department to climate modelling (which try to predict the future!). Why is using proxy sources to reconstruct past temperatures ridiculous? Do you have a more precise method? I've asked before but you've never answered me.

Quote by: xyzer The very term you use (temperature reconstructions) puts me on guard? An Ice Core in Greenland doesn't give us any accuracy close to even 1 degree in the annuls of antiquity.In actuality it refes to a trend. I refer to a period of warming in an area rather than using temperature measurements in degrees? You and the climate gloom followers are the ones worrying about LESS than 1 degreeof temperature rise or fall?

See, here you're mixing up temperature fluctuations in a local area and global area. Have you actually looked at any other data, specifically for the global and hemispheric part?
Again, I'd highlight the fact that you're not reading my posts; no one has predict doom & gloom over a 1 C rise, but the project 3 to 5 degrees C over the next century. Please do not incorrectly attribute things to me when they're not true, this is the second time for this particular point that I've had to ask you.

Quote by: xyzer As if you can even measure what hppened a thousand years ago accurately?

No, you can't, hence you must use proxy sources to work out what they are. The degree of error is given in the original papers and validated methods will have sufficient confidence to yield usable results. Furthermore, we also have different methods combined to increase precision (Tree rings, Ice cores, sediments et cetera).

Quote by: xyzer Your reconstuctions are illogical and unproven as are those of the climate modelers.

On who's authority? These are peer reviewed and validated data which the NOAA has produced/uses. Do you claim to know more than they do about Palaeoclimatology? Clutching at straws comes to mind!

Quote by: xyzer They havent(and can't) predict the natural nfluences that are the major drivers of climate change...plus their models have been overtaken by subsequent and much more accurate measurements of temps?

You seem to be throwing around questions together in hopes of scoring points!
Let's see, here you're saying that the techniques used to reconstruct past temperatures should be able to predict natural influences? How the heck does that follow? Palaeoclimatology is based on piecing together the past, which is completely different from to modelling future climate! How exactly can these reconstructions be made obsolete (overtaken) when there is no other way to find out past temperatures?
You are just spewing crap, it doesn't make any sense!

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Here is the latest in the sensationalizing press! Ever ready to jump on any bit of sensational hype?Exclusive: No ice at the North Pole - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent Notice the liberal sprinkling of temporizers in this screed. e.g. "may well", "If it happens","seasonal polar scientists believe", etc. The very title is misleading..." No ice at the North Pole"? Wanna bet that is not true? This is mostly conjecture and has nothing to do with scientific inquiry and yet the mainstream media and Pooey will run with it?

Xyzer, have you ever seen me post any article regarding global warming with a title like that? I am not the press, I cannot control what they write. Their job is to sell papers and get readers, hence the need for flashy titles, that has always been the case.
Going by your logic, should I be able to cite anything an AGW denier has posted and say that you think the same?
No, I don't think so, because I don't have to stoop so low in order to win a debate.

[Jack]

Could we stick to the topic and drop the personal remarks?

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[xyzer]

Here is a great example of the rigid orthodoxy of the climate doom believers...

On who's authority? These are peer reviewed and validated data which the NOAA has produced/uses.

Yes they may be peer reviewed but they(the antiquated models) contain estimates, proxy climate data and an element of uncertainty because they iterate data that is hypothetical? We have no way of knowing what the sun is going to do in future times nor many of the important natural elements involved in climate change? We don't even know how much of the most influential sun blocking agent(the oceans humidity and cloud cover) will occur in the future? You omit or cant produce any recent studies that take the cooling into consideration? You just spout the political rant of the UN? Data can be verified but that doesn't lend it truthfulness or certainty?

Have you seen a recent study based on the decade of global cooling we are experiencing Pooey, or are you ignoring the one I posted above which noted the lack of sun spots and equated it to the maunder minimum that caused a global cooling some centuries back? Remember science is dynamic and changes over time as new information and facts are revealed. We certainly don't know all there is to know about natural influences and we certainly haven't seen proof that humans contribute to climate change? Thats why even the UN uses terms like "likely", "may", "can", and other qualifiers which emphasize uncertainty.. The press is not so careful?
I hasten to add the attempt to link human generated CO2 to warming is a result of flawed correlation and still not proved.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Here is a great example of the rigid orthodoxy of the climate doom believers...

There is little doom and gloom, except from yourself who believes that spending 1% of annual GDP will break our economy.

Quote by: xyzer Yes they may be peer reviewed but they(the antiquated models) contain estimates, proxy climate data and an element of uncertainty because they iterate data that is hypothetical?

Again, I will point out that the IPCC reviewed the most up to date papers from around the world, can you show me a report which is more comprehensive? Anything nearly as extensive as theirs?

Quote by: xyzer We have no way of knowing what the sun is going to do in future times nor many of the important natural elements involved in climate change?

You say this but just in the next paragraph after you mention about Maunder minimum which is clearly a pattern/cycle that occurs over 30 years! So then, we do have some way of knowing what the sun is going to do in the future?

Quote by: xyzer We don't even know how much of the most influential sun blocking agent(the oceans humidity and cloud cover) will occur in the future?

Water vapour is part of the feedback component, it's lifetime in the atmosphere is limited (it returns to land via rain etc).

Quote by: xyzer You omit or cant produce any recent studies that take the cooling into consideration? You just spout the political rant of the UN? Data can be verified but that doesn't lend it truthfulness or certainty?

I haven't omitted anything, no true study can verify a possible cooling trend based on the limited amount of the data we have; this decade hasn't even ended yet!

Quote by: xyzer Have you seen a recent study based on the decade of global cooling we are experiencing Pooey, or are you ignoring the one I posted above which noted the lack of sun spots and equated it to the maunder minimum that caused a global cooling some centuries back?

I will point out once more that there is no true global cooling currently, what we are seeing is a plateau of warming due to the counteracting of La Nina effect, this is widely acknowledged and has been mentioned many times. Furthermore, I have already cited several times that all recent studies trying to correlate warming of the last few decades to solar activity (with precise satellite measurements) have found no such link. Do I need to cite it again?

Quote by: xyzer Remember science is dynamic and changes over time as new information and facts are revealed. We certainly don't know all there is to know about natural influences and we certainly haven't seen proof that humans contribute to climate change? Thats why even the UN uses terms like "likely", "may", "can", and other qualifiers which emphasize uncertainty.. The press is not so careful?

Once again, you contradict yourself; you talk about how science is dynamic (very true) but then go on to basically complain that the IPCC has used cautious terms in their scientific report. Please make up your mind!

Quote by: xyzer I hasten to add the attempt to link human generated CO2 to warming is a result of flawed correlation and still not proved.

That's your assessment but it does not reflect those of the rest of the scientific community. You are entitled to your opinion but don't expect others to accept it, especially when all you have are misleading information, flawed interpretations and denial.

[Georgia]

Will the human-caused global warming hoax really cause an economic boom?

Some 50,000 fewer passengers are expected to use Amsterdam Schiphol airport, one of Europe's busiest, this summer on account of a Dutch environmental tax on flights

Tax means fewer travellers at main Dutch airport: report

This won't be the last of this nonsense.

On the other hand we all like clean air to breathe and renewable recources, and came across this news item:
U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects for 2 years citing "environmental studies"

See, there they go again. Can't burn coal, Can't build reactors, Can't drill for oil. Can't do anything for "Environmentalism" reasons. Not even in midst of an energy crisis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/us...lPeZjUQ9eAnpfg

Solar activity:

The sun provides heat in the form of radiation for the entire solar system, while global alarmists claim it has nothing to do with varying planet temperatures.

That's like saying that my house isn't getting hotter because the fact that I've raised the thermostat setting, instead for some theory.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Georgia Solar activity: The sun provides heat in the form of radiation for the entire solar system, while global alarmists claim it has nothing to do with varying planet temperatures. That's like saying that my house isn't getting hotter because the fact that I've raised the thermostat setting, instead for some theory.

Let's address this point, do you have any evidence that the recent increased warming is due to variation in solar activity? With your analogy, it means that you must have evidence to support that solar activity has increased correspondingly to increase the warming. Or is that just an assumption?

Energy crisis? Hardly, we've got the technology to move on to more efficient and renewable sources. Did you really think that our current rate of consumption was sustainable? Short term wise, it's going to cost investment; just like when you change to double glazing or better roof insulation, the cost for more efficient will pay itself back in the long term.

[xyzer]

Careful Pooey, your facts and logic are faulty?

You say this but just in the next paragraph after you mention about Maunder minimum which is clearly a pattern/cycle that occurs over 30 years! So then, we do have some way of knowing what the sun is going to do in the future?

Please prove to us that the Maunder minimum has occured every 30 years since the medieval warming period? Here is a reference which you could have at least consulted before putting you foot in your mouth?
Maunder Minimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I fear your lack of knowledge about this subject is begining to show itself? You refuse to answer my questions about why the earths temps are cooling in the last few years while CO2 emissions are going up? You even deny that measurements have showed a slow down of warming and in fact a cooling? Pass actual measurements off as not having gone a full decade or deny them entirely. You ignore the recent scientific information about sun spots which I posted...http://www.volconvo.com/forums/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=12189 and respond to Georgia post by saying there is no evidence of any varying sun influence? You overlook the fact that the sun is a natural factor and unpredictable plus the fact that science is dynamic and theories change as we accumulate more information?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Careful Pooey, your facts and logic are faulty? Please prove to us that the Maunder minimum has occured every 30 years since the medieval warming period? Here is a reference which you could have at least consulted before putting you foot in your mouth? Maunder Minimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My apologies, I did misread that part, the cycle is likely to be many times bigger. However, as we do not have a complete set of data, it is unlikely we can accurately say. Do you intend to infer that a Maunder Maximum is the cause of the majority of the warming?
However, what we do know is that the solar activity has not increased over the last 50 years or so. We may not know what it will do in precisely in the future, but we can be sure that it isn't the likely cause of the recent increased warming.

Quote by: xyzer I fear your lack of knowledge about this subject is begining to show itself? You refuse to answer my questions about why the earths temps are cooling in the last few years while CO2 emissions are going up?

We've been through this multiple times, recently we've experienced strong La Nina effects, this is well documented and has counteracted the warming. It is well known that over factors can overwhelm CO2 forcing, this has never been in contention.

Quote by: xyzer You even deny that measurements have showed a slow down of warming and in fact a cooling? Pass actual measurements off as not having gone a full decade or deny them entirely.

The measurements show a plateau in the warming, I've already cited an article where they say that due to the strong La Nina effect, it is expected to temporarily counteract the warming. You know this because we've covered this before many, many times.

Quote by: xyzer You ignore the recent scientific information about sun spots which I posted...http://www.volconvo.com/forums/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=12189 and respond to Georgia post by saying there is no evidence of any varying sun influence?

Your first link is not functional. At any rate, I base my statement on what the scientists have discovered so far.

Quote by: xyzer You overlook the fact that the sun is a natural factor and unpredictable plus the fact that science is dynamic and theories change as we accumulate more information?

No, I haven't. Hence, I agree with the cautious language used by the IPCC in their report, the same cautious language that you condemned as a lack of certainty or lack of confidence.
So, are you claiming that we should just wait for many centuries to study the cycles of the sun and then decide whether global warming is anthropogenic? Do you not think that the rest of the scientist community would've thought about this? That, only you, the mighty Xyzer could've imagined that the Sun might be the prime mover behind this global warming? If it is, then find evidence to prove it!!

[xyzer]

Appreciate you admission Pooey. That is fair in any discusiion.
By the way I read your reference in Real Climate and note it supports the uncertainty in the suns irradiance I had mentioned. It also reenforces my doubts about proxies( ice cores differ markedly in the Arctic and Antarctic) as any measure of Global Temps? It re enforces my doubts about human influences on global warming. We just don't contribute that much to the earths atmosphere? CO2 is about 1% and natural factors contribute most of that. We contribute a fraction of that 1%?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Appreciate you admission Pooey. That is fair in any discusiion. By the way I read your reference in Real Climate and note it supports the uncertainty in the suns irradiance I had mentioned.

Well, no one can vouch for what the sun might do the future but we've got a pretty clear picture from the last few hundred years that it shouldn't vary significantly when compared to the increased warming we've seen.

Quote by: xyzer It also reenforces my doubts about proxies( ice cores differ markedly in the Arctic and Antarctic) as any measure of Global Temps?

Global temperatures are calculated from variety of sources. Furthermore, how does this article re-enforce that opinion when it talks about tracing solar activity?

Quote by: xyzer It re enforces my doubts about human influences on global warming. We just don't contribute that much to the earths atmosphere? CO2 is about 1% and natural factors contribute most of that. We contribute a fraction of that 1%?

Again, I'll point out the fact that 80% of the atmosphere, for example, is Nitrogen which has negligible thermal forcing. So saying that CO2 is less than 1% of Earth's atmosphere is close to meaningless as it is not in context with what is important. Amongst the greenhouse gases, CO2 provides roughly 20% of the thermal forcing, so an increase from 280ppm to 380ppm in less than 2 centuries is bound to have some effect, wouldn't you say? But again, I am just repeating myself...over and over.

[xyzer]

Amongst the greenhouse gases, CO2 provides roughly 20% of the thermal forcing, so an increase from 280ppm to 380ppm in less than 2 centuries is bound to have some effect, wouldn't you say? But again, I am just repeating myself...over and over.

And I too keep repeating myself...Does'nt there have to be a variation in the suns irradiance coming into the earths atmosphere before we can have 'forcing"? The study I just posted about sun spots is a good example? Yes there is a forcing effect on radiated heat but the heating or cooling of the surface is directly related to the suns varying radiance!
Thus the sun is the dominent natural factor because it heats or cools not only the surface but also the oceans which in turn have a dramtic effect on global climate.
You and the IPCC are hung up on forcing which I repeat is caused by a very small portion of the atmospheric content. So hung up that you forget what really heats the earth and its mostly liquid content(oceans). I don't deny that the forcing affect is there. I do deny that humans can control their energy use and affect global climate very much at all. The natural forces are the prime drivers and the forcing affect minimal...and we supply only a small fraction of the CO2 involved in the forcing affect?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer And I too keep repeating myself...Does'nt there have to be a variation in the suns irradiance coming into the earths atmosphere before we can have 'forcing"? The study I just posted about sun spots is a good example? Yes there is a forcing effect on radiated heat but the heating or cooling of the surface is directly related to the suns varying radiance!

Hence, we have had scientists study the change in solar variability, which, as I cited above has not changed enough to be the likely cause of global warming.

Quote by: xyzer Thus the sun is the dominent natural factor because it heats or cools not only the surface but also the oceans which in turn have a dramtic effect on global climate.

Correct, but if the sun is a relatively constant variable, or its variation cannot account of the majority of the warming, what then? Solar variability so far does not account for the majority of the global warming, if it did we wouldn't be having this debate!

Quote by: xyzer You and the IPCC are hung up on forcing which I repeat is caused by a very small portion of the atmospheric content. So hung up that you forget what really heats the earth and its mostly liquid content(oceans). I don't deny that the forcing affect is there. I do deny that humans can control their energy use and affect global climate very much at all. The natural forces are the prime drivers and the forcing affect minimal...and we supply only a small fraction of the CO2 involved in the forcing affect?

But we know that about the sun's contribution, we can account for it. The IPCC has acknowledged that the Sun's variability is likely to have contributed partially to warming in the last century. However, where has the rest of that increase come from? If it isn't the source of the energy then it must be the greenhouse gases that retains it, thus the thermal forcing of these gases are important.
Again, I will point out that though small in concentration, CO2 contributes roughly 20% of the total greenhouse effect. It would be a very nice and simple explanation for everyone if it was simply the sun turning up the heat, but all the data says that it has stayed relatively stable, certainly not enough to account for the majority of the warming. So what is causing this increased warming if it isn't the sun?

[xyzer]

Pooey..this from the reference you posted?

Over the past century, Earth's average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change, according to computer modeling results published by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies researcher David Rind in 2004. Earth's climate depends on the delicate balance between incoming solar radiation, outgoing thermal radiation and the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Even small changes in these parameters can affect climate. Around 30 percent of the solar energy that strikes Earth is reflected back into space. Clouds, atmospheric aerosols, snow, ice, sand, ocean surface and even rooftops play a role in deflecting the incoming rays. The remaining 70 percent of solar energy is absorbed by land, ocean, and atmosphere.

According to the models
greenhouse gases are said to block40% of the 30% reflected. We don't know how much of that is blocked by CO2. We do know that CO2 represents about 1% of atmospheric gas. And we do postulate that humans contribute only some small fraction of that 1%? Most of it comes from the ocean which warms and cools from the suns radiance. We do also know that other atmospheric gases have an even greater effect than CO2(humiidity and cloud cover) We are not told how much these other gases affect solar reflectivity of radiance?

The sun is relatively calm compared to other stars. "We don't know what the sun is going to do a hundred years from now," said Doug Rabin, a solar physicist at Goddard. "It could be considerably more active and therefore have more influence on Earth's climate." Or, it could be calmer, creating a cooler climate on Earth similar to what happened in the late 17th century. Almost no sunspots were observed on the sun's surface during the period from 1650 to 1715. This extended absence of solar activity may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe and may reflect cyclic or irregular changes in the sun's output over hundreds of years. During this period, winters in Europe were longer and colder by about 1C than they are today.

Almost no sunspots are currently observed?

What we also don't know is whether humans reducing CO2 will have a measureable affect on climate warming? Yes there are 3 or4 nations which contribute higher levels of CO2, but we don't know how having them cut back on energy use will be a successsful or even possible tactic...because we don't know what the future brings in solar radiance?
We are following a path based on an improbable, unproven, correlation betwee human energy use and climate warming.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey..this from the reference you posted? According to the models greenhouse gases are said to block 40% of the 30% reflected. We don't know how much of that is blocked by CO2.

Although we don't know precisely, due to the complexity of the issue, we do have sufficient data to say that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas.

Quote by: xyzer We do know that CO2 represents about 1% of atmospheric gas.

Less than that actually, if it's about 380 ppm.

Quote by: xyzer And we do postulate that humans contribute only some small fraction of that 1%?

No, we do not postulate, we have sufficient evidence to support that claim that we have increased it from 280ppm to 380ppm.

Quote by: xyzer Most of it comes from the ocean which warms and cools from the suns radiance.

Yes, but this means that there is no net increase in CO2 because it emits and absorbs regularly so long as the sun and ocean currents remain relatively constant.

Quote by: xyzer We do also know that other atmospheric gases have an even greater effect than CO2(humiidity and cloud cover).

But water vapour is more of a feedback component. Technical stuff

Quote by: xyzer We are not told how much these other gases affect solar reflectivity of radiance?

In plain English please? You mean something like this? Or you can refer to the link before this for more info.

Quote by: xyzer Almost no sunspots are currently observed?

Well then, this might be another factor which will/has counteracted any warming due to increased CO2 levels.

Quote by: xyzer What we also don't know is whether humans reducing CO2 will have a measureable affect on climate warming? Yes there are 3 or4 nations which contribute higher levels of CO2, but we don't know how having them cut back on energy use will be a successsful or even possible tactic...because we don't know what the future brings in solar radiance? We are following a path based on an improbable, unproven, correlation betwee human energy use and climate warming.

Would you like to play Russian roulette and hope that the sun will reduce its solar output? All major research has found that the most likely explanation for our increased warming is due to rising CO2 levels, this is backed up collectively agreements from all major scientific organisations. Do you honestly believe that the majority of governments in the world seek to ruin themselves with tackling climate change?
Basically, we in the developed countries have little to fear, we have sufficient technology to weather the changes; if there's more drought we'll build more canals or reservoirs et cetera. But what about those less able? Or the wildlife that can't adapt fast enough?

[xyzer]

Only one trouble with your graph Pooey. It contains only those elements that contribute to forcing? Haven't we just agreed that the suns incoming heat(which is not constant) has the major and direct affect on how much the earth and its oceans warm? You can't have 'forcing' without first having heating? Except in a dream world? Or is that in the world of some who want to rationalize the danger of CO2 increases?

This one puzzles me too..

Yes, but this means that there is no net increase in CO2 because it emits and absorbs regularly so long as the sun and ocean currents remain relatively constant

Thats fallacious because CO2 does not permanently stay completely in the atmosphere. It decreases with altitude and some of it escapes. And we also know that plants produce a carbon sink(use CO2 in their growth) I've seen no indication that forests and oceanic carbon sinks are static and never change? An earth devoid of plant life might produce major increases in CO2 and a lort less oxygen,but that aint the way the system works. Perhaps you can give us an answer to that one?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Only one trouble with your graph Pooey. It contains only those elements that contribute to forcing?

There are also bars for negative forcing (aerosols, surface albedo), I'm sure what else of significance that has not been included?

Quote by: xyzer Haven't we just agreed that the suns incoming heat(which is not constant) has the major and direct affect on how much the earth and its oceans warm? You can't have 'forcing' without first having heating? Except in a dream world? Or is that in the world of some who want to rationalize the danger of CO2 increases?

Haven't we also gone through the fact that even taken into account of solar variability, it cannot explain for the majority of the warming seen in the last century? If the sun's output has increased sufficiently to explain the approx. 0.6% rise, then please show me the data.

Quote by: xyzer This one puzzles me too.. Thats fallacious because CO2 does not permanently stay completely in the atmosphere. It decreases with altitude and some of it escapes.

Well, I don't disagree with that statement but I think we're making it a bit too complicated here! Let's not split hairs till we've pinned down the basics!

Quote by: xyzer And we also know that plants produce a carbon sink(use CO2 in their growth) I've seen no indication that forests and oceanic carbon sinks are static and never change? An earth devoid of plant life might produce major increases in CO2 and a lort less oxygen,but that aint the way the system works. Perhaps you can give us an answer to that one?

I think you've misunderstood my comment. I said that there was no net change due to these processes so long as all other factors remain relatively constant (key point there, I am well aware that major natural events can change this, but those can be charted and accounted for). I know that during the cycle of seasons (oceans warm & cool, plants grow & die) we'll see fluctuations (as seen in the CO2 graph I previously cited from Mauna Loa).

[xyzer]

Pooey...do you realize you are talking in circles?

I think you've misunderstood my comment. I said that there was no net change due to these processes so long as all other factors remain relatively constant (key point there, I am well aware that major natural events can change this, but those can be charted and accounted for). I know that during the cycle of seasons (oceans warm & cool, plants grow & die) we'll see fluctuations (as seen in the CO2 graph I previously cited from Mauna Loa).

You admit that natural events can change climate? And then you suggest that natural factors such as the suns wavering intensity can be forecast or as you say charted? and accounted for?
That is pure nonsense! Climate models don't provide certainty! We can't predict what the sun or Mauna Loa or any other natural influence will do in the future. This includes changes beyond what has bee observed in the past? We know that even minor natural changes have more effect than human generated CO2?
Are you ignoring a scientists statement in a reference recently posted??

"We don't know what the sun is going to do a hundred years from now," said Doug Rabin, a solar physicist at Goddard. "It could be considerably more active and therefore have more influence on Earth's climate."

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey...do you realize you are talking in circles?

Funny, that's exactly what I think of your arguments.

Quote by: xyzer You admit that natural events can change climate?

This has never been in contention, humans have only been here a short amount of time, hence all climate change must have been driven by nature in the past. That does not automatically mean what we do cannot change climate, just as we can cause extinction events, these have always been natural events in the past but we're causing them as we speak.

Quote by: xyzer And then you suggest that natural factors such as the suns wavering intensity can be forecast or as you say charted? and accounted for?

No, I said that if we take the variability of solar activity in the past, into account, it cannot explain all the warming.

Quote by: xyzer That is pure nonsense! Climate models don't provide certainty!

That is an entirely different ball game, you're mixing reconstructions of palaeoclimatology, with climate modelling. Those two are not the same thing!!

Quote by: xyzer We can't predict what the sun or Mauna Loa or any other natural influence will do in the future.

I didn't say we did, I mean, tomorrow we might get hit by an unseen asteroid! But the point is, we can only work with the data we have, which points to increasing temperature rise.

Quote by: xyzer This includes changes beyond what has bee observed in the past? We know that even minor natural changes have more effect than human generated CO2?

But the fact is, these minor changes cannot explain the majority of temperature increase of the last century.

Quote by: xyzer Are you ignoring a scientists statement in a reference recently posted??

Nope, I have not ignored it, what I have said is entirely consistent. Saying that a variable may change significantly does not automatically invalidate the significance of another variable.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: The Architect What do you guys think about this and what could be done, short and long term?

Nothing that matters, and I'm very skeptical about the findings that you quote. However those upon the left side of the political spectrum have decided that the GW problem is an American problem and they have taken very effective steps to destroy the American economy.

Without cheap, usable petroleum derived fuels our economy cannot survive. As it falls so will our live styles. The change, which we are already seeing bits of, will be dramatic. This is a victory for Democrats and they revel in it I'm sure.

While there is a solution for this problem, because of inactivity in our congress over the last 30 or so years, nothing has been done, and we all knew that this day was coming. The cure is a long way off. We are about to do some big time suffering. I'm a little upset about our governments history of failure.