BUSHY

Lazerguy is perfectly entitled to his opinion and your reply smacks of arrogance. Anyhow, if you read the paper it would appear that they are basing their findings on short burst cosmic incidents and subsequently looking for some sort of instant response. That is not the same scenario as a solar minimum and cannot be compared in my opinion. They are also talking about cosmic rays and do not rule out solar influence, indeed it states that fact and the fact that cloud cover is affected by solar cycles. Dishonest headline at best.

What we have here are two conflicting studies. More work needs to be done before any conclusions can be drawn. The evidence for a significant solar influence is however mounting and we will see what transpires in the short term with regard to the suns recent inactivity. Lag time appears to be about five years and it is possible that we are already seeing the effects.

Oops

We are not looking at up yo date data here. See references to 2006. There is currently a rash of articles out there regurgitating the same old scare tactics. Roo it was not the second warmest year --

I could not have contradicted myself that perfectly if I tried my best.

Would it not be more mature to critique the content instead of dismissing it all out of hand by badmouthing the author and site.

Magpie I have to query your stats for 2007. According to CRU 2007 comes in at 8th place globally and 4th for the northern hemisphere.

GW if you doubt the facts pull up the corresponding graphics for the same period 2007/2008 and compare them. There are various sources not just CT. There is no difference to open water areas this year as compared to any other on balance.

dont panic - the freeze up down south has started early and is way above the mean.

snowing here medium/heavy for last few min.

GW you leave me flabergasted and sorta giggly at the same time. Jeeez!

I do not believe that man has any real influence on climate change and that this is driven primarily by variation in solar activity. We have been experiencing very low solar activity for some time now and this is already having noticeable effects. I predict that the lag period is now over and we will see this trend accelerate rapidly in the short term IE. next few years.

In reply link

3.0 methinks

There are a plethora of possible natural explanations Magpie, any of which could explain all the recent warming. 1. Milankovitch orbital forcing which indicates that we should now be in a warm cycle. 2. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and perhaps the North Atlantic Oscillation. 3. The proven effect of Solar Forcing. 4. The moons influence on ocean water mixing probably related to point 2. 5. Naturally and regularly occurring cycles that have been identified and are probably related to any or all of the above. Anyhow we shall see well before your 20 years which way this is going IMHO. Besides if you do discount natural forcings in climate change then you are going to be hard pressed to explain any reasonable period of flat-lining or temperature fall when are still pumping out CO2.

I do believe that all things considered and the state of the solar output, ssts, cycles etc that we should plateau and then see temp dropping. If not then yes I would reconsider my position -- would you magpie?

If you calculate the mean for that period and then draw a line through you graph it looks a little different. Anyhow this says it better graph

Yup Hiya you are right and I apologise for the attitude thing.

Carbon dioxide is a natural part of our atmosphere and essential for the existence of life forms as we know them, why is it that agw supporters view it as some sort of dirty pollution? Quantum mechanics and lab tests will give a theoretical outcome to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but cannot and do not answer all the questions if any. Why is it then that models based on these theories are not born out in temperature measurements in the upper atmosphere? There are too many unanswered questions to state categorically that agw is fact. :huh: Theoretical modelling and not evidence in any way. Again theory but no proof. Cuts both ways. I would accept agw if I was presented with real proof instead of political hype, exageration and pure hypothesis presented as fact. There is more evidence against than for if one has to be honest.

Fits really well and the trend is clear. The seas take time to warm and cool and then cold or warm upwelling will produce a delayed surface temp response. If you look carefully you can see a delayed response to solar output. Similarly because the solar output has been stable for awhile now global temp rises have now stalled.

Not at all GW there is always a bit of a lag as oceans warm or cool . But I post this graph again.---- Put that against the global temp. record for the same period and what do you get? Yup a very close and scary fit.

1997 0.347 1998 0.526 1999 0.302 2000 0.277 2001 0.406 2002 0.455 2003 0.465 2004 0.444 2005 0.475 2006 0.422 2007 0.423 SF here are the global temp anomalies for the last 10 years. Now the dreaded CO2 has been increasing steadily for this period but global temperatures have not. Its all very well for you to accuse the sceptics of lacking scientific facts and putting forward fallacious arguments but alas I must then accuse the pro-agw community of the same thing. 1. Can you state as a scientific fact that CO2 has a proven warming effect on global temperatures ? 2. Can you state as a scientific fact that the current warming is not a natural phenomena ? No, you can not and that is the sum total of your argument for AGW. Now it may well be true that CO2 and other GHGs put into the atmosphere by modern man could be responsible for a portion of this little blip in the temperature cycle but we ignorant sceptics can also point out the following:- 1: The warming vs CO2 concentrations do not correlate if you look at it on a graph. 2: the warming has stalled for 10 years which it shouldn't do. 3: It has been shown that temperatures in the past have fallen and risen with Co2 lagging ie not causing but following the temperature trends. 4: The graphic output of the sun vs temp show that solar output is probably (makes sense ) the key player in most warming episodes that exclude other forcings such as volcanic eruption etc. 5: The climate has varied dramatically in both directions in the past without mans helping hand as has the concentration of GHGs. 6: Warming of the upper atmosphere does not correlate with the calculated increases that should be present if CO2 was indeed having a warming effect on the atmosphere So cut us idiots a bit of slack mate. You may be right but there is also a jolly good chance the theory could be a very costly pile of poo.

I don't know how you can just dismiss all previous, even relatively current data as flawed but oh well -- It seems to me that this current scare of yours arises from the discovery of more sub-glacier lakes using modern satellite based technology. The total estimated amount of water locked up in these lakes if all was released at once would result in the sort of sea level rises that that you have asserted have been suppressed by the ( whoever has that dubious power ) That is of course not possible and has not happened nor will it in the foreseeable future. These lakes are locked up securely under miles of ice and although the occasional draining of water has occurred the bulk of it will remain where it is as long as there is an ice cap on the antarctic. The lifting and slumping of ice over some lakes is quite normal and well documented. This occurs as the ice moves over deep water bodies and becomes floating ice as it crosses the water, usually preceded by a slumping as the ice moves down the sloping ground toward the lake and a lifting as it gets to the far side. In case anyone wants to know, the liquid water exists only because of geothermal warming and the enormous pressure exerted by the overlying ice that decreases the freezing point of the water.

Here from your own fav. source link

Not so -- these peat bogs are fairly young and have been dated at 9000 to 12000 yrs old, being formed after the glacier retreat of the last (ongoing?) ice age.