Solar Cycles

If you care to search the forum I posted an article regarding the MWP. I can't believe your seriously trying to suggest it as any credibility in the world of HONEST scientific research! As for the rest of your post, I suggest you read a little more than the AGW handbook. There is enough literature out there, if you care to take the blinkers off now and again!

We as in man's quest to better himself? Climate change is happening, but what we cannot determine is, who or what is the main cause of this. Personally I feel we will know the answer sooner rather than later, as for me I'm convinced I'm in the right camp.

I'll certainly agree with your first paragraph PP, the need to find an alternative to fossil fuels is paramount. If we take the comical AGW out of the equation, then I'm sure we would all be demanding action!

Lets see where we stand come September GW. Cherry picking 2 weeks from 32 years of data, is hardly conclusive of anything!

You won't CB, due to the fact that we only have 32 years data to fall back on. Crazy really, all this scaremongering based on little evidence. Still that doesn't stop the conveyor belt of nonsense to be churned out daily!

You beat me to it 4wd, it's amazing how some can post any old gibberish, but when someone post something on Natural cycles being responsible, we get all sorts of nonsense about the source being from a right wing blog.

So we have no idea what proxies where used to make such dramatic claims. Typical of the AGW bandwagon really. I for one grow tiresome of reading such drivel!

Again what proxies where used to come to this conclusion?

Two points GW, first what proxy records where used? And secondly the author Kate Ravilious is a former Guardian wag, now the evidence presented is unsubstantiated to say the least. If I was to post an article claiming the complete opposite, and it was from a right wing blog, then you and the rest of the warmers would slate it! Food for thought GW?

That is what I meant TWS, AGW isn't a scam, some of our warming is down to CO2. What is a scam, is the daily sermons being preached by all those associated with the IPCC, using flawed data, to make second rate predictions.

Predicting yes, will it actually happen? And if it does what does that prove, that AGW caused it? Of course not!!

Solar, Lunar, Oceanic heat distribution. These are not political tools Pete, there is as much evidence for these, as there is for AGW. Maybe if a fraction of the funding, went into natural cycles as to what is pumped into AGW, then we would have a more balanced view of what is actually the cause! Still let's leave the political waffle to the green brigade!

Fudged data or honest science, you decide!

I agree, this and all things regarding Arctic ice, I tend to give a wide birth. Probably as a result of certain peoples OTT rants, and wishes!

For goodness sake GW, every thread I read as your Arctic ice footprint all over it. On a more serious note, I sincerely hope this Summer does bring us some much needed warmth. Personally I feel it will be a mixed bag, nothing in the way of heatwaves, but some pleasant warm spells between the dire wet and cool weather. On a brighter note winter 2010/11, could be a classic, if you like cold that is!

Time will tell GW, lets sit back and enjoy the ride ( maybe )!!

I agree VP, we do need a seperate thread. All this doomsday scenario posting of GW is starting to wear me down.I'm sorry GW, but you post these doomsday scenarios without a shred of evidence to back them up. Please can we leave out the daily sermons, otherwise I'll end up being sectioned under the Mental Health act!

But GW we still don't really know if excess CO2 followed or proceeded rising temps with the limited data we have. The only thing we can be certain of, is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Is that more likely to cause rising temps than water vapour.

Exactly VP, we seem to base all our assumptions on 30 years of data. What can we really learn from such a short time scale? For me too, the correlation between solar activity and global temps, is simply impossible to dismiss out of hand. Then we have the oceans acting as one big giant radiator. Again simply impossible to dismiss out of hand. But when it comes CO2, 30 years of data is enough to convince us all, that the nasty pollutant Mr CO2, is the real cause of warming.

No arguments with you regarding the first paragraph, however your second one is like something out of the x-files!

Again this proves what exactly? It's all good and well being a self hater GW, but none of the above shows AGW to be a causation. Assume yes, but take as fact NO!

One problem with that, prove that we are altering the climate GW? It's easy just to assume that the science is correct, when there is no evidence to suggest this. We can only ASSUME, because that's the best evidence we have at this present time!

Looks like I was late to the ball with this one. My views on the MetO LRF are well documented on here, so a few maybe surprised to hear that I voted for them to be given more time. That way they'll slowly come to understand how futile it is, to issue a LRF factoring in AGW. Off course a few here state otherwise, but the proof is in the pudding, when they constantly remind us of other background factors to be considered! No LRF is ever going to be totally accurate, but as GP as shown, you don't need to factor in any warming bias to issue a LRF!

Looks like this study as finally put to bed that the MWP and LIA where regional. As most of us have insisted all along!