http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26555339-952,00.html

Now before somebody else pounces on ithis article, yes it's regional data. What we really need is the global (GISS) data, and that's not too far away.  

Luckily the denialists told me we are in a cooling cycle, which is probably true in a relative sort of way, 'cos when we get the added pressure of another base el nino effect, which will probably be this year and next, we can expect to see all the records smashed again.

It will not make any difference to the full on denialists, but the folk who are ambivalent about it now, may sit up and start to take a greater interest in seeing action taken.

How far back do records go?

How old is the earth?

What happened BEFORE recorded data?

jordan484 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2010 at 7:01pm:

How far back do records go? How old is the earth? What happened BEFORE recorded data?

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. (Today)

Do you have 4.5 billion candles on you? We could have a party.

Stuffed if I know how far back Australian data goes. I'd guess back to Federation. Before that it wasn't Australian data.

Have there been warmer periods before? Yes, probably around the Holocene Optimum,  but how is that even relevant?

I was basically pouncing on the article because it's journalistic waffle that denialists love to pounce on saying "see - scientists say......"

Well journalists are not scientists, but they tend to deduce things from inappropriate data. Let's wait for the real data.

Of course we never win against the true believers among the denialists. Science is limited by its refusal to make stuff up. Hmm reminds me of a cartoon I once saw.

---

mozzaok wrote on Jan 5^th, 2010 at 5:20pm:

Luckily the denialists told me we are in a cooling cycle, which is probably true in a relative sort of way, 'cos when we get the added pressure of another base el nino effect, which will probably be this year and next, we can expect to see all the records smashed again. It will not make any difference to the full on denialists, but the folk who are ambivalent about it now, may sit up and start to take a greater interest in seeing action taken.

Sunspot numbers are coming up too.

---

Yes, most predictions I have read have said they expect new peaks to be hit in the 2010 to 2014 period, and then some decline from those new peaks for possibly as much as a decade.

Of course the background warming will continue, but we will probably see a slow down of denialist spruiking during the new record temps, but then renewed calls of it all being over once the temps settle again.

mozzaok wrote on Jan 6^th, 2010 at 1:02pm:

Yes, most predictions I have read have said they expect new peaks to be hit in the 2010 to 2014 period, and then some decline from those new peaks for possibly as much as a decade. Of course the background warming will continue, but we will probably see a slow down of denialist spruiking during the new record temps, but then renewed calls of it all being over once the temps settle again.

I'm not sure you're right there mozz, I read a confusionalist post this morning that said global warming is a crock as its snowing in the USA.
These people don't know the difference between climate change and the weather, that's half the problem. They think because it still snows climate change is not happening,lol.

I was listening to the news at lunchtime and what I said the other day about climate and weather was one of the news stories, I don't expect to convince all the confusionalists here but maybe this might make it a bit clearer for the ones who are not alarmist confusionalists.
The weather is measured on a day by day month by month basis, whilst climate is measured by a period of at least thirty years, so the confusionalists who state that climate change is not happening on the basis it is snowing in Europe and the USA are just confusing the weather with climate change.
I'm sure anybody who passed year two at school can understand that, my seven year old can, its pretty simple, but then not many confusionalists seem to understand simple.

muso wrote on Jan 6^th, 2010 at 8:38am:

jordan484 wrote on Jan 5th, 2010 at 7:01pm: How far back do records go? How old is the earth? What happened BEFORE recorded data? The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. (Today) Do you have 4.5 billion candles on you? We could have a party. Stuffed if I know how far back Australian data goes. I'd guess back to Federation. Before that it wasn't Australian data. Have there been warmer periods before? Yes, probably around the Holocene Optimum,  but how is that even relevant? I was basically pouncing on the article because it's journalistic waffle that denialists love to pounce on saying "see - scientists say......" Well journalists are not scientists, but they tend to deduce things from inappropriate data. Let's wait for the real data. Of course we never win against the true believers among the denialists. Science is limited by its refusal to make stuff up. Hmm reminds me of a cartoon I once saw.

lol. ;D Printed, laminated and placed between the pages of the young fella's Dr Zeus book. Even his practicing Catholic mum got a chuckle out of this cartoon.

muso wrote on Jan 6^th, 2010 at 8:38am:

. Science is limited by its refusal to make stuff up.

Indeed, science is. The same cannot be said for scientists.

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2010 at 10:35pm:

muso wrote on Jan 6th, 2010 at 8:38am: . Science is limited by its refusal to make stuff up. Indeed, science is. The same cannot be said for scientists.

Scientists who 'make stuff up' are generally referred to as pseudoscientists. In Science, reputation is everything.

Here are a couple of people who lost a lot of reputation among their peers for that reason:

http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/22/should-you-believe-anything-john-christy-or-roy-spencer-say/

Here's another one, made laughable by his own words:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/rodliddle/

Looks like someone forgot about the Gulf Stream!

Soren wrote on Jan 11^th, 2010 at 3:34pm:

Here's another one, made laughable by his own words: http://www.spectator.co.uk/rodliddle/

Indeed. Rod Liddle is laughable.

Darwin wrote on Jan 11^th, 2010 at 9:35pm:

Looks like someone forgot about the Gulf Stream!

Nobody has yet attributed the last two severe winters to the slowing of the Gulf Stream. It's a possibility, that's all. It's more likely that this is  just a severe weather event.  Just because Auchtermuchty is snowed in for a few weeks one year doesn't mean that Global average temperatures are not continuing to rise.

As far as the UK is concerned, it's quite possible that these white Christmases will be a thing of the past by say 2030.  Just because an ultraconservative commentator who would make Alan Jones look like a commie decided to make a joke out of it, doesn't mean that there is any significance in it.

Darwin wrote on Jan 11^th, 2010 at 9:35pm:

Looks like someone forgot about the Gulf Stream!

What about the friggin' Gulf Stream?

Slight increase in atmospheric trace gas causes catastrophic climate change, changes oceanic flows, makes sky fall in, brings pestilence. But how, professor? Why, because some of that slight increase in that minor trace gas is due to (shudder!) human activity!!! That's all that's required.  Repent, all ye who huddle around fires,  for the end is nigh!! The Gulf Stream is cometh - or not. Whatever happens, it's the humans' fault!



Is that what you are after? There you are, rejoice.

muso wrote on Jan 12^th, 2010 at 8:53am:

Darwin wrote on Jan 11th, 2010 at 9:35pm: Looks like someone forgot about the Gulf Stream! Nobody has yet attributed the last two severe winters to the slowing of the Gulf Stream. It's a possibility, that's all. It's more likely that this is  just a severe weather event.  Just because Auchtermuchty is snowed in for a few weeks one year doesn't mean that Global average temperatures are not continuing to rise. As far as the UK is concerned, it's quite possible that these white Christmases will be a thing of the past by say 2030.  Just because an ultraconservative commentator who would make Alan Jones look like a commie decided to make a joke out of it, doesn't mean that there is any significance in it.

When nice Mr Garrett attributes a couple of hot days to AGW, that's ok, that's responsible, sober assessment. If nasty ultra-super-billion-trillion-gazillion-conservative Mr Jones says it, it's only the weather.

Got it, thanks.

Geez it was hot last night. ;D

Soren wrote on Jan 12^th, 2010 at 10:17am:

muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2010 at 8:53am: Darwin wrote on Jan 11th, 2010 at 9:35pm: Looks like someone forgot about the Gulf Stream! Nobody has yet attributed the last two severe winters to the slowing of the Gulf Stream. It's a possibility, that's all. It's more likely that this is  just a severe weather event.  Just because Auchtermuchty is snowed in for a few weeks one year doesn't mean that Global average temperatures are not continuing to rise. As far as the UK is concerned, it's quite possible that these white Christmases will be a thing of the past by say 2030.  Just because an ultraconservative commentator who would make Alan Jones look like a commie decided to make a joke out of it, doesn't mean that there is any significance in it. When nice Mr Garrett attributes a couple of hot days to AGW, that's ok, that's responsible, sober assessment. If nasty ultra-super-billion-trillion-gazillion-conservative Mr Jones says it, it's only the weather. Got it, thanks.

Soren, do you think that the weather and the climate is the same thing? its a simple question ,a yes or no will suffice.

Soren wrote on Jan 12^th, 2010 at 10:17am:

muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2010 at 8:53am: Darwin wrote on Jan 11th, 2010 at 9:35pm: Looks like someone forgot about the Gulf Stream! Nobody has yet attributed the last two severe winters to the slowing of the Gulf Stream. It's a possibility, that's all. It's more likely that this is  just a severe weather event.  Just because Auchtermuchty is snowed in for a few weeks one year doesn't mean that Global average temperatures are not continuing to rise. As far as the UK is concerned, it's quite possible that these white Christmases will be a thing of the past by say 2030.  Just because an ultraconservative commentator who would make Alan Jones look like a commie decided to make a joke out of it, doesn't mean that there is any significance in it. When nice Mr Garrett attributes a couple of hot days to AGW, that's ok, that's responsible, sober assessment. If nasty ultra-super-billion-trillion-gazillion-conservative Mr Jones says it, it's only the weather. Got it, thanks.

You obviously didn't read this thread from the beginning. Where did I defend Peter Garrett ever on this board?

I think you will find people have. I predicted last year that as the GS is reduced further due to melting arctic/Greenland ice (and it has, quite a bit) that the next English winter (i.e. the current NHemis winter) would be even worse.

My prediction was fullfilled.

One of the drivers of the GS is supercooled water in the arctic ocean sinking. That don't happen no more.

Soren, crack open that Atlas old son, note the latitudes of Anchorage, Alask and London, UK then turn to the pages of the Atlas dealing with ocean currents and look at the maps and read what it says about ocean currents. Then actually THINK!

And, yes, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere ARE increasing.

skippy. wrote on Jan 12^th, 2010 at 11:28am:

Soren wrote on Jan 12th, 2010 at 10:17am: muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2010 at 8:53am: Darwin wrote on Jan 11th, 2010 at 9:35pm: Looks like someone forgot about the Gulf Stream! Nobody has yet attributed the last two severe winters to the slowing of the Gulf Stream. It's a possibility, that's all. It's more likely that this is  just a severe weather event.  Just because Auchtermuchty is snowed in for a few weeks one year doesn't mean that Global average temperatures are not continuing to rise. As far as the UK is concerned, it's quite possible that these white Christmases will be a thing of the past by say 2030.  Just because an ultraconservative commentator who would make Alan Jones look like a commie decided to make a joke out of it, doesn't mean that there is any significance in it. When nice Mr Garrett attributes a couple of hot days to AGW, that's ok, that's responsible, sober assessment. If nasty ultra-super-billion-trillion-gazillion-conservative Mr Jones says it, it's only the weather. Got it, thanks. Soren, do you think that the weather and the climate is the same thing? its a simple question ,a yes or no will suffice.

No.

OK, well there's a start.At least you recognise the difference between the two.
Do you realise that weather is measured on a week by week month by month basis whilst climate is measured over a period of at least 30 years?
A simple yes or no will suffice.

Darwin wrote on Jan 12^th, 2010 at 12:34pm:

I think you will find people have. I predicted last year that as the GS is reduced further due to melting arctic/Greenland ice (and it has, quite a bit) that the next English winter (i.e. the current NHemis winter) would be even worse. My prediction was fullfilled. One of the drivers of the GS is supercooled water in the arctic ocean sinking. That don't happen no more. Soren, crack open that Atlas old son, note the latitudes of Anchorage, Alask and London, UK then turn to the pages of the Atlas dealing with ocean currents and look at the maps and read what it says about ocean currents. Then actually THINK! And, yes, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere ARE increasing.

Thinking, thinking....  Gulf Stream, Gulf Stream. Hmm...


This time last year the papers were full of news of how mild the winter was in England. So all this GS change happened in just one year? And where was the CO2 induced discombobulation of the GS when the Thames froze over?

CO2 concentration has gone up from 280 ppm to 384 ppm over the last 200 years. That is the same magnitude as a price increase from 2.8 CENTS to 3.84 CENTS if you have $100 (total athmosphere).

WOW! Number one panic issue, everyone!



This just in:
Some brainiac professor now thinks it has been CFCs all along. That's scientific consensus for ya, what? In a peer-reviewed mag! WHat's the world coming to?


http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/01/09/the-ozone-hole-did-it.aspx

Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion
Qing-Bin Lua,

Department of Physics and Astronomy and Departments of Biology and Chemistry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada


Accepted 26 November 2009.  editor: S. Peyerimhoff.  Available online 3 December 2009.

Abstract
The cosmic-ray driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces has been proposed as a new mechanism for the formation of the polar ozone hole. Here, experimental findings of dissociative electron transfer reactions of halogenated molecules on ice surfaces in electron-stimulated desorption, electron trapping and femtosecond time-resolved laser spectroscopic measurements are reviewed. It is followed by a review of the evidence from recent satellite observations of this new mechanism for the Antarctic ozone hole, and all other possible physical mechanisms are discussed. Moreover, new observations of the 11 year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling and the seasonal variations of CFCs and CH4 in the polar stratosphere are presented, and quantitative predictions of the Antarctic ozone hole in the future are given. Finally, new observation of the effects of CFCs and cosmic-ray driven ozone depletion on global climate change is also presented and discussed.

Keywords: Cosmic rays (CRs); Dissociative electron transfer (DET); Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs); Ice surfaces; Ozone hole; Climate change

skippy. wrote on Jan 12^th, 2010 at 1:07pm:

OK, well there's a start.At least you recognise the difference between the two. Do you realise that weather is measured on a week by week month by month basis whilst climate is measured over a period of at least 30 years? A simple yes or no will suffice.

No.

Soren wrote on Jan 12^th, 2010 at 1:28pm:

skippy. wrote on Jan 12th, 2010 at 1:07pm: OK, well there's a start.At least you recognise the difference between the two. Do you realise that weather is measured on a week by week month by month basis whilst climate is measured over a period of at least 30 years? A simple yes or no will suffice. No.

OK, this is where your problem lies, as you didn't know that ,it is no wonder you are soooooo confused re climate change.
The climate is measured over a much longer period than just one season.
Do you understand that now?, you should, my seven year old mastered it the first time he learnt it.
It makes a lot more sense when you educate yourself a little doesn't it?
Are you ready to learn some more?

Soren wrote on Jan 12^th, 2010 at 1:26pm:

This just in: Some brainiac professor now thinks it has been CFCs all along. That's scientific consensus for ya, what? In a peer-reviewed mag! WHat's the world coming to?

The effects of CFC's on global warming have been known for years. They make a minor contribution - that's all. CFC-12 for example, has a Global Warming potential of 11000, compared to CO2 = 1.

Fortunately the atmospheric concentration of CFC-12 is negligible. (To get the overall warming effect, you multiply the GWP by the concentration. )

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

Yawn - Soren - go read what the paper says, not some bs on a denialist site that cherry picks the "interesting" bits.

skippy. wrote on Jan 12^th, 2010 at 1:44pm:

Are you ready to learn some more?

You're an optimist.  ;D

skippy. wrote on Jan 12^th, 2010 at 1:44pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 12th, 2010 at 1:28pm: skippy. wrote on Jan 12th, 2010 at 1:07pm: OK, well there's a start.At least you recognise the difference between the two. Do you realise that weather is measured on a week by week month by month basis whilst climate is measured over a period of at least 30 years? A simple yes or no will suffice. No. OK, this is where your problem lies, as you didn't know that ,it is no wonder you are soooooo confused re climate change. The climate is measured over a much longer period than just one season. Do you understand that now?, you should, my seven year old mastered it the first time he learnt it. It makes a lot more sense when you educate yourself a little doesn't it? Are you ready to learn some more?

The weather is measured much more frequently than week by week. The climate is not itself a measurement but an aggregate of weather measurements, geographic features and the like.  

I am always ready to learn but I don't think you are the man to teach me.

The denialists willl never get it skippy, they expect climate change, which is occurring in a linear pattern, that being AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES GOING UP, will thereby produce a linear effect upon weather, and nobody reputable has ever suggested that, we have only seen disingenuous deniers misinforming people that this would be the expectation.

All the experts I have read, have predicted wild and variable weather events to be the most likely outcome of previously stable weather mitigants getting out of balance because of the effects of Global Warming.

When Soren repeats the spurious arguments about the PPM of CO2 as being insignificant, he does so from a position of bloody minded ignorance, as he has had the benefit of muso explaining to him previously, how various elements can produce large effects, even in small proportions, and he used a variety of toxic elements to display his point.

If these denialists really believed that small proportions decide significance or not, they should be prepared to imbibe the deadly toxins, that muso listed, mixed in even lower proportions than that of CO2 in the atmosphere, that way they could prove with their life how much they believe what they say.
Somehow I doubt they really believe what they say that much, but they do think it is an impressive lie that may fool some, so they keep repeating it.

Mozz, you are proceeding by analogy and resembance, like the medievals, and so did Muso with his analogy of inhaling toxins.
Medievals believed that walnuts were a cure for brain diseases due to - resemblance.

CO2 is a trace gas and it is certinly not the most significant greenhouse. We ARE inhaling the 384 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. ANd wild weather has always been with us.

What is the delay time between emitting a certain amount of CO2 and its noticable effect on the climate? I ask because despite my repeated request for evidence of causation or even correlation between climate variation and variations in CO2 concentration, I have not seen any. ANd to that I say - because there isn't any evidence. It is not possible to find it. Muso's forcing is not a satisfactory explanation
There is pleanty of conjecture, there is plenty of modelling based on conjecture (a.k.a. proving the faith) but there is no evidence that shows causation or even correlation.
I have seen evidence that warming precedes increased CO2, but not the other way round.


Go ahead, look at any AGW temperature graph and compare it with a graph of CO2 emissions by humans.


The Leninist mental reflexes and conspiratorial language is the most intemperate thing attributable to CO2

muso wrote on Jan 12^th, 2010 at 1:59pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 12th, 2010 at 1:26pm: This just in: Some brainiac professor now thinks it has been CFCs all along. That's scientific consensus for ya, what? In a peer-reviewed mag! WHat's the world coming to? The effects of CFC's on global warming have been known for years. They make a minor contribution - that's all. CFC-12 for example, has a Global Warming potential of 11000, compared to CO2 = 1. Fortunately the atmospheric concentration of CFC-12 is negligible. (To get the overall warming effect, you multiply the GWP by the concentration. ) http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf Yawn - Soren - go read what the paper says, not some bs on a denialist site that cherry picks the "interesting" bits.

What,  peer-reviewed Physics Reports ain't good enough no more?  

Soren wrote on Jan 12^th, 2010 at 2:59pm:

What,  peer-reviewed Physics Reports ain't good enough no more?

Tell you what  - read the original paper then you decide if the message in the paper is that the recent warming is all due to CFC's -

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVP-4XVC4M5-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f237572f057868ddd1ed15d17ad2037e

It might be on every single denialist site on the blogosphere, but nowhere in the original paper does it actually say (and I paraphrase)  that "it wasn't CO2 - it was CFC's all along".

They didn't actually say that , soren. Good try but no cigar.

So let me get this right. What you're saying is that AGW is crap, but it's not crap as long as it's driven by CFC's, and if it is happening, it's good for us because of the fact that crops thrive in warm conditions and with excess CO2 (plant food). Does that just about sum up your position, Soren?  

Can't you see the mendacious and superficial nature of your argument (or the one that you're cutting and pasting).

OK once again, CFC-12 has a much greater GWP than CO2, but the overall effect is tiny because of its extremely low concentration (yes, even lower than that of CO2) - and you do know what GWP stands for because I've told you before.

muso wrote on Jan 17^th, 2010 at 2:00pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 12th, 2010 at 2:59pm: What,  peer-reviewed Physics Reports ain't good enough no more?   Tell you what  - read the original paper then you decide if the message in the paper is that the recent warming is all due to CFC's - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVP-4XVC4M5-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f237572f057868ddd1ed15d17ad2037e It might be on every single denialist site on the blogosphere, but nowhere in the original paper does it actually say (and I paraphrase)  that "it wasn't CO2 - it was CFC's all along". They didn't actually say that , soren. Good try but no cigar. So let me get this right. What you're saying is that AGW is crap, but it's not crap as long as it's driven by CFC's, and if it is happening, it's good for us because of the fact that crops thrive in warm conditions and with excess CO2 (plant food). Does that just about sum up your position, Soren?   Can't you see the mendacious and superficial nature of your argument (or the one that you're cutting and pasting). OK once again, CFC-12 has a much greater GWP than CO2, but the overall effect is tiny because of its extremely low concentration (yes, even lower than that of CO2) - and you do know what GWP stands for because I've told you before.

It's the CFC that did it - that's just to show that the  science is settled  on CO2 induced antropomor... - no wait! what was the question again?

AGW - I don't buy the 'CO2 is to blame' hysteria. I am sceptical about our ability to change the climate in any way other than by an all out nuclear war.

Does climate change? Probably does it all the time.

Soren wrote on Jan 17^th, 2010 at 2:27pm:

It's the CFC that did it - that's just to show that the  science is settled  on CO2 induced antropomor... - no wait! what was the question again? AGW - I don't buy the 'CO2 is to blame' hysteria. I am sceptical about our ability to change the climate in any way other than by an all out nuclear war. Does climate change? Probably does it all the time.

Soren, CFC's do have some global warming potential. No question about it. It's just that the dominant effect is due to CO2.

Of course if you don't accept that such a tiny fraction of CO2 could have any effect, then 'obviously' a hardly discernable fraction of CFC's, would not even be worth bringing up........unless of course it backs up your mantra, and then it becomes important beyond any other factor.

Soren's mantra:


Quote:

AGW - I don't buy the 'CO2 is to blame' hysteria. I am sceptical about our ability to change the climate in any way other than by an all out nuclear war.

This mantra is ok....as a religious, faith based mantra, but in the light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it becomes a little tired.

Lets face it, there is not a single scientific paper that supports your "AGW is crap" position.

Soren wrote on Jan 17^th, 2010 at 2:27pm:

muso wrote on Jan 17th, 2010 at 2:00pm: Soren wrote on Jan 12th, 2010 at 2:59pm: What,  peer-reviewed Physics Reports ain't good enough no more?   Tell you what  - read the original paper then you decide if the message in the paper is that the recent warming is all due to CFC's - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVP-4XVC4M5-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f237572f057868ddd1ed15d17ad2037e It might be on every single denialist site on the blogosphere, but nowhere in the original paper does it actually say (and I paraphrase)  that "it wasn't CO2 - it was CFC's all along". They didn't actually say that , soren. Good try but no cigar. So let me get this right. What you're saying is that AGW is crap, but it's not crap as long as it's driven by CFC's, and if it is happening, it's good for us because of the fact that crops thrive in warm conditions and with excess CO2 (plant food). Does that just about sum up your position, Soren?   Can't you see the mendacious and superficial nature of your argument (or the one that you're cutting and pasting). OK once again, CFC-12 has a much greater GWP than CO2, but the overall effect is tiny because of its extremely low concentration (yes, even lower than that of CO2) - and you do know what GWP stands for because I've told you before. It's the CFC that did it - that's just to show that the  science is settled  on CO2 induced antropomor... - no wait! what was the question again? AGW - I don't buy the 'CO2 is to blame' hysteria. I am sceptical about our ability to change the climate in any way other than by an all out nuclear war. Does climate change? Probably does it all the time.

Same as some people are "sceptical" about the dangers of 2nd hand smoke in all but incinerated corpses.

I think you misuse the word sceptical when you have a self confessed benchmark (total nuclear war) which remains defiant of the concerted peer examined efforts of 10's of thousands of scientists.

But I do agree that climate change does/has happened minus the human in the equation. Does not mean we can't/haven't influenced it. The concept of natural balance and natural checks are not Gianism (or  :D Lennonist)

The summary for the GISS (Global) data is now out. 2009 tied as the second warmest year since records started 130 years ago.

The warmest year was 2005.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100115_Temperature2009.pdf

When does the sun enter its more active stage? Been quiet for a while I believe, thus masking AGW to some extent.

There are two separate issues - the ENSO cycle and the Solar cycle. They are not directly related. We are curretly in an El Nino and the Solar Cycle has passed the minimum. Sunspot numbers are starting to increase again.
I posted a graph showing actual and prohected sunspot numbers either on this thread or another one. I'll see if I can find it for you. (Reply 4 on this thread) The projected maximum is around 2013.

So it will get hotter!

And, yeah, knew about the El Nino/La Nina thing.

Abusive post removed to spare the poster embarrassment.  If you drink and post, please come back and remove it in the morning.

Soren wrote on Jan 12^th, 2010 at 2:32pm:

I have seen evidence that warming precedes increased CO2, but not the other way round.

You still don't get it, do you? Nobody is saying this. It's a straw man.

Read reply 3 on the sticky thread. Read paragraph 3 carefully.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1247904929