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

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


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=1...

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.

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


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:


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.

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

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.

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