We can review this again if the Hadley Centre prediction of resumed warming from 2010 comes true (or doesn't).
Seems to me that anyone who ignores the role of the sun is the true denier.
Probably time for the Moderator to close this thread before the usual acrimonious impasse develops. We're way off topic now.
It would be a shame for that to happen before you were able to provide us with the link to details of the "intense investigation" of how ENSO events are driven by solar activity, and explain away global warming.
In as much as we are off topic, that is the fault of those who wish (once again) to deny that there is anything about which the public's awareness needs to be raised.
How can a thread that is discussing CC and the science behind it be off topic when the whole 'raison d'etre' of the thread is about raising awareness of CC?
"Britain's leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.
"In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business
"For many years ExxonMobil has been active in undermining climate science and policy making, in particular by lobbying against the Kyoto Protocol, the main international agreement to tackle climate change.
http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/resource/exxonmobil_climate_footprint.html
Exxon, Esso, Mobil, Imperial Oil and Tonen General. It's all the same company.
"The world's largest energy company is still spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund European organisations that seek to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on global warming and undermine support for legislation to curb emission of greenhouse gases.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/exxon-spends-millions-to-cast-doubt-on-warming-427404.html
Esso has done more than any other company to stop the world from tackling climate change.
For over a decade, it has tried to sabotage international climate change negotiations and block agreements that would lead to greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/stop-esso
The Chinese on your side? that is a laugh, are not building more coal powered power stations and the U.s government is only one one side and that is their own.
Science have been proven wrong again and again, it says one thing and a year later, it says something else, so don't believe all that you hear from science.
As for everyone on your sie, you are wrong, you need the public to be on your side an there is a lot that is not.There are hundred of thousands of people in this country alone who thinks that climate change is natural, so how are you going to get them on your side?
You can't fore people to change their ways, banning things will get people annoyed and they will go against things. why do you think I am stock piling normal bulbs?Not just because I don't like CFL, but because I don;t see why some stuck up government should tell me what light I can or can not use.
The same with recycling, I pay enough in council tax, I don't see why I should waste my time to sort out my rubbish, they want us to recycle, then they can sort out the rubbish, I am not going to.
bit alarmist, isn't it.
All I'm worried about is unnaturally rapid climate change being very expensive for me personally. The planet itself can get on fine with or without me.
Calm down dears.
I've previously pointed out that during the period 1975 to 1998 it was not possible to be sure about the influence of CO2 because at the same time we were getting shorter more intense solar cycles and a predominance of El Nino warming events over La Nina cooling events.
Now the CO2 signal continues to increase but we are probably entering a period of longer and less intense solar cycles with a predominance of La Nina cooling events over warming El Nino events. Note that, according to the ice core proxy, CO2 levels follow warming with a lag of up to 800 years due to the time it takes for the oceans to alter their CO2 absorption characteristics which are temperature dependant. On that basis the current upward trend could be a consequence of the Mediaeval Warm Period and nothing to do with recent human activity
The power of the respective influences of solar and CO2 will be much more easily separated over the next few years.
I pointed out over a year ago that the weather patterns were more akin to the cooling period up to 1975 than the warming period from 1975 to 1998. My personal observations noted the changes that occurred around 1975 and a change back to those patterns a little before 2000.That has been supported by the recent evidence of global cooling in the recent past and stabilisation of global temperatures from 1998 to 2006.
All we have to do is see whether warming resumes by 2010 as predicted by the Hadley Centre which believes in AGW or continues to drop in accordance with reduced solar activity. If Hadley has got it wrong then the last thing we should be doing is worrying about CO2 emissions. Indeed on that scenario they would be positively beneficial.
In the meantime all dispute should be put on hold as should all political opportunism.
The more strident the demands of the AGW lobby become the more reason for suspicion there is.
I have no emotional bias either way. The numbers will tell us what to do and all we have to do is suspend our judgement for a few years.
Anyone who denies us that time window is a dangerous charlatan.
What new and bizarre theory is this? You do know, don't you, that the oceans are beyond any doubt currently a net sink of CO2, and that simple physics tells us that warming follows CO2 levels, not the other way round?
"That basis" being the one you've just invented, presumably, along with the notion of the MWP as a globally synchronous period of elevated temperatures?
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar