Yeah LATO, but to stretch the analogy a bit further....

It does appear to me that what you are saying is that when these models reach a point approximating a 1956 Chevy Corvette, then you will have enough information to decide whether or not cars were a good idea in the first place.

Sams ,just because you quote wikipedia it does not mean that the stats are correct.Prof Bob Carter has stats that show the exact opposite.He is not a deniar of climate change.The matter of contention is CO2 and the theory of AGW caused by CO2 is not supported by the reality.You make lame references to the science with no specific logic or facts to back up your own logic.You have left it all to the the so called experts who have a vested interest in massaging the stats to shore up their own bottom lines.

Now if you were as intelligent as you espouse,you would have explained the present cooling by the La Nina effect whereby the oceans are taking energy from the atmosphere.However this does not stack up since the general consensus has been that they are heating.NASA admits to being baffled by the cooling of the oceans and don't know where all the heat energy has gone.

When El Nino returns we should expect an intensifying of heat and record temps that excel those of the 1930'S.The 1930's are still the hottest period of recent times but you cannot draw conclusions from future data that excel temps of that era.

Our climate system is extremely complex and the computer models are not capable of handling all the data even if it were available.What AGW scientists are doing at best,is having an educated guess.

Arjay: "The 1930's are still the hottest period of recent times."

Where did you pull that little gem from, Arjay?

It looks to me like your are doing your damnedest to prove Lev's and Sams's point for them.

Arjay,

I suggest you have another look at the graph and actually read the footnote to it.

"This image shows the instrumental record of global average temperatures as compiled by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office. Data set HadCRUT3 was used. HadCRUT3 is a record of surface temperatures collected from land and ocean-based stations."

Let me repeat that just in case it hasn't sunk in.

"A record of surface temperatures collected from land and ocean-based stations."

If you want to talk about "educated guesses" (which are, of course, vastly superior to uneducated guesses) Professor Bob Carter's own research of paleoclimatic research certainly falls into that category. Indeed the further in the past, the rougher the science until one reaches the point where one is compiling oxygen isotope measurements on benthic foraminifera for estimates.

Whilst not denigrating the discipline, the temperature variations estimated from such research quite significantly - but when one takes the averages of these estimations do still indicate a significant increase in recent years. The following graph from eight comprehensive studies should illustrate this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

I do need to check whether you are actually referring to the "El Nino" effect or the "La Nina" (aka Walker Circulation).

La Nina results from a high pressure system over the eastern Pacific, and a low pressure system over the Malay archipelago.

When the Walker circulation weakens or reverses, an El Nino results, causing the ocean surface to be warmer than average, as upwelling of cold water occurs less or not at all.

They are opposites. Which one do you think you mean? You said "La Nina" but your description sounds like "El Nino".

I will point out to you that that Nature published a study in May 2006 (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/research/climate/highlights/PDF/GFDLhighlight_Vol1N3.pdf) noting that La Nina had been slowing since the mid-19th century. The cause?

Global warming.

Now here is an interesting thing;
I was just on the IPS site, (Ionosheric Prediction Service) for nothing
to do with global warming.
I was looking at the sunspot counts and the chart of the last few cycles.
The cycle that has just ended ended with a thump.
Last December it dropped vertically to zero from its already lower than normal level for a minima.

This coincides with the sudden global temperature drop of 0.7 c measured by
the Hadley centre. It is still stuck at this low level.

Don't know what it means but if it is not just a coincidence it would
have to be significant.

To the unbelievers with shut eyes and ears:

Australia's latest climate change report reads like a disaster novel

Despite the above most of our OLO contributors are either CC Denialists or lack courage to back CC.

The CC inbetweeners are also mostly those who wish for the CC worries to go away - those still happy with life the way it is, especially in sport or business.

Quarry economics plus pitstock politics now Australia's lot for Big Biz. No worries about climate change

Have Fun - BB, WA