"But I don’t believe in “delaying mechanisms” for solar activity"
You mean like the oceans. I thought the point I was making was obvious. The lag for solar activity could well be the same mechanism as for CO2 induced warming ie. the oceans. You can't choose to believe the lag exists for one warming mechanism and not the other, it is either there or it is not. So your qualifying statement "IF the hypothesis is that climate is mainly driven by the sun." doesn't make any sense.

"and so as the protagonist of a new theory, YOU are the one responsible for explaining how the “solar effects” are delayed without resorting to certain atmospheric effects"
Again the oceans dampen forcings and cause lags.
Actually the solar (or natural) theory is probably a null hypothesis ie. all previous changes have been natural, it is up to the CO2 hysterians to explain why the current changes should be attributed to man.

"Finally, I think you meant 450 ppm, as 4500 would have cooked our planet beyond even the super-greenhouse effect and anoxic oceans described on the ABC’s documentary “Crude”."
No I meant a person's exhaled breath is 4500ppm CO2 which cannot be considered a poisonous or your own breath will kill you. Here' what I said for the slow ones.
"CO2 can hardly be classified alongside lead and asbestos considering we breathe out CO2 at a concentration of 4500ppm. "
Considering past CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and life flourished, it is unlikely that a CO2 doubling to 560ppm will have much effect.

"Global Dimming is now fairly mainstream climate science"
I have no problem with the concept of Global Dimming. However, the NH temperatures are showing the greatest rises, in the exact place where the greatest amount of dimming occurs. All the while the SH is cooling. What we should be seeing is faster rates of warming in the SH. If you then argue that the oceans are keeping the SH cool then the oceans must have a greater effect on temperature than the atmosphere?

Alzo,

One the one hand Durkin was banging on about an exact and immediate correlation between solar activity and temperature. Then he was exposed as a fraud when he presented the graph as being up till “NOW” when actually dealing with data 20 years old, and that omitted the massive discrepancy between solar activity and temperature.

Enter Alzo to save the day with a “previously unidentified” oceanic delaying mechanism that mysteriously only works when Durkin needs it to, but whose effect was completely unnoticeable when Durkin was presenting his “Solar Driver” hypothesis. If oceans — or any other magical mechanism you care to mention — delay the solar forcings now, why did Durkin present solar & climate effects as immediate? If ocean’s don’t delay the effect, then Durkin is stuck with the divergence he expediently left off the end of this graph.

“Actually the solar (or natural) theory is probably a null hypothesis ie. all previous changes have been natural, it is up to the CO2 hysterians to explain why the current changes should be attributed to man.”

We already have demonstrated it.

Incidentally, previous Co2 Super-Greenhouse disasters and dieoffs were naturally induced through excessive volcanism, and we have abundant evidence of all of this in the geological and palaeontology record. Everything from the oil source rocks through to the Ginko plant fossils demonstrate what can happen when Co2 super-spikes. It can be deadly. Life did not flourish when CO2 suer-spiked in the past. It coincided with a massive die-off event. Watch part 3 of “Crude” linked to above.

Global Dimming particles spread affecting the global temperature, not just regions.

Kieran — your lack of respect for the Big Bang theory and modern empirical evidence mean that this conversation can no longer continue. I share some of your “FIRST CAUSE” metaphysical questions, but they are philosophical and religious in nature. Global Warming is a scientific question, and because you do not respect science (or logical argument it seems) I will be ignoring your posts from now. They make no sense anyway. I suggest others do the same.

Phew, believing that ......... you can get a bang in a vacuum or incredibly that the universe is expanding into itself, not only shows respect for modern empirical evidence, but is a good example of logical argument ....... must represent a peerless eclipse of reason.

Another eclipse of reason would be how anyone could get accurate temperatures from tree rings and rate this above peer reviewed evidence from solar scientists who demonstrate a clear relationship between solar change and climate change.

ps
Or how one can continually put i before e when spelling Keiran. Well perhaps i is more important than 'e and where did 'e go?

"why did Durkin present solar & climate effects as immediate?"
Durkin just showed the correlation between solar output and temperature up until 1985. I don't believe he made any inferences as to whether the effect was immediate.

"We already have demonstrated it."
Is this like the royal "we"?

"Incidentally, previous Co2 Super-Greenhouse disasters and dieoffs were naturally induced through excessive volcanism"
The die-offs were more likely caused by methane a far more potent greenhouse gas.

"Global Dimming particles spread affecting the global temperature, not just regions."
Actually, if you bothered to read the IPCC report (Ch.2 Page 209) you would find that the dimming effect is largely regionalised. I guess when you get your info from TV shows it might be hard to tell.

How now Brown Cow

A new study in the Aug. 2 issue of the British science journal Nature found that the solid particles suspended in the atmosphere (called “aerosols”) that make up “brown clouds” may actually contribute to warmer temperatures — precisely the opposite effect heretofore claimed by global warming alarmists.

“These findings might seem to contradict the general notion of aerosol particles as cooling agents in the global climate system …,” concluded the Nature news article summing up the study.

Based on data collected by unmanned aerial vehicles over the Indian Ocean, researchers from the University of California, San Diego and NASA reported not only that aerosols warmed temperatures, but they also increased atmospheric heating by 50 percent. This warming, they say, may be sufficient to account for the retreat of the Himalayan glaciers.

Putting aside the fact that the Himalayan glaciers have been retreating since 1780 — some 70 years before the onset of the current post-Little Ice Age warming trend and 100 years before the onset of significant global industrialization — full appreciation of the significance of the researchers’ finding requires a brief trip down recent-memory lane, one, incidentally, that no media outlet reporting this finding bothered to make.

Global warming alarmism is rooted in the idea that ever-increasing manmade emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, cause global temperatures to warm. This idea, however, doesn’t match up very well against real-world observations.

During the 20th century, for example, while manmade carbon dioxide emissions steadily increased from about 1940 to 1975, global temperatures cooled.

Global warming alarmists, such as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), try to counter this observation by claiming that aerosol particles in the atmosphere — like soot and sulfates from fossil fuel combustion, and dust from volcanic eruptions — can mask the warming effect of greenhouse gases and cool the planet by reflecting solar radiation back into space.

So then, which is it? Do aerosols cool or warm the planet? Can they do both?

There are many different kinds of aerosols, some just water droplets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol

Some increase global warming such as water vapours, some of which increase global DIMMING such as sulfuric particles. Indeed, some have proposed this as a solution to GW but others say it will be far too expensive.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/12343892/can_dr_evil_save_the_world

Lumping them all in together is intellectually dishonest and not helping accurate discussion. Even the recent data is inconclusive some points, suggesting an evolving sub-field within climate science...

"On a global scale, clouds of aerosols from biomass burning and fossil fuel consumption cool the atmosphere by reflecting sunlight back into space. But the particles also absorb solar radiation, and it has been suspected they could warm certain levels of the atmosphere."

"It is becoming more obvious that the role of aerosols is not as simple as we once thought," says Piers Forster, an Earth scientist at the University of Leeds, UK. "They don't just provide cooling, they're actually giving far more complicated and regional changes."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1875092/posts

Alzo, just saying "Correlation" instead of "causation" does not address the fundamental problem. You're just being slippery with words to avoid the point. Why did the ocean SUDDENLY and CONVENIENTLY switch on its delaying effects for the inconvenient bit of data Durkin purposely left off the end of his graph?

(I seriously can't believe you are devoting so much effort to defending this fraud.)