Here is a 100,000 dollar challenge concerning Global Warming!

http://www.ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

re:
"Science is progressed by studying new data and hypothesis and testing the current paradigms repeatedly... 928 times in this case."
Thats enough for you is it? What if the 929th test failed? You would never know. Where do you draw the limit?"

I drew the limit years ago. EP Odum, in his university textbook, "Fundamentals of Ecology" and Erlich, Erlich and Holdren, in their university textbook, "Ecoscience" discussed the data and the predicitons over 30 years ago. Since then, we've heard the same tired old farts stringing out the same inane, opaque conundrums about how global warming isn't proven.

Fact is, science never proves anything. Theories can, strictly speaking, be supported or disproven, but proof is left for the lawyers, philosphers and mathematicians, in their respective houses.

Or on their respective boats. "What if the 929th test failed?"

Yeah, what if? What if the 1,928th test failed?

I would say you are counting deck chairs on the Titantic, old son. Did you feel the jolt when we hit the iceberg? It's time to act. Maybe Perpetual Motion or Antigravity can save us, but the smart money (and my money)is on economic interventions which will slow greenhouse warming.

Alzo,
that next study should be out later this month, and the one after it the month after, etc and so on. When did I EVER say we should stop studying it? We should iron out those forcings and discover exactly what's happening with our earth to the best of our ability.

But as to your black carbon....

"As estimated by Hansen et al, 2005 (see figure), the total forcing from 1750 to 2000 is about 1.7 W/m2 (it is slightly smaller for 1850 to 2000, but that difference is a minor issue). The biggest warming factors are CO2 (1.5 W/m2), CH4 (0.6 W/m2, including indirect effects), CFCs (0.3), N2O (0.15), O3 (0.3), black carbon (0.8), and solar (0.3), and the important cooling factors are sulphate and nitrate aerosols (~-2.1, including direct and indriect effects), and land use (-0.15). Each of these terms has uncertainty associated with it (a lot for aerosol effects, less for the GHGs). So CO2's role compared to the net forcing is about 85% of the effect, but 37% compared to all warming effects. All well-mixed greenhouse gases are 64% of warming effects, and all anthropogenic forcings (everything except solar, volcanic effects have very small trends) are ~80% of the forcings (and are strongly positive). Even if solar trends were doubled, it would still only be less than half of the effect of CO2"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/attribution-of-20th-century-climate-change-to-cosub2sub/#more-355

TotalEclipse dishes up fruitloop Karoli , rote learner Dr Karl and some quote from unrealclimate by nutter Hanson as well as some feeble effort to counter the ice core data which completely stuffs the CO2 argument. I suppose when you are as shallow as dishwater and cannot think for yourself you call for help from anywhere and anyone. As I always suspected, this issue of climate changing was never about science because it is a religious calling and big business.

Perhaps one should have a look at this disgraceful media bugs bunny, Dr Karl. He certainly has a bag of tricks because he rarely fails to associate himself with sucking gravity Newton and warped space Einstein, which for him seems to explain (mainly to impressionable children of course) everything or even the righteousness that theory can be bent to fit. He is a true blue supporter of the big bang cosmological stoooopidity with its entire zoo of fictional entities and it comes as no surprise that he is now prosthelizing climate alarm. Most unfortunate really but what bright, serious and responsible young person would desire to enter this obviously phony business? Think of the incredible waste of resources and talent spent on the big bang nonsense over almost one hundred years and still it explains nothing. However, when it does go off it is bound to go off with a bang.

Underlying this global warming debate is an unacknowledged fear ... a subconscious, irrational fear of THE END OF THE WORLD. We saw it in that ABC's loopy, laughably alarmist treatment of Durkin's doco and in the gleeful Jones's insertion of some crazy scientist making an analogy to the small quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere with the Ebola virus. This was all top shelf derangement.

It would all be a joke of cosmic proportions if it wasn't so tragic.

Kieran, I’d rather debate 1000 Alzo’s as at least he has made some attempts at rationale argument. You have the air of a “Roswell believer”, and are all noise and no substance. Go away.

Alzo, I was watching a documentary on the 9/11 conspiracy theorists last night and was struck by the similar strategies being used here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy

Just as in 9/11, the GW Skeptics ask us NOT to trust the experts, or even really read their material. If we just started with the experts in the first place, the experts could — sadly — explain the process of a plane crashing into a fortified building like the Pentagon and how the wings are forced back and align with the fuselage as the plane crumples through understood physics.

Instead conspiracy theorists ask us to focus on misleading details. They show us a detail such as a photo of the Pentagon, and flatter us by treating us as experts. “Look at the photo, what do you think? Could a plane really fit in that hole?” We’ve suddenly begun a discourse to do with scientific proof in an area outside of any of our expertise. We don’t notice that we’ve been derailed, and are now arguing points that are not open to argument. They are raising a debate where there is no debate.

Personally, I find it the height of arrogance to assume that we have discovered some mechanism that all the other climatologists have missed.

There have been 928 reports over 20 years, all agreeing with the basic premise.

I’ve linked to climatologists that have the authority to answer these questions. But I want to ask by what authority do you ask them, or are you dragging us into irrelevant conclusions and conspiracy theories, getting us to debate something that is not open to debate?

IPCC graph of “Black carbon on snow” shows it is a tiny forcing.
http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/3280/snapshotil9.jpg

Page 3 and 6 of report at:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/inpress/Hansen_etal_1.html

It’s not that skeptics are stifling scientific debate, it’s that CONSPIRACY THEORISTS are trying to create a debate where there simply is none.

"But as to your black carbon....
"As estimated by Hansen et al, 2005 ..."

Well I guess it comes down to who's peer reviewed article you believe in.
The paper I cited was Flanner et. al. (2007), J. Geophys. Res.
A more recent paper (more up to date?) which found:
"The 1998 global land and sea-ice snowpack absorbed 0.60 and 0.23 W m2, respectively, because of direct BC/snow forcing."
Which is less than the 0.8W/m2 found by Hansen et al, 2005, however:
"The forcing is maximum coincidentally with snowmelt onset, triggering strong snow-albedo feedback in local springtime. Consequently, the “efficacy” of BC/snow forcing is more than THREE times greater than forcing by CO2."
So again its a lot more than just looking at radiative forcings as other factors offset or enhance the effect. In fact it seems if we were able to significantly reduce aerosol emissions, the CO2 "problem" wouldn't be worth worrying about. I wonder how Naomi Oreskes would have assessed this paper, oh I know "it agrees with the consensus".

Earlier quote by EN
"The reality is that the sun’s output is remarkably consistent and even the 11 year cycle only results in a tiny variation of the energy received on earth, and hardly registers with our climate system."

Another new paper by Camp & Tung, Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection, Geophysical Research Letters. They find that times of high solar activity are on average 0.2º C warmer than times of low solar activity, and that there is a polar amplification of the warming. This result is the first to document a statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle, the authors note.
Wow so the 11 year solar cycle produces 0.2º C warming (global warming has only managed 0.6-0.7º C), I wonder how much warming the long term solar changes are responsible for? Solar irradiance reconstructions have shown an increase in the 11 year averaged irradiance between 1700 and 1980 of 4 W/m2, could be quite significant.