Good points Q&A, but the solar data Alzo quotes is not too far wrong, but is a little “bumped” to emphasise certain trends inaccurately. It is completely out of date. It’s the 1989 graph from Foukal and Lean.

Various calibrations from the satellite data has occurred since then, and of course, it misses the last 18 years of solar activity, and has nothing to do with the last 13 years in a row being in the top 17 of the hottest on record.
That is, since the very beginning of record keeping, there are only 4 other freakishly hot years that match the last 13 in a row!

It exaggerates certain aspects that can be more easily verified by the latest data and studies using the best technology.

How you can say it correlates better than Co2 when it shares one discrepancy and has others (like recent temperatures going up and solar going down) just mystifies me. It does not correlate at all better, especially when the climatology communicate accept SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS for when CO2 does NOT correlate.

Also: If the sun affected climate, why is the warming occurring more at night, and more in winter? That sounds more like some atmospheric effect to me than the solar cycle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

For the VERY latest report to date on solar activity, try this ABC Science Show
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1974497.htm

OR JJJ — Hack covers the solar stuff quite well.
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/notes/s1979620.htm

http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html

I stand by my links above, and by points A-D. Try again Alzo.

“Questioning a scientific hypothesis is arrogant? Glad you're not a teacher/lecturer.”
If I was a teacher on this subject I would gladly answer any genuine questions. But don’t pretend that you are asking questions.

You are making an assertion! You imply that because YOU have questions the whole theory is bunk and still under debate. You’re the stubborn kid down the back that asks petulant questions because he was forced to take the class and doesn’t want to be there, and refuses to learn a thing. You make fun of the experts and misread stuff on purpose.

There is reasonable evidence that global warming is anthropogenic because we can only really find it in the human mind where it is usually created from careless data acquisition and dodgy data processing. ( i.e. When you have a virtual monopoly of research funding who needs integrity?)

The physics of Co2.
13 of the 17 hottest years on record, in a row, back to back.
928 studies over 20 years.
Yet you think it’s a construct.

Kieran, you’re an internet troll. Your post has no value or point, except trying to provoke a reaction. So here’s one…

Of COURSE Margaret Thatcher’s money established the IPCC and controls all of the worldwide 928 studies over 20 years. Of COURSE the M.I.B (Meteorologists in Black) bought out all the climatologists. Of course this includes all government bodies — no matter what nation, — and all corporately funded universities — worldwide — and every independent climatologist that has ever written on climate science. Even celebrity scientists like Dr Karl have been paid a visit by the M.I.B.

Tell us Kieran, is your tinfoil hat a tall pointy cone-head, or do you go for the “Chrome Dome”? I'm guessing the Pointy Cone-head so that it can channel the universal inter-connectedness of everything straight into your brain.

I think I'll put mine on too.

Ommmmmmmmmmmmmm

Wow, I can smell the cosmos dude, and the stardust is coming in loud and clear like a classic David Austen rose, with just a hint of manure underneath. Or is that Bull....?

OLO posters could outstay the mudlarks in a wet Melbourne Cup race! Problem is – other posters seem to have given up after one circuit. Why?

Could it be they want to join another race like the one being run by Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC chair) here last week, or the APEC Derby in Sydney next month, before the ‘Federal erection Cup’, or the UNFCCC Marathon starting in December?

Hey, I don’t mind a stoush now and then, but shouldn’t the discussion now be about “impacts, adaptation and vulnerability” or “mitigation of GHG” as reported by the IPCC’s WG2 and WG3 reports? The scientists will always review and update their findings (science and technology is getting better all the time). For our stifling 2 cents worth, we're not going to impact on them like their findings are going to impact on us!

Shouldn't we be more concerned about things like this?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22224118-30417,00.html

It’s a lot of bandwidth, but probably not as much as displayed by some in this thread.

http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/

Any comments?

Aside:
Snowbird (Thomas?) from Canada – you have a great country, even ratified Kyoto and want to play a significant part in post-Kyoto … onyer! Sorry I can’t say the same for Oz :(

You say “global warming alarmists, such as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” They’re not really; if anything they are conservative due to the IPCC process and the political posturing of your southern neighbours and developing China. If you want to label alarmist scientists, ok (e.g. Jim Hansen, Bob Carter), but the IPCC only assesses the abundant scientific literature out there.

You do a one-liner linking “Swindle” – what’s your point? “Our ABC” and Oz has been there and done it. Both it and Al Gore’s job are both propaganda pieces. Thing is, the latter is closest to the inconvenient truth, the former a snow-job.

Had a closer look at your link – I am a fan of “star wars” (and the different layers of meaning embedded therein, a true classic) – so where do you stand, dark side or Jedi?

Eclipse Now, isn’t it amazing how some people want to distort the scientific findings?
More on your argument is here

http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=LJ840672D&news_headline=global_warming_is_man-made_claims_study

Make of it as you will.
BTW, do you have any comment on Guy Pearse and his book, I’m getting no comment from GW sceptics, maybe another symptom of denial?

Have a look at:
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/810/3?etoc

"Come Shine, Come Rain
By Phil Berardelli
ScienceNOW Daily News
10 August 2007

The item addresses the correlation between the 11 year sunspot cycle and rainfall intensity and water level of Lake Victoria, in that region of East Africa.

Note that the article does not offer the corellation as "disproving" global warming. It says that:

"If the evidence holds up, sunspots could prove a valuable tool for predicting local weather patterns."

The first paragraph of the article states:

"These days, it seems a safe bet to blame everything from melting glaciers to mixed-up bird migrations on human-induced global warming. But a new study serves as a reminder that not every weather development is our fault. An international team has linked rainfall intensity in East Africa to the 11-year sunspot cycle. If confirmed, the findings would represent an example of a long-standing climate pattern that remains unaffected by greenhouse gas buildup."

No evidence that global warming zealots are stifling debate in AAAS Science magazine.