Beautiful Googling Q&A.
I'm putting both that link and the Pearse stuff up on my own blog. Congratulations on a very, very tidy summary! What do you say to this Alzo?

"Prof Tung says his findings provide important real-world evidence climate model predictions of global warming are correct....

For instance they show the temperature changes are two to three times as strong in polar regions. On the face of it this is surprising because the variation in solar radiation is greatest in the tropics.

However, Prof Tung says "it reinforces the idea of melting ice as an amplification mechanism in the climate-change models."

What will excite climate scientists most is Prof Tung and his team are the first to measure directly how a given change in the amount of heat energy in the atmosphere translates into a change in temperature.
...
In an as yet unpublished paper posted on Prof Tung's website he says this shows a doubling of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would cause a warming of between 2.3 and 4.1 degrees centigrade within about a year.

This makes the lower estimates of some models of climate change "unlikely."

Prof Tung stresses this immediate warming is almost certain to be an underestimate of the overall effect of greenhouse gases because extra warming is delayed due to the deep ocean heating up only slowly.

He said: "But our findings give a lower bound to the atmosphere's climate sensitivity that we have not had before."

Climate modeller Peter Cox from the University of Exeter says Prof Tung has shown, without recourse to climate models, that a doubling of carbon dioxide would cause at least 2 degrees centigrade of warming "which is considered by many to be the threshold of dangerous climate change."

Thanks Alzo, that's a great paper you've quoted. It shows conclusive evidence that AGW is even more accurately measured, and is even WORSE than predicted. Sweet dreams.

Davsab is the one you should be congratulating; he put you/me/everybody onto Tung’s website, the next paper to be released and then Alzo’s consummate piece mentioned to you, in that order. All I did was search for Tung in ‘news’ and bingo, Alzo exposed again for distorting and misrepresenting the scientific findings of experts. Either that or he is just ‘off with the fairies’. I think the former – a typical non-believer’s strategy (they don’t like being called ‘denier’ for some reason).

Sir Vivor, an interesting article that doesn’t stifle debate. As the world’s atmosphere warms (more energy and moisture) we are going to experience more extreme ‘weather events’. See the WG2 report on how each region is affected. The IPCC also say that some areas are going to benefit in the short term from global warming but overall there are going to be some very major problems, particularly in the longer term.

I am interested in any comments about the IPCC scenarios (and that is all that they are) because what will happen in the future will be determined by what we do now and more importantly how much we can reduce GHG in the future.

Keiran, I am also an environmentalist, slightly left of centre. Thing is, being an environmentalist doesn’t have to tie you to any political ideology – look at Guy Pearse. Having said that, some greenies don’t know what it means to be real environmentalists and some environmentalists don’t know either.

There is very convincing evidence that global warming is anthropogenic because the science is very good today. Very, very few scientists are careless or dodgy; the vast majority have a very high degree of integrity, even the genuine sceptics or so called contrarians. Bad press, poor PR and irresponsible media muddy the waters, as do non-scientists.

Funding is important, and it comes from a wide range of sources, including big-business and the fossil fuel lobby, this can’t be denied – and a lot comes from governments and philanthropists. It’s only a problem when the ‘income’ dictates the ‘outcome’, check this for example,

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-emitside12aug12,1,92299.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

Cheers

"You stripped stuff out of context when the authors clearly believe in Global Warming."
I note you use the word "believe" here. Very appropriate as belief is required when looking at contradictory evidence.

"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!"
You mean since 1850...and the depths of the Little Ice Age....wow.

"If the sun affected climate, why is the warming occurring more at night, and more in winter?"
How do you know that the warming is occurring more at night? From minimum temperatures? Minimum temperatures can be affected by solar influences. Daily minimum temperatures typically occur in daytime (some time after dawn) and therefore will be effected by daytime heating.

"You imply that because YOU have questions the whole theory is bunk"
No I am implying that before we implement any major changes in lifestyle, we have proof positive that we humans are the cause of the recent mild warming.

"Good points Q&A"
"Beautiful Googling Q&A."
"Congratulations on a very, very tidy summary!"
"Sweet dreams."
Guys, get a room!

"Davsab is the one you should be congratulating"
Davsab, stop congratulating yourself and please, nobody is interested in Guy Pearse’s book "Flying High"

"a typical non-believer’s strategy (they don’t like being called ‘denier’ for some reason)"
Again the term "believer", take the leap of faith, Rev James Hansen accepts all.
I don't mind being called a denier, only evidence will cause me to change my mind.

Q&A, I don't need to read this Pearse's money making effort to know what the rodent has been up to all these years, and i only included some of my personal leanings and environmental philosophy to counter the stereotypical view that when it comes to the natural changing of climate these huge solar/cosmic trends do not give a hoot even if you believe you smell like a rose. We are as some bod has put it but a fart in a hurricane by comparison.

However, for sustainability the most rational source of power we need to focus on is the abundant solar rather than burning things like finite resources. Whilst we are burning stuff the resulting co2 can be put to obviously beneficial uses greening the planet. I have sometimes suggested to the rote learning religious tribe that their teddy(i.e. god) should have come to earth as the good gardener ...... rather than the good shepherd that has given us maladaptive warring mobs plus the desertification of the landscape. But if we look around now, we see that much is being done to improve the ecology and i'd just like to single out Peter Andrews as a reasonable example.

For those people interested in solar/cosmic ideas that drive earth's climate which may help focus attention on sustainable energy systems ponder on the idea that in an electrical universe there may in fact be electrical answers.

The electric sun hypothesis at ...... (Very interesting although for myself i have some skeptical thoughts at the moment on this idea that the sun may in fact be powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents. )
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

A pretty good graphical comparison of cycles 21, 22 and 23 (last update July 23, 2007)]
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/cyclcomp.html

I said: "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!"
You said: You mean since 1850...and the depths of the Little Ice Age....wow.

Yeah, wow! 4 other events over 157 years = 2.5% chance, and we've had 13 in a ROW! Explain that Denier boy, especially as the solar activity wanes. Oh, and also explain your Denial of the temperatures increasing. Oh, and everything else you don't bother to reply to when FOUND OUT!

"How do you know that the warming is occurring more at night?"
We measure it, it's simply true, deal with it.

"You imply that because YOU have questions the whole theory is bunk"
No I am implying that before we implement any major changes in lifestyle, we have proof positive that we humans are the cause of the recent mild warming.

No, you are denying the obvious when 928 studies over 20 years have confirmed the obvious. What, do you work for a coal company or something? How much evidence do you NEED!

"Good points Q&A"
"Beautiful Googling Q&A."
"Congratulations on a very, very tidy summary!"
"Sweet dreams."
Guys, get a room!

Yeah, thanks for that Alzo... I was just expressing my relief that someone else was bothering to counter your absolutely intentional LIES!

Davsab, stop congratulating yourself and please, nobody is interested in Guy Pearse’s book "Flying High"

Sorry Alzo, but I am!

"I don't mind being called a denier, only evidence will cause me to change my mind."

This one really cracked me up Alzo, you're a laugh. Sorry, I just have to clarify... you mean observable empirically tested evidence, documented and reported on by clear-minded, factual, precise scientists, will actually change your mind? REALLY? I just SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO believe someone who quotes an even MORE alarmist AGW paper as denying it's truth.

The reality is this... we have 10 years to make some significant changes, and if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. Stand aside!

"Sorry, I just have to clarify... you mean observable empirically tested evidence, documented and reported on by clear-minded, factual, precise scientists, will actually change your mind?"
Yep in a second.

"The reality is this... we have 10 years to make some significant changes, and if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem."
Well I maybe part of the problem but I am not alone. A 2007 ACNielsen survey found that:
"The good news is that nine out of 10 people globally are aware of global warming. The bad news is that only over half of them (57%) consider it a 'very serious problem'"
and also
"Half the world’s population (50%) said global warming is a result of human actions"
So no, I will not step aside and neither I imagine will a large part of the rest of the global population. I have no problems with making sensible changes, your term "significant" is the scary part. If the changes are hysterical, emotional reactions to a perceived threat then I will simply vote against them, as is my right. I suspect the voting majority will only accept a certain level of change to their lifestyles without seeing some more concrete proof. If global temperatures start to rise and continue for the next 20-30 years then that may be enough. If temperatures continue to stay in stasis as they have since 2000 or even start to decline then I can't see much change occurring.

Sounds like you guys have a bit more convincing to do yet.