Most of the worlds glaciers are disappearing and the North West Passage is likely to be open this year for the first time. The Murray Darling river system is still drying up. How can anyone still maintain the planet is cooling? Science is all about observation and it is now easy to see the effects of global warming.

Karoly says "That gives an average daily number of sunspots in January 2008 of 3.4, 2.1 in February and 9.3 in March 2008. "

Pity he left out 2.9 in April. But sun spots are just part of the solar picture.

Pity he cannot consider the bigger picture if we are to understand the solar/cosmic influence. The IPCC selectively only looks at solar irradiance on selectively short timelines/data and ignores other essential solar "pulses". This represents one very good reason to study the aa index of geomagnetic activity which has doubled and been in an uptrend for over 100 years. Only a halfwit would ignore this fact. The last thirty years of this index seems to indicate signs of instability or what one may call the shakes. This could mean a turning point after a rather long very active period. The present extended solar minimum could be confirmation .... we can only speculate but it is not going unnoticed by many leading scientists.

Pity he explains recent cooling as a confined La Niña event where he opportunistically assumes winds mysteriously increase in speed in the eastern to central Pacific producing more cold water from below being forced up, cooling the ocean surface. i.e Any cooling is but some localised, selective weather event coming from beneath the Pacific ocean's surface to AGWers.

Karoly then says "While those errors are bad enough, the major flaw in Chapman’s opinion is trying to infer long-term climate trends from short-term (one-year) variations of global temperature." This is the pure hypocrisy we always get from an AGWer. The problem for the warmers with this argument is precisely that they only have a few hundred years worth of historical data and but twenty years of recent warming, which may or may not have been accurately recorded. They are trying to apply that to climatic behavior that has had its own cyclic changes, unaffected by man, for eons.

I simply see Karoly and AGWers as opportunists and the true deniers.

I saw an article about Al Gore having an interest in owning shares in carbon trading.

"The Murray Darling system is still drying up."

From reading the early accounts of explorers they had to portage their boats over dry stretches of the murray river during the summer. It has only be the building of locks and weirs that has enabled to murray to flow all year round.

According to other reports I have read is that the Australian continent was a much wetter place, 40 to 50,000 years ago.

So Australia has been drying out for more than a few thousand years.

And before anyone attacks Professor Karoly, they should read this piece.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation-the-Smoking-Gun.html

I can assure readers that the IPCC has no agenda, other than science. Why on Earth would they? Scientists are not in the job as scaremongers and it is simply not in their culture to be hyperbolic. We are talking about deadly serious scientists who spend their lives trying to get to the truth of the matter.

It would be nice to forget the sceptics, few as they are, and focus on how society and governments should respond to the real situation. Unfortunately, the sceptics have a much higher media profile than they ought, because media traditionally tries to give 2 sides to an argument, even if one side is a mere handful. So the sceptics do have an ability to retard the cultural shift, and in doing so will be morally responsible (albeit mostly in ignorance) for the consequences - whether that be megadeaths or major economic fallout or inevitable natural disasters that follow.

Before guilt-tripping the sceptics too far, I must add that social change is ALWAYS accompanied by an angry and sceptical response amongst those who find it difficult to confront the information that is before them. This reaction is completely natural.

Beyond those who have a vested interest in the status quo there will always be those innocent respondents who psychologically can't bring themselves to accept deep change. It's simply called 'denial' - a much studied subject.

We only have to see the enormous backlash against those who tried to emancipate slaves and against the feminist movement. A serious medical prognosis will bring on the same 'denial' reaction from those who aren't equipped to handle the bad news.

In time, the cultural change happens regardless, but in the case of climate change, when time is the essence, the sceptics have the ability to deepen the crisis.

Be it on their heads if they know what they are doing, have sympathy for those who don't.

Wow its humorous to see the High Priests of climate change (warming and cooling) at each others throats as they interpret the data differently. Whenever you use the pseudo science to convince the gullible of evolution you will end up with this point scoring. Very amusing to see the latest Priests saying that GW is on hold for 10 years. I suppose as long as you have the media and our national broadcasters willing to give the airtime we will see the pollies bowing to the latest anointed High Priests. Where is Al Gore and Tim Flannery now?

Wow, what a difference a few days makes.
Since Mr Karoly wrote his article we've had...
1 NASA announce that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has flipped to its cooling phase. If this holds we could be in for cooler temps for the next 30 years . The last time it flipped to cooling was 1946 and the planet cooled through to the mid 70's

2. Nature carrying a peer-review article (from AGW true believers) pointing to continued cooling for the next decade or so.

3. A Chilean volcano which, depending on size, could usher in a decidedly cooler year or two.

Mr Karoly sets up a straw man when he tells us we aren't headed for an ice age - although the Chapman article talked about this it really suggested a return to the extremely cold period around 1800 and the Little Ice Age. But AGW camp doesn't acknowledge the LIA having written it out of history via the Hockey Stick so its not surprising Mr Karoly missed that subtlety.

But if things continue like this we'll all be knocking down straw men - straw being a good insulator against the cold.

O&A, yes i'm familiar and quite skeptical with your skepticalscience article on the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. It qualifies as a description only with NO attempt at causation which is what honest science is all about. Of course that is what we expect from AGWers like fruitloop Karoly. Boyoh this joker is off his face with CO2 original sin with this anthropocentric mindset that simply delivers our human built-in bias and mode of conceptualisation. However, I'm glad to see him come out of the woodwork in response to this rather dramatic Phil Chapman article. So by all means let's line up all these charlatans and AGW high priests .... particularly the Australian ones.

I don't think it is a coincidence, that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or as I see it the Indian to Pacific ocean surface cooling band across the tropics, is noticeable when studying the aa index of geomagnetic activity. It is there as plain as day ...... implicating the changing behaviour of the sun as possibly causal.

Runner. Just call your god to fix it. lol

No-one has a dam clue too whats going to happen next, so yes! its both. The whole world is just a bunch of chemicals. For every action there is a reaction and don't think were not going to pay for the co2 release. Evolution can be looked at like a god, and unlike the Christan god or any other for that matter, the evolution god will be seen and felt.

My guesstamation is that we have three hundred years, and its not to fix it,cause you cant. Three hundred years is to get off this planet or we can just keep hanging around until the next great extinction.

The clock is ticking.

evolution,

What needs fixing is man's heart. Then man will stop all this silly pseudo science and evolution talk. Unfortunately most will continue to love their sin instead of turning to the living God for forgiveness. This is the world's greatest tragedy. Creating a forthcoming catastrophe and then becoming an activist is just a cover for man's corrupt nature. Christ is our only hope and yes this earth will pass away one day. Thankfully the One who can't and never has lied promises a new heaven and a new earth for those honest enough to turn from their ways and to His mercy and grace.

Runner. Your heart is grand and your mind is all good, and lets not forget that this site is about exchanging ideas. Its never nothing personal

Evolution “My guesstamation is that we have three hundred years, and its not to fix it,cause you cant. Three hundred years is to get off this planet or we can just keep hanging around until the next great extinction.”

300 years more to what (apart from get off the planet)?

More to the point what do you predict for the next extinction?

I agreed with your post until that point.

Personally I do not think extinction will happen.

A mass “de-population” due to some new plague possibly, but that will not produce extinction. Their will always be a few with a resistance.

Maybe I am being optimistic and fanciful.

But that is just me.

Being optimistic sure beats being pessimistic.

We cannot accurately predict our local weather,what chance have we of predicting the complexities of of our own planet's energy exchanges?Face it,at best we are using educated guesses.The trends of the last 50 or 60 yrs mean nothing,since climate changes over thousands of yrs.

It is better to have global warming than cooling because this makes the cooler regions more habitable.Cooling will cause monumental catastrophies of food and energy shortages thus wars and extreme poverty.

Our best estimates tell us that we are not really sure,and our worst estimates are based in pure conjecture.Who would you believe?

Arjay>"The trends of the last 50 or 60 yrs mean nothing,since climate changes over thousands of yrs."

Do you have any idea what an ice core sample is?

There are two points about the whole global warming debate that I would like either the author or a poster to answer:

1. Why is there so much fuss about global warming? As far as I can see peak oil is going to kill that stone dead in the very near future.

2. By how many degrees does the average temperature have to fall for us all to agree that global cooling is a fact?

I'll answer as best I can as a non-scientist.

1. I believe it has something to do with the sheer size of the catastrophy combined with the irreversibility of the problem.

2. Who cares? If there is a scientific basis for those conclusions, scientists will warn idiots about it who will not listen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

I'm with xkcd on this one

http://xkcd.com/164/

Constructive neutrality is the game.

I know that Q&A has used Wikipedia as a reference to climate change but there are others here taking their lead from wicked pedia propaganda. Perhaps you may like to know how one individual engineers the debate at wiki and shapes it to his views. What does this say about AGWers reciting their gospel where any reference at wiki that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to this one individual's bidding? It certainly says something about the freedom of the www but more, .... how Wikipedia has become the single biggest reference source on many topics in the world which speaks volumes for its ability to control information regardless of it being a balance coverage. Of course we don't need to go past our own national broadcaster, the ABC, to understand that standards of balanced coverage have no relevance when it comes matters of science.
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=490337

G’day Keiran, good to see OLO’s resident ‘cosmic-ray enthusiast’ flying the flag!

The Keenlyside et al paper that was published in Nature was bound to bring the ‘AGW-deniers’ out of the woodwork.

'Deniers' have been rubbishing the climate models (GCMs) without really understanding the difference between ‘weather’ and ‘climate’. Yet now they use this new Keenlyside model to ‘justify’ their (wrong) claims of global cooling – very hypocritical methinks.

However, I don’t think they really understand the paper that was published. Policy and decision makers around the globe have wanted to plan and develop strategies that will help them adapt to climate change and mitigate the impacts of CO2e emissions.

Filtering out ‘signal to noise’ (as it relates to climate change prediction, as opposed to weather forecasting) requires time frames in the order of decades. What Keenlyside has done is ‘predict’ say 10 years out. This would be extremely beneficial to the policymakers, particularly for regional planning.

What this paper has done is help ‘explain’ the influence of natural variability of the Pacific Decadal and North Atlantic Oscillations superimposed on anthropogenic global warming. Indeed, the authors say their modelling method was able to reasonably replicate climate patterns in those regions in recent decades, providing some confidence in their prediction for the next one.

The authors stressed that the pause in warming represented only a temporary blunting of the centuries of rising temperatures that scientists have projected if carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases continue accumulating in the atmosphere.

“We’re learning that internal climate variability is important and can mask the effects of human-induced global change.”

Looking at the graph in the link I provided, you can still see the warming trend to 2100. It’s disingenuous at best and outright distortion at worst to say ‘global warming’ is no longer occurring, but this is exactly what the AGW-deniers are saying.

A link to the abstract can be found here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/nature06921.html

BTW, Wikki is ‘generally’ ok for an overview (especially for beginners) BUT I prefer to read the published papers in the Journals I have linked to in other OLO threads.

Plerdsus

There is so much fuss because the impacts of global warming have repercussions around the world: national/international security, energy use and food supply, water resources, biodiversity, insurance and risk management, monetary/fiscal policy – add your own list.

All countries and governments of the world are concerned – why would they not be? How we deal with the problem is the problem, not the science per se.

Peak oil (hydrocarbons) is an issue, but it is wrong to suggest it’s “going to kill that stone dead in the very near future.” We should make more prudent use of our oil resources. When oil is gone, there will be other ‘oils’ (see tar sands and shale oil for example). It’s the burning of fossil fuels and poor land use management practices that mainly contribute to AGW.

The theory of AGW suggests humanity has been the major (not the only) driver of this latest global warming. While climate change is a naturally occurring event over ‘geologic time’ periods, this latest one is of concern because of its relatively abrupt rate of change and the impact a GMT change of say 2 degrees will have.

There will be a lot of research done in the next few years on what is called attribution/commitment (natural vs human induced forcings) and climate sensitivity (how much warming for a particular increase in GHG concentration).

It is NOT about “how many degrees does the average temperature have to fall for us all to agree that global cooling is a fact”. Rather, it’s about trends and statistics (those damn statistics). See previous comment to Keiran.

These links are worthwhile cruising around:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/recent-climate-observations-compared-to-ipcc-projections/

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/what-would-it-take-to-disprove-global-warming/

Keiran wrote:

"Pity he left out 2.9 in April. But sun spots are just part of the solar picture".

2.9 was not the average of daily sunspot numbers for the month of April 2008. It was 5. But sunspot numbers vary all over the place.

Chapman wrote that the solar cycle bottomed out over a year ago, and Karoly pointed out that this is not true. If you average the numbers monthly, the minimum was last fall, just as Karoly stated.

There are lots of ways to average sunspots in order to smooth out the radical daily variations. To come up with the standard smoothed numbers, they are always 6 months behind. So knowing the sunspot numbers through the end of April, you can calculate the smoothed sunspot number for last October.

The monthly numbers jump all over the place, but if you figure a 3-month moving average, the trends are easier to spot, and don't take as long to look at results as the standard 12-month number.

Here is a 3-month moving average including all daily sunspot data for 2007-08:

Jan 07 22.7
Feb 07 18.5
Mar 07 11.2
Apr 07 12.2
May 07 15.8
Jun 07 18.7
Jul 07 15.4
Aug 07 10.2
Sep 07 5.4
Oct 07 3
Nov 07 6.9
Dec 07 8.1
Jan 08 8.5
Feb 08 8.4
Mar 08 8.4

This shows a minimum last October, precisely what Karoly said. The March 08 number is the center of the 3-month average, so it includes all daily numbers for February 1 thru April 30.

Keiran complains that climatologists leave out "other essential solar pulses", a term I am completely unfamiliar with. Can Keiran refer to a peer-reviewed scientific paper on astrophysics that defines this term, or even uses it? Just what does it mean?

He mentions aa index, but that is a measure of the earth’s geomagnetic stability, never cited by skeptics of global warming as driving climate. Besides, study after study by climatologists shows no link between sunspots (which are much cooler than surrounding ares) and climate.

Oh my goodness Hamster. Are you saying you haven't heard of the solar wind, or coronal holes or coronal mass ejections or M and X class flares or propagation or background x-ray flux or electron fluence etc, etc. Perhaps I should direct you to some appropriate material to read up on but that may be too easy.

Yes you say ... "aa index, but that is a measure of the earth’s geomagnetic stability" is correct and our earth has a strong internal magnetic field. However, does it occur to you that the solar wind is able to modify this field, creating a cavity called the magnetosphere? What do you think this cavity does to the surface of the earth? Do you know that it is filled with plasma much of which originates from sunnyboy? Would this influence climate, perhaps?

When you say "Besides, study after study by climatologists shows no link between sunspots (which are much cooler than surrounding ares) and climate.", well all i can say is keep looking but don't overlook the full solar/cosmic picture. Incidentally, what is your understanding of the cause of the Maunder Minimum?

Col. To cut a long story short, 1 we have nowhere to go if something goes wrong. 2 In the mean time, population reduction and technology advancements with more space research wont go astray.
The three hundred years (give or take) I spoke about, is the time it will take for a new type of atmosphere and climate, which will probably be like something the dinosaurs or the mammoths enjoyed. Look at it like a pendulum on a clock.
The carm times the world has enjoyed has come to an end and now its swinging backwards and forwards. Hot or dry then cold or wet. My guesstimating is, in time that pendulum will stop on one or the other.

I don't think there's any need to worry at the moment excepted for the fact that as time goes on, feeding 6 billion people with this climate unpredictability happenings, cause its raising its ugly head now with people starving to death and its going to get worst.

This pendulum theory is just a visual of what Iam seeing around the world and we are not preparing, seeing or doing anything about it.
True, it wont come to an extinction, but on the subject of, in the last 100 years, it has been the fastest extinction rate in recorded history, and that alone, must be ring some alarm bells.

I believe in the next 50 years, the human race is going to learn a very hard lesson.

Keiran>"but there are others here taking their lead from wicked pedia propaganda."

Because 153 citations in the wikipedia article i linked to does tend to destroy the average idiots credibility. My how wicked.

Steel,

Because you really didn't understand my ruse about Queen apologising matter and my reluctance [because you so rude] about how the death of Stalin [19530 had a domino effect leading to the crack down in Tibet and friction between China and India; I must agree with you that wikipedia is a poor resource.

as for the Dalai Lama research it yourself. Catch os the best books on the topic we printed in 1940s and 1950s and university data bases usually don't go back that fare with outline jounals.

Hope you learn some manners.

O.

Steel,

Because you really didn't understand my ruse about the Queen apologising matter and my reluctance [because you so rude] about how the death of Stalin [19530 had a domino effect leading to the crack down in Tibet and friction between China and India; I must agree with you that wikipedia is a poor resource.

as for the Dalai Lama research it yourself. Catch is the best books on the topic we printed in 1940s and 1950s and university data bases usually don't go back that fare with outline jounals.

Hope you learn some manners.

O.

Ok. I deserved that. Sorry.

All the best.

EVO

Steel

It may be worthwhile going to the following link and typing “Lawrence Soloman” into the search field, click ‘GO’ and see what you come up with.

http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/quick/

It explains some of the history behind why Soloman wants to ‘dump’ on Wikki.

A lot of people get mesmerised by op-eds and media hype – the ‘National Post’ that Keiran linked to is typical of a number of anti-global warming blogspots that have sprouted recently.

Their gain in 'hits' is correlated to the fear people have of something threatening their comfort zone.

Unfortunately, many of the posters haven’t a clue about the science and the moderators allow a feeding frenzy by the pack on anyone who dares challenge the rationale of the blog. But it goes both ways - I know my patience would be challenged.

There are a few sites around where reasoned and rational questions can be answered by the experts. However, unless you’re willing to learn or challenge in a constructive manner, there is no point in visiting them.

As to what Oliver is on about, maybe you/he got tied up in another thread?

Hmm, some people got messed up. My comment was NOT directed at you Oliver nor anyone else (now that you've wasted your posts you won't be able to correct it :) for a while...). I was instead addressing KEIRAN only, earlier who rather offhandedly and arrogantly dismissed the wikipedia article on the effects of global warming i cited that contains 156 citations, (although he only commented about it indirectly, he made an inclusive statement). What's funny is, he rarely gives any citations for his viewpoints. I get really perturbed by laymen who outright refuse to acknowledge the tens of thousands of hours of research and field tests that go into these things, by many, many people. If you have a logical argument that has some basis, go right ahead, but arguing from ignorance and arrogance is just crazy when you consider that each person votes based entirely on perceptions and private/media beliefs. Thankfully, many people *DO* respect the work of these scientists and groups. I'm not saying they shouldn't be questioned, but do it from a decently strong position, not an ignorant one.

Q&A, we have this comment .... you say "Wikki is ‘generally’ ok for an overview (especially for beginners)". I say this is an appalling outlook if you are genuinely concerned about honest science and the education of impressionable people. I have commented on this previously and this statement of yours speaks of your lack of credibility.

The wiki page Steel mentioned is pure propaganda and its many references attest to this fact. Gawwd look at them ..... it's a virtual whose who of media, political, and pseudo-science shonks and try hards. It plainly is not a balanced over view but must say this wiki joker editor is much better than AlGorithms. All i can say is take off the blinkers and admit you have been conned because wiki is all simply based on reinterpretations and as such will be biased.

Next Q&A, we are not debating peak oil but AGW, an hypothesis based expediently on but twenty years of the late 20th century warming. It is not a theory at all because there has been shown NO conclusive proof other than an attempt to make something of a correlation between minuscule human CO2 emissions and the fact that we have had a warming period within normal historical evidence. No wonder dodgy AGWers preach the oxymoron .... "Stop Climate Change." lol

Keiran

Wikki IS generally ok, but both you and I know its limitations? Your link to Lawrence Solomon’s ‘sour grapes’ op-ed was unfortunate … can’t you see the grudge match he is engaging in?

Sheesh, even you can infiltrate Wikki with cosmic ray stuff and to be quite frank, the editors would do a good job of filtering you out – but they may not!

That is why I go to the primary sources, which bit do you not understand?

This is what is taught to impressionable people, beginning in high school.

You are giving me the impression you just don’t like citations from sources that refute your claims. Ergo, if 99 out of 100 sources disagree with your reasoning, you would claim it’s all a conspiracy and denounce the whole exercise as propaganda.

I am not debating peak oil with you Keiran. Plerdsus raised it in his post and I responded. Do you have a problem with that?

This next statement of yours really exemplifies your lack of understanding of how science works.

“It is not a theory at all because there has been shown NO conclusive proof other than an attempt to make something of a correlation between minuscule human CO2 emissions and the fact that we have had a warming period within normal historical evidence.”

Look at Nir Shaviv, your cosmic ray guru. He does NOT have to PROVE his hypothesis. It is for others to critique it. If his hypothesis stands up to peer reviewed critique, it becomes more robust and may one day become theory. He has NOT been able to do that, but he should keep trying. Do you understand?

Again, following your logic (which I am beginning to doubt you have been blessed with) – you want 100% absolute certainty before you will act on anything. If that is how you expect society to work, then nothing will ever get done and we may as well still be living in the dark ages!

If you have difficulty with this concept, go and talk to the big insurance companies and businesses around the planet.

Keiran:
- Ranting lunatic and layman
- Cites nothing or an op-ed if at all.

Wikipedia:
- 156 citations
- Huge variety of sources

Keiran writes:

>Oh my goodness Hamster. Are you saying you
>haven't heard of the solar wind, or coronal
>holes or coronal mass ejections or M and X
>class flares or propagation or background
>x-ray flux or electron fluence etc, etc.
>Perhaps I should direct you to some appropriate
>material to read up on but that may be too easy.

Huh? When did I say I hadn't heard of these things?

You never mentioned them before, either.

>Yes you say ... "aa index, but that is a
>measure of the earth’s geomagnetic stability"
>is correct and our earth has a strong internal
>magnetic field. However, does it occur to you
>that the solar wind is able to modify this field,
>creating a cavity called the magnetosphere?
>What do you think this cavity does to the surface
>of the earth? Do you know that it is filled with
>plasma much of which originates from sunnyboy?
>Would this influence climate, perhaps?

Where is credible scientific evidence that this means we are headed for an ice age?

But I am not a climatologist. I just wonder though why the global warming skeptics keep making up data?

>When you say "Besides, study after study by climatologists
>shows no link between sunspots (which are much cooler than
>surrounding ares) and climate.", well all i can say is keep
>looking but don't overlook the full solar/cosmic picture.
>Incidentally, what is your understanding of the cause of
>the Maunder Minimum?

What exactly am I overlooking? You are the one making claims using false solar data. Then when challenged, you merely toss out a mess of terms.

I don't know what caused the Maunder Minimum, and neither do you.

Keiran “Q&A, we have this comment .... you say "Wikki is ‘generally’ ok for an overview (especially for beginners)".

I say this is an appalling outlook if you are genuinely concerned about honest science and the education of impressionable people.”

But Q&A is not interested in honest science or any genuine concerns, only in maintaining what he sees as his own “eminence” and right to talk down to ordinary folk, whilst awaiting elevation to an “emeritus” status (in other words, he defends his wannabe status by dismissing everyone else and their right to hold and express a view).

Regarding AGW “an hypothesis based expediently on but twenty years of the late 20th century warming.”

Agree I have made previous comparisons to the “science” of economics, a 200 years history and still no global model or consensus on the influences of differing variables on the process, compared to a 20 years of climate change study and even fewer sampling and measuring systems available for modeling and yet we have folk telling us we are going to hell in a hand-basket unless we stop releasing carbon into the atmosphere.

i am not a scientist but I do not have to be to be able to reason probability or to predict consequences.
In the life of the planet it is pure hubris to presume global warming has so significantly changed in the past couple of decades purely due to human activity and any claims made that it has must be considered in regard to the reward motive available to the prophet of such.

Scientists have been known to be wrong in the past, even acclaimed ones like William McBride, exposed for scientific fraud on a massive scale. Other scientists brought us the anthopological revelations of piltdown man.

I am an accountant, I an trained to follow the money trail....

Col, I have obviously offended you.

I am sorry.

Can we move on?

This is all funny stuff from Hamster.

Hamster, says he is "completely unfamiliar with" my expression of the sun's other essential solar pulses. When i list them he then replies with "Huh? When did I say I hadn't heard of these things? You never mentioned them before, either."

He then thinks i said "we are headed for an ice age" and i "keep making up data". Other nonsense like "I don't know what caused the Maunder Minimum, and neither do you."only confirms my earlier statement of "well all i can say is keep looking but don't overlook the full solar/cosmic picture."

Hamster, the heavy burden of proof is on AGWers who would seek to deny that heat variations in the sun's output and the electro-magnetic energy fluctuations, would have a far greater effect on the climate than any tiny proportion of a tiny proportion of natural atmospheric gas. To my way of thinking this is blindingly obvious and it is bluddy obvious how AGWers go about this task. They only have an hypothesis based expediently on but twenty years of the late 20th century warming where we have some doubt about the accuracy of the data. Trying to apply that to climatic behaviour that has had its own cyclic changes, unaffected by humanity, for eons certainly calls for some real anthropogenic grandeur because who needs integrity when you want to be the weathermaker?