You cant just compare the two on the graph and assume those are the only two factors. As the Earth went into the -PDO phase of the cycle in the mid 1940s, the Earth cooled, which stopped the warming until we went into the +PDO phase of the cycle in the mid 1970s. It is very possible that the Earth was not done warming from the ~2.2 w-m2 increase in solar irradiance.

The present speed in what context? Your life time? The past century? Exactly what? To date, I have not seen even the smallest shred of evidence that would suggest that the exit from the present ice age is in any way different than the exit from any past ice age.

For example, during the medieval warm period, there is no doubt that the ice in greenland was melting at a rate that far exceeded the melting today.

"Classic greenhouse warming signature. Interesting term. As described by climatologist today, the greenhouse effect is a fantastical system in which the atmosphere acts as a heat generator of sorts which transmits heat to the atmospheric system while at the same time bringing about an equilibrium to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a thing simply could never happen.

The warming that happens in greenhouses is in no way analogous to the atmosphere. The terms greenhouse effect and greenhouse gas are, in essence, misnomers.

Huh. Shows how much you know about it, I suppose.

Greenhouse gases don't add heat to the system, they trap heat and keep it from leaving the system.

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Provide a paper from the field of thermodynamics proving such a thing can happen.

Hell, try the experiment yourself. Set up a greenhouse in your yard on a sunny day. Pump in various concentrations of any gas you choose. See if you can have a net effect on the internal temperature of the greenhouse.

The greenhouse effect as it applies to greenhouses is a product of the glass, not the composition of the atmosphere inside the greenhouse and the atmosphere is not analogous to the glass by any stretch of the imagination.

By the way. If they trap heat, then they add heat as the heat would have not been a factor had it not been trapped. Refer to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Can you PROVE that? So palerider I take it you agree with the global warming skeptics as well.

Solar cycles were shown to have no significant effect on rising temperatures. They do have an effect, but not to the extent in which global temperatures have been rising in relation to CO2 concentrations.

Do you guys even know what you are talking about? It seems to me that the same arguments are recycled over and over and anyone who wishes to debate only has just a minutia of scientific fact in helping to contribute to their arguements.

Many people are missing the overall picture. The science may still be quite ambiguous, but not since the first IPCC report in 2000. A lot has happened and a lot of people don't stay with the science because a) its very confusing b) there are all sorts of contradicting facts c) many scientists have biased findings in order to supplement their findings and d) not even scientists can come to finite conclusions about what exactly is happening.

Computer models can be run in an infinite number times with new variables daily that can not place any exact point of specification to help determine where we are going.

However, here is the science. CO2 is having a profound effect on changing our temperature fluctuations. Mother earth of course is adapting to the massive amounts of CO2 being dumped in the air and that is why it is easy to cherry pick natural cycles out of something that is actually being affected by CO2 levels.

The real debate is not that whether CO2 is having an effect (it is) but what kind of effect? Is it negligible? Or is it serious?

And this where the problem of the debate happens: people cherry pick scientific arguements. The scientific debates concurrently going on don't focus on whether there CO2 is having an effect but that the argument is over what type of effect that is.

I suggest that before moving forward with any arguements that you seriously consider the plethora of evidence (if you have time) and come up with your own conclusions. Because seriously, one study really isn't going to help you determine what the answer is. It is ongoing.

For the objective:

Real Climate.

At Real Climate, check scientific links for a pure scientific basis.

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consesus

World Climate Report.

A Few Things Ill Considered.

Skepticism on Global Warming.

Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective.


Please include all things considered. You can't just choose sides to formulate an opinion.

Do you know that to date, there is not one whit of actual observational data that suggests that CO2 concentrations have an effect on atmospheric temperature? Not one.

All ice core data clearly indicate that rising CO2 levels are the result of increasing temperatures, not the cause.

Here is a report on the impossibility of the "greenhouse effect" with regard to the atmosphere. Feel free to review it and let's discuss any specific discrepancies you find.


http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Fals...ion_of_CO2.pdf

Naughty naughty Dustin. Didn't we already go over this?

What you speak of is one instance (cherry picking, as blasphemy pointed out) in the data. The single instance is totally different - one thing could have raised temperatures, then CO2 rose slightly after that and warmed the planet even more.

__________________
Thoughts on the World
Thoughts on Global Warming
The International Relations Blog
worldthoughts(at)gmail(dot)com

I am not dustin.

Sorry, no. Instance after instance after instance. In fact, there are no ice core data that suggest rising CO2 prior to a warming period.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...08/1712?ck=nck

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...6/N26/EDIT.jsp

I could provide a great many other articles, but are they really necessary since the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that CO2 simply can not drive global warming?