CO2 is not causing changes of climate

[gracetoyou]

Joe Bastardi's comments about "Debunking Global Warming" on FOX News has been taken to the test by Nasif S. Nahle. Must read:

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8236

[PhillipS]

Joe Bastardi's comments about "Debunking Global Warming" on FOX News has been taken to the test by Nasif S. Nahle. Must read:

http://climaterealis...dex.php?id=8236

Well now you're just embarrassing yourself. Nasif Nahle is a loon (do a Google search on him to learn the details), and your using the nonsense he has posted in support of Bastardi is just sad.

There is a mountain of data supporting multiple lines of evidence confirming the fact that CO2 is a GHG, and our increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels will warm the Earth. That is not going to be overturned by Bastardi's ignorance of physics, or by your repeated cutting and pasting of debunked and discredited 'analyses'. If you want to prove that increasing CO2 is not, in large part, the cause of the century-long warming trend then you'd have to show with theory and data why CO2 stops being a GHG above 280 ppm, and also offer an alternative physics-based explanation for the observed global warming.

AGW is not a single theory, it is a large set of theories in a number of disciplines (including physics, climatology, biology, geology, oceanography, ecology - and many more). And please understand that these theories are continually being refined as more and better data is gathered. To overturn AGW would require coming up with an alternative set of theories that better explains ALL of the data, not just bits and pieces. Recently there have been several serious efforts to examine the underpinnings of AGW, Two of those efforts are the BEST surface temperature project and Anthony Watt's Surfacestations project. Very skeptical analyses of the temperature record with no possible claim of an AGW bias to their work. And did you noticed what they have reported? Both the preliminary BEST report and Watt's Surfacestations report confirmed the rising long-term global temperature trends. It is the reality that we have to deal with.

Yes, the Earth is an immensely complex system and, yes, there is much we don't yet know, or don't know with the level of certainty we'd ideally like to have. But we do know a great deal, and what we know objectively indicates that we are altering Earth's climate in dangerous and long-lasting ways. Denying the data and continuing business as usual seems a very foolhardy gamble.

[gracetoyou]

Well now you're just embarrassing yourself. Nasif Nahle is a loon (do a Google search on him to learn the details), and your using the nonsense he has posted in support of Bastardi is just sad.

There is a mountain of data supporting multiple lines of evidence confirming the fact that CO2 is a GHG, and our increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels will warm the Earth. That is not going to be overturned by Bastardi's ignorance of physics, or by your repeated cutting and pasting of debunked and discredited 'analyses'. If you want to prove that increasing CO2 is not, in large part, the cause of the century-long warming trend then you'd have to show with theory and data why CO2 stops being a GHG above 280 ppm, and also offer an alternative physics-based explanation for the observed global warming.

AGW is not a single theory, it is a large set of theories in a number of disciplines (including physics, climatology, biology, geology, oceanography, ecology - and many more). And please understand that these theories are continually being refined as more and better data is gathered. To overturn AGW would require coming up with an alternative set of theories that better explains ALL of the data, not just bits and pieces. Recently there have been several serious efforts to examine the underpinnings of AGW, Two of those efforts are the BEST surface temperature project and Anthony Watt's Surfacestations project. Very skeptical analyses of the temperature record with no possible claim of an AGW bias to their work. And did you noticed what they have reported? Both the preliminary BEST report and Watt's Surfacestations report confirmed the rising long-term global temperature trends. It is the reality that we have to deal with.

Yes, the Earth is an immensely complex system and, yes, there is much we don't yet know, or don't know with the level of certainty we'd ideally like to have. But we do know a great deal, and what we know objectively indicates that we are altering Earth's climate in dangerous and long-lasting ways. Denying the data and continuing business as usual seems a very foolhardy gamble.

You're right! Anyone that doesn't agree with your line of thinking is just an idiot...lol.

[gracetoyou]

Well now you're just embarrassing yourself. Nasif Nahle is a loon (do a Google search on him to learn the details), and your using the nonsense he has posted in support of Bastardi is just sad.

There is a mountain of data supporting multiple lines of evidence confirming the fact that CO2 is a GHG, and our increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels will warm the Earth. That is not going to be overturned by Bastardi's ignorance of physics, or by your repeated cutting and pasting of debunked and discredited 'analyses'. If you want to prove that increasing CO2 is not, in large part, the cause of the century-long warming trend then you'd have to show with theory and data why CO2 stops being a GHG above 280 ppm, and also offer an alternative physics-based explanation for the observed global warming.

AGW is not a single theory, it is a large set of theories in a number of disciplines (including physics, climatology, biology, geology, oceanography, ecology - and many more). And please understand that these theories are continually being refined as more and better data is gathered. To overturn AGW would require coming up with an alternative set of theories that better explains ALL of the data, not just bits and pieces. Recently there have been several serious efforts to examine the underpinnings of AGW, Two of those efforts are the BEST surface temperature project and Anthony Watt's Surfacestations project. Very skeptical analyses of the temperature record with no possible claim of an AGW bias to their work. And did you noticed what they have reported? Both the preliminary BEST report and Watt's Surfacestations report confirmed the rising long-term global temperature trends. It is the reality that we have to deal with.

Yes, the Earth is an immensely complex system and, yes, there is much we don't yet know, or don't know with the level of certainty we'd ideally like to have. But we do know a great deal, and what we know objectively indicates that we are altering Earth's climate in dangerous and long-lasting ways. Denying the data and continuing business as usual seems a very foolhardy gamble.

Foolhearted gamble!! Okay let's wreck our already unstable economy & contribute to poverty & world hunger in order to act on a "theorectical problem" that even your most rational proponents say it's a slow change, not a rapid doomsday change that's about to sink the globe. Come on!!

[Strongbad]

Well now you're just embarrassing yourself. Nasif Nahle is a loon (do a Google search on him to learn the details

I just followed your advice and did a Google search on nasif Nahle. Here is what I found. It happens to be just the tip of the iceberg on what a "loon" he is. Speaking of which, how is your career as a climatologist working out for you, Phillip?

1.. Graduated on Antibiotic Therapy (U. N. A. M. and I. M. S. S., Mexico, DF).

2. Certificate on Toxicology and Biomedicine (Baden, Germany).

3. Graduated on Clinical Radiology of Head and Neck (Hospital Nova, Monterrey, N. L.; Mexico).

4. Certified on Scientific ICAM Research (University of Harvard and University of California, San Francisco, CA).

Source

[WeatherRusty]

Foolhearted gamble!! Okay let's wreck our already unstable economy & contribute to poverty & world hunger in order to act on a "theorectical problem" that even your most rational proponents say it's a slow change, not a rapid doomsday change that's about to sink the globe. Come on!!

I have never understood this "wreck the economy" argument. Just how does accelerating a transition toward an increased utilization of alternative energies wreck the economy? How does the creation of clean energy jobs contribute to poverty and world hunger? The use of fossil fuels will continue, only to be replaced and supplemented with cleaner alternatives and renewables as these become more viable. The only ones with a concern it seems to me, are the fossil fuel industries as they stand to loose market share.

[WeatherRusty]

You're right! Anyone that doesn't agree with your line of thinking is just an idiot...lol.

No, anyone who disagrees with the science is doing so because they think they know better than the scientists actually studying the issue. They think they know better than every major scientific institution in the world which holds an informed opinion of the science.

I don't care what a plumber or electrician, television weather person, medical doctor or NASA astronaut happens to think of the science. I care what the scientists most closely associated in doing the science think.

[PhillipS]

You're right! Anyone that doesn't agree with your line of thinking is just an idiot...lol.

I have never called you an idiot, and would appreciate if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but, as the old saying goes, you are not entitled to your own facts. Reality is what it is - not what we wish it to be - and in an honest discussion of climate all parties need to stick to the facts. Ideally, all of us should provide links in our comments to the data and peer-reviewed studies underlying our comments.

If you are trying to persuade someone on this forum that you know what you are commenting about you are wasting your time to quote junk sources such as Limbaugh, Monckton, D'aleo, Bastardi, CO2Science, etc. They have been debunked and discredited so often that they, and by association anyone who invokes them as an authority, lack any credibility.

It is my understanding that this forum is intended for fact-based discussion of climate issues. If I'm mistaken, and this is just another denialist fact-free blog, please let me know.

[PhillipS]

I have never understood this "wreck the economy" argument. Just how does accelerating a transition toward an increased utilization of alternative energies wreck the economy? How does the creation of clean energy jobs contribute to poverty and world hunger? The use of fossil fuels will continue, only to be replaced and supplemented with cleaner alternatives and renewables as these become more viable. The only ones with a concern it seems to me, are the fossil fuel industries as they stand to loose market share.

Rusty - you make some very good points. My opinion is that "wreck the economy" is a red herring that denialists wave around to distract from their lack of real data. After all, nobody is in favor of increasing poverty, right? But the effort to mitigate AGW aren't responsible for today's poor around the world. The sad reality is that poverty and hunger have always been with us, and almost certainly always will be with us. Certainly, cheap fossil fuel hasn't eliminated poverty or hunger. To claim that clean energy means starving children is nonsense.

Others have pointed out that our current industrialized agriculture can be viewed as a system for turning fossil fuels into food. Every step in the growing of food on a large scale, from tilling, fertilizer production, irrigation, harvesting, processing, and transportation rely on fossil fuel. As the available fuels become scarcer and more expensive, the foods produced will become scarcer and more expensive. Let's not forget that there is the very real possibility that our sources for fossil fuels can be cut off at any time by war, politics, or natural disaster. So long as we are dependent on fossil fuels we are vulnerable. And calls for increased drilling, or developing sources such as tar sands, just ignore the reality that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Read about Peak Oil if you want to learn more about this.

The effects of AGW just make the future bleaker. Heat waves, droughts, floods, and extreme weather events of all types impact crop yields, and they will become more frequent and more severe the higher we raise CO2 levels. Notice how Russia stopped exporting wheat due to last year's heat wave and wild fires? Here in Texas the on-going drought has caused over 5 billion in damages to farmers and ranchers. And there is no end in sight. How can anybody seriously believe that business as usual until a serious crisis occurs is better than implementing a planned, organized transition to renewable energy sources? Remember the gas crisis in the early 70's? How would a repeat of that help the economy? The US and all other countries are going to have to transition to renewable energy at some point,. If we lead that transition then we can have a robust economy based on selling the technology to other countries, but if we drag our feet then we'll end up buying what we need from other countries and they will keep the jobs and profits. You can see that today with wind turbines (Europe) and solar panels (Asia) but it is not too late to catch up.

[gracetoyou]

No, anyone who disagrees with the science is doing so because they think they know better than the scientists actually studying the issue. They think they know better than every major scientific institution in the world which holds an informed opinion of the science.

I don't care what a plumber or electrician, television weather person, medical doctor or NASA astronaut happens to think of the science. I care what the scientists most closely associated in doing the science think.

And there ARE scientists doing the research that disagree with the cause of the global warming for the thirty years following 1978. There are also disagreements as to why global temps have leveled off despite the increase of Co2. Read the peer reviewed paper I posted in an earlier post. This is not a cut & dry issue in the scientific world, so don't act like it is.

[skierinvermont]

And there ARE scientists doing the research that disagree with the cause of the global warming for the thirty years following 1978. There are also disagreements as to why global temps have leveled off despite the increase of Co2. Read the peer reviewed paper I posted in an earlier post. This is not a cut & dry issue in the scientific world, so don't act like it is.

The only peer reviewed paper I see cited by you says that the warming is anthropogenic and that in the past 10 years some natural factors have had a dampening influence. Which is exactly what mainstream science says.

JB's pronouncements are pure idiocy and easily refuted as numerous people have already done in this thread.

[WeatherRusty]

I have never called you an idiot, and would appreciate if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but, as the old saying goes, you are not entitled to your own facts. Reality is what it is - not what we wish it to be - and in an honest discussion of climate all parties need to stick to the facts. Ideally, all of us should provide links in our comments to the data and peer-reviewed studies underlying our comments.

If you are trying to persuade someone on this forum that you know what you are commenting about you are wasting your time to quote junk sources such as Limbaugh, Monckton, D'aleo, Bastardi, CO2Science, etc. They have been debunked and discredited so often that they, and by association anyone who invokes them as an authority, lack any credibility.

It is my understanding that this forum is intended for fact-based discussion of climate issues. If I'm mistaken, and this is just another denialist fact-free blog, please let me know.

Please do bring in facts and opinions from your unique perspective. We could use another commenter with your obvious background knowledge of the mainstream science. Rest assured that many folks browse through the climate change forum on this site, most never contributing but hopefully taking away some some pertinent information in the process. The usefulness of this site as a learning tool for others is only as good as we all make it.

There are AGW skeptics and deniers in here along with those who ascribe to the mainstream science. Like it or not, the reality is the issue is highly polarized along political and ideological grounds. I would like to see a good balance of perspective and yours is more than welcome.

[WeatherRusty]

And there ARE scientists doing the research that disagree with the cause of the global warming for the thirty years following 1978. There are also disagreements as to why global temps have leveled off despite the increase of Co2. Read the peer reviewed paper I posted in an earlier post. This is not a cut & dry issue in the scientific world, so don't act like it is.

The fact is that the vast majority of climate scientists and those in related fields of research agree that mankind's activities are having a significant impact on the warming of our world. There is not unanimity of opinion and there never will be. Neither is there unanimity of opinion on biological evolution, the evolution of the cosmos, earthquake prediction, weather forecasting, stem cell research or the correct way to brush your teeth.

The sciences of atmospheric physics, geology, astronomy, thermodynamics, radiative transfer theory etc. etc. are well enough established to enable most climate scientists to agree to the statement that "the Earth is warming and mankind's activities are a major contributor". That the warming will continue on time frames greater than a decade is a conclusion based upon the implications of known physics and the analysis of all known natural climate changing parameters.

[Strongbad]

The fact is that the vast majority of climate scientists and those in related fields of research agree that mankind's activities are having a significant impact on the warming of our world. There is not unanimity of opinion and there never will be. Neither is there unanimity of opinion on biological evolution, the evolution of the cosmos, earthquake prediction, weather forecasting, stem cell research or the correct way to brush your teeth.

The sciences of atmospheric physics, geology, astronomy, thermodynamics, radiative transfer theory etc. etc. are well enough established to enable most climate scientists to agree to the statement that "the Earth is warming and mankind's activities are a major contributor". That the warming will continue on time frames greater than a decade is a conclusion based upon the implications of known physics and the analysis of all known natural climate changing parameters.

I would like t see you provide the forums w/ proof of each of these italicized statements:

1. The fact is that the vast majority of climate scientists and those in related fields of research agree that mankind's activities are having a significant impact on the warming of our world

Where is your evidence? Or does this just comfort you and make you feel smart?

2. The sciences of atmospheric physics, geology, astronomy, thermodynamics, radiative transfer theory etc. etc. are well enough established to enable most climate scientists to agree to the statement that "the Earth is warming and mankind's activities are a major contributor

Once again, you make a blanket statement and there is no proof. Prove it in terms of atmospheric physcis, geology, astronomy... Well? Who are your sources and where are these facts?

3. That the warming will continue on time frames greater than a decade is a conclusion based upon the implications of known physics and the analysis of all known natural climate changing parameters.

And again, prove to us that the world is currently warming? Right now, show us the temperature trends globally for the past 10-15 years and prove it? Is it more convenient to start at 1979? Or 1900? How about 1800? Maybe we should use Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph and show how there couldn't have been a Medieval Warming period or a Little Ice Age during the 17th century?

The only given is that you are mindless and submit to Group Think. You make statements as if they are doctrine, but provide not a single name of any scientist, nor a majority. How many climate scientists exist today? You don't know this. How many believe in AGW? Once again you have no clue.

I do not stand here today and say I know more about weather, climate science, or even brushing my own teeth than you may. The worst people are those megalomaniacs who believe they are the cause for everything. You are your own God when it comforts you to believe man as it exists today can control our weather. And in so doing, you are part of a small crazy cult and a new religious order.

Why do we allow people on this board like this guy to get away with this Group think, mindless bull?

[PhillipS]

I would like t see you provide the forums w/ proof of each of these italicized statements:

1. The fact is that the vast majority of climate scientists and those in related fields of research agree that mankind's activities are having a significant impact on the warming of our world

Where is your evidence? Or does this just comfort you and make you feel smart?

2. The sciences of atmospheric physics, geology, astronomy, thermodynamics, radiative transfer theory etc. etc. are well enough established to enable most climate scientists to agree to the statement that "the Earth is warming and mankind's activities are a major contributor

Once again, you make a blanket statement and there is no proof. Prove it in terms of atmospheric physcis, geology, astronomy... Well? Who are your sources and where are these facts?

3. That the warming will continue on time frames greater than a decade is a conclusion based upon the implications of known physics and the analysis of all known natural climate changing parameters.

And again, prove to us that the world is currently warming? Right now, show us the temperature trends globally for the past 10-15 years and prove it? Is it more convenient to start at 1979? Or 1900? How about 1800? Maybe we should use Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph and show how there couldn't have been a Medieval Warming period or a Little Ice Age during the 17th century?

The only given is that you are mindless and submit to Group Think. You make statements as if they are doctrine, but provide not a single name of any scientist, nor a majority. How many climate scientists exist today? You don't know this. How many believe in AGW? Once again you have no clue.

I do not stand here today and say I know more about weather, climate science, or even brushing my own teeth than you may. The worst people are those megalomaniacs who believe they are the cause for everything. You are your own God when it comforts you to believe man as it exists today can control our weather. And in so doing, you are part of a small crazy cult and a new religious order.

Why do we allow people on this board like this guy to get away with this Group think, mindless bull?

I'd like to try to answer your questions.

1. From SkepticalScience - In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).

Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

2. The fact that the Earth has been warming for more than a century has been firmly established (see answer 3 below). There is more energy today in the Earth's aggregate land/ocean/air system than there was in, say, 1880. And you will remember from your high school physics that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy is neither created or destroyed. The Earth can't spontaneously warm any more than a pot of water on a table can spontaneously warm. The warming is the response to a change in the Eath's energy balance. So where did that additional energy that has warmed the Earth come from? Well, there are only two possibilities - (a) the Earth is receiving additional energy or (b ) something has perturbed Earth's climate so that less energy is being radiated out. Scientists have carefully studied the Sun and have factored in its changes and cycles and have ruled it our as the source of GW because it is just too stable and quiet. So it is not (a), which means source of the warming is (b ).

Many skeptics have asserted that the GW must be caused by natural variability, and this has a certain appeal since we constantly see the powerful effects of periodic and quasi-periodic processes such as PDO, AMO, El Nino and La Nina. But this argument doesn't hold water because oscillations and fluctuations don't raise the overall global temperature, at least not anywhere near the extent we've measured. These processes simply move energy about within the system. They have a warming phase followed by a cooling phase (or a cooling phase followed by a warming phase - take your pick, they're the same price). Even added together these processes don't explain the GW record And we haven't seen any singular events, such as volcanic eruptions, that could explain the record of GW. So what's left? Just GHGs.

We know beyond any plausible argument (So don't bother shouting 'Skydragons! Skydragons!') that CO2 is a GHG whose concentration in the Earth's atmosphere has risen by roughly 30% since 1880. We know that this rise is the result of the gigatons of fossil fuels we consume. And we know from radiative physics that rising CO2 affects the rate of outgoing radiation. SkepticalScience has a good basic discussion on this process with links to additinal information.

3. The clearest way to see that the Earth is warming is to look at ALL of the available data, the instrumental record from around 1860 to the present. Cherrypicking start and end dates to try prove a point is disingenuous at best, and flatly dishonest at worst. The same is true about using short, statistically meaningless periods. There are sound reasons why climatologists use a minimum of 30 years for determining a climate trend. It is done to minimize the 'noise' of decadal periodic and quasi-periodic processes such as PDO, AMO, El Nino and La Nina. Here is what ten of the temperature data sets look like:

Now, before you start fulminating that the instrument records are worthless I'd like to remind you that two recent projects to examine the temperture records, the Berkeley BEST project and Anthony Watts' SurfaceStations project, have recently published reports confirming the temperature trends. This is the reality we all need to deal with.

Okay, that's at least a first cut at answering your questions. Do you have any credible evidence to support your positions? If so, please share it with us.

[WeatherRusty]

I would like t see you provide the forums w/ proof of each of these italicized statements:

1. The fact is that the vast majority of climate scientists and those in related fields of research agree that mankind's activities are having a significant impact on the warming of our world

Where is your evidence? Or does this just comfort you and make you feel smart?

2. The sciences of atmospheric physics, geology, astronomy, thermodynamics, radiative transfer theory etc. etc. are well enough established to enable most climate scientists to agree to the statement that "the Earth is warming and mankind's activities are a major contributor

Once again, you make a blanket statement and there is no proof. Prove it in terms of atmospheric physcis, geology, astronomy... Well? Who are your sources and where are these facts?

3. That the warming will continue on time frames greater than a decade is a conclusion based upon the implications of known physics and the analysis of all known natural climate changing parameters.

And again, prove to us that the world is currently warming? Right now, show us the temperature trends globally for the past 10-15 years and prove it? Is it more convenient to start at 1979? Or 1900? How about 1800? Maybe we should use Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph and show how there couldn't have been a Medieval Warming period or a Little Ice Age during the 17th century?

The only given is that you are mindless and submit to Group Think. You make statements as if they are doctrine, but provide not a single name of any scientist, nor a majority. How many climate scientists exist today? You don't know this. How many believe in AGW? Once again you have no clue.

I do not stand here today and say I know more about weather, climate science, or even brushing my own teeth than you may. The worst people are those megalomaniacs who believe they are the cause for everything. You are your own God when it comforts you to believe man as it exists today can control our weather. And in so doing, you are part of a small crazy cult and a new religious order.

Why do we allow people on this board like this guy to get away with this Group think, mindless bull?

Your belligerent tone does not deserve a reply. If you had studied the science and the issue like I have you wouldn't even be asking some of these question.

Every one of your questions has been discussed on these forums repeatedly in one guise or another as well as being well covered by the main stream media, NASA, NOAA, Hadley Center, American Geophysical Union, National Academies of Science, American Meteorological Society etc. and peer-reviewed research. You can do your own research as I am through trying to inform those with an attitude such as yours.

[Strongbad]

Your belligerent tone does not deserve a reply. If you had studied the science and the issue like I have you wouldn't even be asking some of these question.

Every one of your questions has been discussed on these forums repeatedly in one guise or another as well as being well covered by the main stream media, NASA, NOAA, Hadley Center, American Geophysical Union, National Academies of Science, American Meteorological Society etc. and peer-reviewed research. You can do your own research as I am through trying to inform those with an attitude such as yours.

You continue to prance around Fantasia and believe the peer-review process is all peachy, in lieu of recent findings to the contrary. I hope you enjoy reading what the Main Stream Media, NASA or whomever spoon feeds you. They know you will continue to eat up their garbage, being intellectually lazy and incurious overall.

I will enjoy reading your nonsense while you type about how Human emissions are the face of evil and leading the Earth down a dangerous slope. The adults will all miss your lunacy one day when the AGW movement will be looked back on in disgust.

Try reading:

http://curryja.files...011-lindzen.pdf

[Snow_Miser]

I think that Carbon Dioxide does cause changes of climate, but it is entirely dwarfed by albedo changes alone.

The evidence is overwhelming that the current warming that we have seen is due to natural cycles, and not man-made Carbon Dioxide.

Here is what convinced me.

1) OLR is increasing.

The Outgoing Longwave Radiation, or (OLR) has been increasing at a steady rate of around 4.5 w/m^2 per decade. This is indicative of natural warming. Why? Because if the warming was Anthropogenic Greenhouse Warming, you would note an initial decrease in OLR, before Earth warms, and releases more OLR, so that the OLR can equilibriate to the amount of ISR reaching Earth's Surface. (No change in OLR.) However, with natural warming, you get more ISR reaching Earth's surface, which leads Earth to warm and release more and more OLR. (OLR Increase.)

2) Clouds are currently decreasing.

Clouds have decreased by roughly 4% since 1983. This has major implications for Earth's Energy Budget, because when all clouds are removed, you get approximately 17 w/m^2 added to Earth's Energy Budget.

The quoted section below is from climatologist Dr. Ole Humlum's website, climate4you.com.

Quote:The overall reflectance (albedo) of planet Earth is about 30 percent, meaning that about 30 percent of the incoming shortwave solar radiation is radiated back to space. If all clouds were removed, the global albedo would decrease to about 15 percent, and the amount of shortwave energy available for warming the planet surface would increase from 239 W/m2 to 288 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). However, the longwave radiation would also be affected, with 266 W/m2 being emitted to space, compared to the present 234 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). The net effect of removing all clouds would therefore still be an increase in net radiation of about 17 W/m2. So the global cloud cover has a clear overall cooling effect on the planet, even though the net effect of high and low clouds are opposite (see figure above). This is not a pure theoretical consideration, but is demonstrated by observations (see diagram below).

The Hartmann 1994 paper matches well with actual observations from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment, or (ERBE.)

The latest results from ERBE indicate that in the global mean, clouds reduce the radiative heating of the planet. This cooling is a function of season and ranges from approximately -13 to -21 Wm-2. While these values may seem small, they should be compared with the 4 Wm-2 heating predicted by a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration.

If all clouds were to be removed, 13-21 w/m^2 would be added to Earth's Energy Budget, according to ERBE, which is consistent with Hartmann's 17 w/m^2.

3) Earthshine Data

Scientists Professor Phil Goode and Dr. Enric Palle used a method known as "earthshine" to calculate the changing albedo of Earth.

Here are their results:

Their study showed that albedo over a 21 year period contributed 7 w/m^2 to Earth's Energy Budget in a 21 year timeframe. Comparitively, this is almost triple the GHG forcing of 2.4 w/m^2 since 1790, cited by the IPCC, which is shown in red.

4) The radiative patterns recorded from the NASA TERRA satellite show low climate sensitivity.

The plot shows two types of patterns; linear striations and random spiral patterns. The usual interpretation of this data by climate modelers would be to use the best fit line which shows a slope of 0.7 W/m2/C, which is a very high positive feedback. The actual feedback should be determined by the slope of the linear striations, which is 8 W/m2/C, which is a very high negative feedback. A value of 3.3 W/m2/C corresponds to no feedback. (No feedback means if the temperature of the atmosphere were uniformly increased by 1 C and nothing else changed, the top of the atmosphere would radiate 3.3 W/m2 more radiation to space.) The feedback is observed to occur on shorter time scales in response to evaporation and precipitation events, which are superimposed upon a more slowly varying background of radiative imbalance due to natural fluctuation in cloud cover changing the rate of solar heating Earth’s surface.

The satellite data shows that over short time scales, clouds provide strong negative feedbacks. Spencer also analyzed the radiative flux and temperature variations from climate models used by the IPCC to determine if the short term negative feedback found in the satellite data is also applicable to long term feedback. He found that the short term linear striations and the spiral patterns show up all 18 climate models that he analyzed. Spencer says the slopes of the linear striations do indeed correspond to the long term feedbacks diagnosed from these models’ response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing. This strongly suggests that the short term negative feedback shown in satellite data also applies to long term global climate change.

The feedback estimate for a hypothetical doubling of carbon dioxide, using the Terra satellite data gives a climate sensitivity of 0.46 C.

5) Climate Sensitivity from ERBE

In the following graph, each climate model's predicted climate sensitivity is plotted versus the slope of the correlations shown above, which correspond to the amount of the temperature feedback. The curved black line shows the relation between the feedback and the climate sensitivity to doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The large errors in the feedback factors cause a large range of predicted equilibrium climate sensitivities. The model results show the climate sensitivity could range from 1.3 degrees to over 5 degrees Celsius considering the range of feedback factors. But the ERBE satellite data tells a completely different story. It shows a climate sensitivity of 0.4 to 0.5 degrees Celsius. This small temperature change would not cause any problem and it there is no reason to be concerned about our CO2 emissions. See here or here for further information.

This is just a taste of the evidence that is out there, that suggests that Carbon Dioxide does not drive temperatures now, and will not drive temperatures in the future.

[WeatherRusty]

You continue to prance around Fantasia and believe the peer-review process is all peachy, in lieu of recent findings to the contrary. I hope you enjoy reading what the Main Stream Media, NASA or whomever spoon feeds you. They know you will continue to eat up their garbage, being intellectually lazy and incurious overall.

I will enjoy reading your nonsense while you type about how Human emissions are the face of evil and leading the Earth down a dangerous slope. The adults will all miss your lunacy one day when the AGW movement will be looked back on in disgust.

Try reading:

http://curryja.files...011-lindzen.pdf

I doubt you will find your brand of skepticism welcome here. Go stand in Lindzen's smoke stream, it's harmless according to him.

[Strongbad]

I doubt you will find your brand of skepticism welcome here. Go stand in Lindzen's smoke stream, it's harmless according to him.

Please enlighten me this: Why bother answering my post if you didn't bother to read Lindzen's paper. Nor did you respond to Snowlover123's post...

Throughout much of grade school, and then into college, all I saw around me was AGW-based "science". And just like most, I was lazy enough to believe what I heard from the "consensus". I believed when I heard that all skeptic scientists were funded by Big Oil or Big Business. Now I realize that the MSM, NASA, NOAA, IPCC, East Anglia, et al. are the ones to be skeptical of. These are a collection of researchers, scientists, and fundraisers who would be out of jobs if it were not for the constant scare stories about Human emissions. History has shown us that movements similar to AGW pop up and take hold of the public before dying down. It seems like it is all just one big Reactionary response humans have when we fear true change or productivity. When I hear the Al Gore's of the world preach how we should scale back our technologies and that we should move backwards. Tell this to the 1 million plus who die each year in Africa due to DDT scare stories. You and your ilk will never be wrong because your movement is one based mostly on Emotions and Feelings, and not predicated in facts or observable data. Nothing I can say or show you will change this. I don't know why I bother.

Hopefully one day you will realize this for yourself. Good day.

[gracetoyou]

I'd like to try to answer your questions.

1. From SkepticalScience - In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).

Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

2. The fact that the Earth has been warming for more than a century has been firmly established (see answer 3 below). There is more energy today in the Earth's aggregate land/ocean/air system than there was in, say, 1880. And you will remember from your high school physics that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy is neither created or destroyed. The Earth can't spontaneously warm any more than a pot of water on a table can spontaneously warm. The warming is the response to a change in the Eath's energy balance. So where did that additional energy that has warmed the Earth come from? Well, there are only two possibilities - (a) the Earth is receiving additional energy or (b ) something has perturbed Earth's climate so that less energy is being radiated out. Scientists have carefully studied the Sun and have factored in its changes and cycles and have ruled it our as the source of GW because it is just too stable and quiet. So it is not (a), which means source of the warming is (b ).

Many skeptics have asserted that the GW must be caused by natural variability, and this has a certain appeal since we constantly see the powerful effects of periodic and quasi-periodic processes such as PDO, AMO, El Nino and La Nina. But this argument doesn't hold water because oscillations and fluctuations don't raise the overall global temperature, at least not anywhere near the extent we've measured. These processes simply move energy about within the system. They have a warming phase followed by a cooling phase (or a cooling phase followed by a warming phase - take your pick, they're the same price). Even added together these processes don't explain the GW record And we haven't seen any singular events, such as volcanic eruptions, that could explain the record of GW. So what's left? Just GHGs.

We know beyond any plausible argument (So don't bother shouting 'Skydragons! Skydragons!') that CO2 is a GHG whose concentration in the Earth's atmosphere has risen by roughly 30% since 1880. We know that this rise is the result of the gigatons of fossil fuels we consume. And we know from radiative physics that rising CO2 affects the rate of outgoing radiation. SkepticalScience has a good basic discussion on this process with links to additinal information.

3. The clearest way to see that the Earth is warming is to look at ALL of the available data, the instrumental record from around 1860 to the present. Cherrypicking start and end dates to try prove a point is disingenuous at best, and flatly dishonest at worst. The same is true about using short, statistically meaningless periods. There are sound reasons why climatologists use a minimum of 30 years for determining a climate trend. It is done to minimize the 'noise' of decadal periodic and quasi-periodic processes such as PDO, AMO, El Nino and La Nina. Here is what ten of the temperature data sets look like:

Now, before you start fulminating that the instrument records are worthless I'd like to remind you that two recent projects to examine the temperture records, the Berkeley BEST project and Anthony Watts' SurfaceStations project, have recently published reports confirming the temperature trends. This is the reality we all need to deal with.

Okay, that's at least a first cut at answering your questions. Do you have any credible evidence to support your positions? If so, please share it with us.

Your statement about the sun is totally false:

Scientists have carefully studied the Sun and have factored in its changes and cycles and have ruled it our as the source of GW because it is just too stable and quiet. So it is not (a), which means source of the warming is (b ).

FALSE!! After I read that I stopped reading the rest because you lost credibility there. "Sounding" like you know a lot is not the equivalent of actually "knowing". The FACT is that from the mid 1940's to late 1990's our Sun seen some of it's highest activity since the late 1700's. It does appear that there may indeed be a correlation to the warming experienced the last 30yrs of last century.

Your statements about a "QUIET PERIOD" has only become true over the last 10-12 yrs as solar activity has been steadily decreasing. What's interesting is the FACT that global temps have leveled off the past 10-12 yrs.

Your statement was misleading & I'm not sure if you KNOWINGLY did that or just IGNORANTLY did that. I'm not trying to be offensive, I just don't want anyone to be misled by your statement about the sun.

[gracetoyou]

And let me add that I am not saying that the Sun is "THE" alone driver of our earth's climate; however, I do believe that it is "one" of the many natural factors that drive our climate & there's more than ample evidence to suggest that.

[WeatherRusty]

Please enlighten me this: Why bother answering my post if you didn't bother to read Lindzen's paper. Nor did you respond to Snowlover123's post...

Throughout much of grade school, and then into college, all I saw around me was AGW-based "science". And just like most, I was lazy enough to believe what I heard from the "consensus". I believed when I heard that all skeptic scientists were funded by Big Oil or Big Business. Now I realize that the MSM, NASA, NOAA, IPCC, East Anglia, et al. are the ones to be skeptical of. These are a collection of researchers, scientists, and fundraisers who would be out of jobs if it were not for the constant scare stories about Human emissions. History has shown us that movements similar to AGW pop up and take hold of the public before dying down. It seems like it is all just one big Reactionary response humans have when we fear true change or productivity. When I hear the Al Gore's of the world preach how we should scale back our technologies and that we should move backwards. Tell this to the 1 million plus who die each year in Africa due to DDT scare stories. You and your ilk will never be wrong because your movement is one based mostly on Emotions and Feelings, and not predicated in facts or observable data. Nothing I can say or show you will change this. I don't know why I bother.

Hopefully one day you will realize this for yourself. Good day.

The first 1.2C of warming due to a doubling of CO2 is a direct consequence of standard physics. Even Lindzen acknowledges this in your referenced written copy of his talk / lecture. Based on your post, it is evident that you are a conspiracy theorist...the scientists being only in it for the money. Oh, and DDT is good for us too I see.

It is also evident you know little of the science you so despise. The whole of AGW is based on the physical sciences, but you are correct it is not based on observed temperature data. It is based on rising CO2 levels, radiative transfer theory, spectroscopy, the structure of the atmosphere, the carbon cycle, the hydrology cycle, chemical weathering of the land surface, ocean chemistry and paleoclimatology for starters.

Emotions and Feelings have nothing to do with the science. Feelings and emotions only become relevant in our wish to minimize further environmental damage with the ever growing human dominance of the biosphere.

[Strongbad]

The first 1.2C of warming due to a doubling of CO2 is a direct consequence of standard physics. Even Lindzen acknowledges this in your referenced written copy of his talk / lecture. Based on your post, it is evident that you are a conspiracy theorist...the scientists being only in it for the money. Oh, and DDT is good for us too I see.

It is also evident you know little of the science you so despise. The whole of AGW is based on the physical sciences, but you are correct it is not based on observed temperature data. It is based on rising CO2 levels, radiative transfer theory, spectroscopy, the structure of the atmosphere, the carbon cycle, the hydrology cycle, chemical weathering of the land surface, ocean chemistry and paleoclimatology for starters.

Emotions and Feelings have nothing to do with the science. Feelings and emotions only become relevant in our wish to minimize further environmental damage with the ever growing human dominance of the biosphere.

Odd that this looks like a whacky conspiracy to you, as mounting evidence shows disingenuous and blatantly misleading practices. We can site the emails from East Anglia, Mann's Hockey Stick which was part of the consensus not so long ago, the IPCC's embarrasment of Himalayan glaciers or sea level rise.

It's odd that even as the whole industry crumbles under its own dishonesty, you continue to stay the course.

And Lindzen believes that human emissions are NOT dangerous and therefore you can cite all the various cycles, sciences, and Google searched terms as you would, and yet you are still wrong. None of these sciences, nor theories, can hide the embarrassing error that there is a decline in global temperatures since 2001, and that the Troposphere which was supposed to trap heat as per your models while cooling the Stratosphere has not happened. The earth's climate is MUCH more resilient to human emmissions whith no proof of anything other than Natural warming or cooling occurring. Keep citing all the fancy terminologies your heart desires, but your movement is a fantasy and will continue to collapse in Size, Support, and Numbers as AGW theory errors, both intentional and accidental, mount and the public tunes out.

[PhillipS]

You continue to prance around Fantasia and believe the peer-review process is all peachy, in lieu of recent findings to the contrary. I hope you enjoy reading what the Main Stream Media, NASA or whomever spoon feeds you. They know you will continue to eat up their garbage, being intellectually lazy and incurious overall.

I will enjoy reading your nonsense while you type about how Human emissions are the face of evil and leading the Earth down a dangerous slope. The adults will all miss your lunacy one day when the AGW movement will be looked back on in disgust.

Try reading:

http://curryja.files...011-lindzen.pdf

Thank you for the link to the Lindzen presentation slides. I hadn't seen them yet. You do understand, don't you, that the link you provided is not to a peer-reviewed paper but just to the slides for a conference presentation? After looking at the slides I was left wondering whether you had read them yourself because, in my opinion, they certainly don't support your position.

Everything Lindzen wrote supports the mainstream theory that CO2 is a powerful GHG and that increasing CO2 levels has in the recent past, and will continue to, warm the Earth. On slide 9 Lindzen wrote "[T]his mechanism leads to the simple result that doubling CO2 gives rise to warming of about 1C. ... Larger warming calls for positive feedbacks.", a statement in complete agreement with the IPCC reports. Where Lindzen departs from the mainstream view is in the details of the feedbacks, and on the overall climate sensivieity to increasing CO2.

The mainstream view is that if the level of CO2 is doubled from 280 ppm to 560 ppm then the effects of CO2 plus feedbacks will raise the global temperature by about 3 degrees. (please note that there is acknowledged uncertaincy in that estimate. It could be lower, but it could also be higher.) Lindzen asserts that that existing climate models are flawed and overestimate sensivity due to calculating the net feedback as positive. He describes his alternative model in which the feedbacks are probably negative, which therefore reduces the probable climate sensitivity to about 0.7 degrees for a doubling of CO2. Stated another way, an increase in CO2 to 560 ppm should cause a 0.7 degree rise in global temperature. Far less threatening than a possible increase 3 degrees, right?

So, how well does Lindzen's model look when compared to the actual empirical data? We know that the CO2 level has risen from 280 ppm to today's 392 ppm, a 40% increase. Please note that for the purposes of climate sensivity it does not matter where that additional CO2 came from. Additionally the instrumental temperature record shows about a 0.8 degree increase since the late 1800s. And it is important to note that because the Earth hasn't yet reached its new equilibrium temperature (and can't until CO2 levels stop rising) the 0.8 degree is not all of the warming we'll see. There is more warming ahead of us. But some of the observed warming is probably natural, so for this discussion I'll arbitrarily assume that the future warming and natural warming cancel each other out and the net warming for the observed increase in CO2 is 0.8 degrees. So the real world's 0.8 degrees of warming for a 112 ppm increase in CO2 versus Lindzen's model's prediction of 0.7 degrees of warming for 280 ppm increase in CO2. Hmmm, the data versus model comparison doesn't look very good for Lindzen.

How does Lindzen deal with this? By rejecting the instrumental temperature record in favor of much shorter term satellite records. On slide 19 Lindzen wrote "In the present case, if the surface data is, in fact, incorrect, then the surface warming of the period since 1979 has been greatly exaggerated.". That's a pretty big 'if" to be asked to swallow, particularly when Lindzen offers no credible reason to dispute the temperature records. Lindzen simply excludes the data that doesn't fit his model. Does anybody consider that to be good science?

So it looks like what we are seeing is a beautiful model being brutally mugged by cruel reality. Sad, really.

[LakeEffectKing]

How does Lindzen deal with this? By rejecting the instrumental temperature record in favor of much shorter term satellite records. On slide 19 Lindzen wrote "In the present case, if the surface data is, in fact, incorrect, then the surface warming of the period since 1979 has been greatly exaggerated.". That's a pretty big 'if" to be asked to swallow, particularly when Lindzen offers no credible reason to dispute the temperature records. Lindzen simply excludes the data that doesn't fit his model. Does anybody consider that to be good science?

So it looks like what we are seeing is a beautiful model being brutally mugged by cruel reality. Sad, really.

Kinda like excluding the tree ring proxy data from 1969 and beyond.... You know....hide the decline?

[Strongbad]

Kinda like excluding the tree ring proxy data from 1969 and beyond.... You know....hide the decline?

This nicely sums up the past couple of years for the AGW industry.

[WeatherRusty]

Odd that this looks like a whacky conspiracy to you, as mounting evidence shows disingenuous and blatantly misleading practices. We can site the emails from East Anglia, Mann's Hockey Stick which was part of the consensus not so long ago, the IPCC's embarrasment of Himalayan glaciers or sea level rise.

It's odd that even as the whole industry crumbles under its own dishonesty, you continue to stay the course.

And Lindzen believes that human emissions are NOT dangerous and therefore you can cite all the various cycles, sciences, and Google searched terms as you would, and yet you are still wrong. None of these sciences, nor theories, can hide the embarrassing error that there is a decline in global temperatures since 2001, and that the Troposphere which was supposed to trap heat as per your models while cooling the Stratosphere has not happened. The earth's climate is MUCH more resilient to human emmissions whith no proof of anything other than Natural warming or cooling occurring. Keep citing all the fancy terminologies your heart desires, but your movement is a fantasy and will continue to collapse in Size, Support, and Numbers as AGW theory errors, both intentional and accidental, mount and the public tunes out.

as mounting evidence shows disingenuous and blatantly misleading practices

Evidence provided by and interpreted by a bunch of crooks.

Mann's Hockey Stick which was part of the consensus not so long ago

Still is. Has been confirmed many times over.

Himalayan glaciers

Only an idiot would actually believe the glaciers could all melt away by 2035.

AGW is about the long term trend, not what the temperature has done over the past 10 years since 2001. Temperature trends are never monotonic. To use temperature changes due to internal variability as proof that the climate is not being subjected to external forcing is on the one hand disingenuous, and on the other irrational and ignorant.

The troposphere has warmed and the stratosphere has cooled, a clear sign of greenhouse warming.

Keep citing all the fancy terminologies your heart desires, but your movement is a fantasy and will continue to collapse in Size

So now science is a movement and a fantasy? Collapse? The science becomes stronger every day. So does the warming as evidenced by melting glaciers, declining arctic sea ice, world wide 100 and 1000 year flooding events along with record droughts and fires. Extensive heat waves and excessive snow falls. Few new cold records. Many times more heat records, mostly at night and during winter. Each of the past 4 decades has been warmer than its predecessor. Nine of the warmest years on record have all occurred during the last 12 years. The boundary layer of the atmosphere over the oceans contains 4% higher specific humidity as expected by the increase in saturation vapor pressure in a warmer atmosphere since the 1970's.

With satellite spectroscopy scientists are more assured than ever that the greenhouse effect is being strengthened, as it is evident that the atmosphere is absorbing more infrared radiation at the very wavelengths absorbed by CO2, CH4 and H2O. Climate sensitivity is best resolved by looking at how past climates have changed given the estimated strengths of natural forcing agents such as orbital variability and volcanic eruptions.

Keep reading and listening to denier propaganda as you will, since it fits extraordinarily well with your ideology. Remain scientifically ignorant and at odds with 97% of active climate researchers.

[WeatherRusty]

This nicely sums up the past couple of years for the AGW industry.

Only some trees residing in the far northern latitudes depart from the correlation between tree ring growth and temperature since 1960. Tree ring data from elsewhere continue to work just fine. You wouldn't want the data corrupted by a known and isolated anomaly now would you? But the deniers are expert at twisting reality into something the anti-science crowd will salivate over.

[PhillipS]

Your statement about the sun is totally false:

FALSE!! After I read that I stopped reading the rest because you lost credibility there. "Sounding" like you know a lot is not the equivalent of actually "knowing". The FACT is that from the mid 1940's to late 1990's our Sun seen some of it's highest activity since the late 1700's. It does appear that there may indeed be a correlation to the warming experienced the last 30yrs of last century.

Your statements about a "QUIET PERIOD" has only become true over the last 10-12 yrs as solar activity has been steadily decreasing. What's interesting is the FACT that global temps have leveled off the past 10-12 yrs.

Your statement was misleading & I'm not sure if you KNOWINGLY did that or just IGNORANTLY did that. I'm not trying to be offensive, I just don't want anyone to be misled by your statement about the sun.

Your posts are entertaining, but I have to wonder where you're getting your information from. Here's what I found on SkepticalScience on the topic of whether measured global warming can be attributed to the Sun.

Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

I apologize for the chart only going through 2009. That wasn't cherrypicking - that was the most recent graph I could find. My understanding is that the values for 2010 and 2011 are consistent with that shown.

I will also clarifiy what I meant when I described the Sun as 'quiet'. Do you see the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) scale on the left hand side of the graph above. In the instrumental record from 1880 through 2009 the lowest TSI was 1365.3 W/m2 and the highest was 1366.2 W/m2. If my math is right that shows that the Sun output has fluctuated less than 0.07% - less than one tenth of one percent. That's quiet in my opinion. In fact, if that graph had been plotted with the TSI scale beginning at 0 then TSI would have been shown as a straight line since the min-max would be less than the width of a pixel.

In your response you focused on sunspot numbers instead of TSI, which is the dominant solar metric. So let's look at the peer-reviewed science:

The study is Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection by Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung. They find a global warming signal of 0.18°C attributable to the 11-year solar cycle. Eg - from solar minimum to solar maximum, global temperatures increase 0.18°C due to an increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). To find the solar signal, they detrended the temperature data by removing the global warming trend. They found the detrended temperature correlated well with the solar cycle.

Figure 1: Detrended temperature (solid) compared to TSI (dotted) (Camp 2007)

However, a fair degree of climate variability contaminated the signal. Volcanic eruptions in 1982 and 1991 coincided with solar maximums. Similarly, the El Nino peak of 1998 occured during low solar activity. Tung and Camp filtered out the noise using various statistical techniques and found an even higher correlation with the solar cycle.

They concluded that from solar minimum to maximum (eg - from 1996 to 2001), the forcing from the sun increases global temperatures by 0.18°C. Conversely, from solar maximum to minimum (eg - from 2001 to 2007), the reduced forcing from the sun cools global temperatures by 0.18°C. This 11 year cycle is superimposed over the long term global warming trend.

So sunspot cycles are just that - cycles, and don't add anything to the long-term warming trend.

I don't know where you are getting your misinformation, but if I were you I'd be a bit more skeptical of anything they say.