Your point was that "CO2's contribution is not minor", I have clearly refuted that with many sources showing its contribution is only about 3 or 4% of the greenhouse effect. If you have another source (not some graph which somehow you can magically induce CO2 role is) please post it. Now lets address what our greanhouse contribution is from CO2. Humans produce less the 5% of the total source of CO2 each year. If CO2 accounts for 4% of the total greenhouse effect then our total contribution is about 4% x 5% or 0.2%. Do you really think 0.2% is significant enough to have a major effect?
Please stop posting about the Medieval Warm Epoch as if it were 1) defined, and 2) global. It is neither a defined period nor global. It has nothing to do with global climate change as it is not global. Let me repeat this for you: regional warmth is not global. One more time: the MWP was not global. If you're not sure about this, please consult some of the previous posts of mine in this thread. Any regional anomaly is not global. We're discussing global climate here -- it's even in the topic of the thread. Gah! Look, I've already posted charts of regional temperatures variations showing that the MWP wasn't a global phenomenon. Here's yet another one (on the last page): http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/eos03.pdf
When citing an authority, they need to be an authority in their field. Also, fire hot. It would be if you hadn't argued with an appeal to authority, and I rightly point out the credentials of your authority. But sure, let's take a look at this economist's argument about climatology. First off, the very first things your economist does is to cite the satellite troposphere measurements which have already been utterly destroyed, discredited and crushed by me in this thread. I will post the citation regarding his error in this thread yet again: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170 You know, if I was going to cite satellite temperature readings of the troposphere, I'd actually find satellites that directly measure the troposphere. But that's just me. But even before the errors in this data had been isolated and verified, there was another group which had entirely different results from Spencer and Christie (which is what this economist is quoting) -- the other group was Wentz, Mears and colleagues. A quick search of his paper, and there's no mention of Wentz, Mears and colleagues' results and their differences from Spencer and Christie. That, my friends, is golden cherry picking. He had to work to delete any mention of Wentz, Mears and colleagues. Then he goes on to mention the MWP without mentioning that it was a regional phenomenon and not global. So who is this dishonest hack? Well he's an economist and not a climatologist, that we know. I decided to Google his name and not so surprisingly he works for a nutty coin-operated think tank called the Fraser Institute. He's not even a full professor, but an assistant professor and only graduated in 1996. He also opposed things like endangered species. Did I mention that he's not even a climatologist?
An 11 yr solar cycle is irrelevant to long term warming/cooling that stretches into the 100's of years.
It doesn't require "sampling" to deduce the number of troops volunteered in an area. I posted the exact numbers as of (nearly) this moment. If you'd like to have a conversation about 1945, by all means, we can discuss that year. However you'd have to word your sentences in past tense.
False, in fact the citation I just posted goes back to the year 200 with another chart back to year ZERO. http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/eos03.pdf Your premise is wrong therefore your conclusion is wrong.
I agree. Unfortunately it's critically relevant if you're arguing that the solar cycle is responsible for the increased temperature that we've seen since the industrial revolution.
1- I linked to a paper. You misrepresented yet again, Dave. Wotta surprise. 2- you skipped over the bulk of the paper where he explains how it is statistically invalid, and explains why. Respond to that.
How can an 11 yr cycle be both relevant and not? You contradict yourself when it suits you Dave. And yet you see some logic to your answer? Very dishonest.