Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Define 'relatively stable'. Do you consider the temp change from the LIA to the Modern Warm Period to be 'relatively stable'? The increase is about approx .8*C warmer than the LIA, that's not really all that much.
What was the 'relatively stable' range of temps for the last 10,000 years?

Warming hasn't stopped. 2 degrees more looks certain by the end of the century. Even that conservative estimate is way out of the range of the last 10,000 years.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Dream on. " Basic climate models predicted the modern warming *before* it happened."
LOL By 1950, there had already been many concerns of warming. The three decades prior to 1950 saw temp increases.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/63769...
http://www.real-science.com/muller-hot-1930s-...
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/61454...
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-0...

The world had been cooling for two decades in the late 70s when climate science predicted warming.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/F...

The natural influences on climate in the last 30 years alone would ahve caused more cooling.

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
Warming hasn't stopped. 2 degrees more looks certain by the end of the century. Even that conservative estimate is way out of the range of the last 10,000 years.

You said temps have been "relatively stable" define "relatively stable". What is the range of "relatively stable"?

And no, the last three solar cycles and the last half of the 20th century had the highest level of solar activity in the last 400 years. Historically, when this condition exists, temps warm up.

So temp increases in the 30 years prior to 2000 are directly correlated to solar acivity. The last 10 years we have seen a 'relatively stable' run of temps. Solar activity decreased starting in 2002.

Doesn't mean the sun is 100% responsible for climate. The sun is responsible for the energy in our climate system, the oceans are the primary drivers of climate.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
You said temps have been "relatively stable" define "relatively stable". What is the range of "relatively stable"?
And no, the last three solar cycles and the last half of the 20th century had the highest level of solar activity in the last 400 years. Historically, when this condition exists, temps warm up.
So temp increases in the 30 years prior to 2000 are directly correlated to solar acivity. The last 10 years we have seen a 'relatively stable' run of temps. Solar activity decreased starting in 2002.
Doesn't mean the sun is 100% responsible for climate. The sun is responsible for the energy in our climate system, the oceans are the primary drivers of climate.

What you disingenuosly fail to mention (as usual) is that the sun's output has been flat for 35 years.

It doesn't explain recent warming.

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
What you disingenuosly fail to mention (as usual) is that the sun's output has been flat for 35 years.
It doesn't explain recent warming.

I do not know why you cannot comprehend the fact that the solar activity, if flat as you say, was flat out high.

Like setting the thermostat in your house at 100* for three hours, the input of the heater to the home would be flat, very high, but flat.

Now it is low. Cycle 24 as compared to the last three solar cycles as of February 2012.

http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp.html

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
I do not know why you cannot comprehend the fact that the solar activity, if flat as you say, was flat out high.
Like setting the thermostat in your house at 100* for three hours, the input of the heater to the home would be flat, very high, but flat.
Now it is low. Cycle 24 as compared to the last three solar cycles as of February 2012.
http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp.html

The output of the sun was flat for 35 years, yet temperatures continued to rise.

Temperatures have continued to rise even in the last decade when solar output fell.

The last decade was the warmest in the record.

FairGame wrote:
It would help if you actually read the history of climate science rather than making up your own version.
//////////
'steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling' wrote:
Don't be a spoilsport, this is much more fun.
//////////
litesong wrote:
'steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling' proves his hatred for science, but proves his love for his slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pigisms.
'steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling' reinforces his hatred for knowledge by NOT having a hi skule deegreee, advanced mathematics & science degrees, or any background in mathematics & science. He actually bragged that he had no background in mathematics & science.

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
The output of the sun was flat for 35 years, yet temperatures continued to rise.
Temperatures have continued to rise even in the last decade when solar output fell.
The last decade was the warmest in the record.

If you set your house thermostat on 100* and at the time you set the thermostat your house was at 60*, as the heater in the house continued to pump out heat at a flat rate, what would happen to the temperature of your house.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/f...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...

The warming of the last 10 years doesn't look like anything to worry about.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
If you set your house thermostat on 100* and at the time you set the thermostat your house was at 60*, as the heater in the house continued to pump out heat at a flat rate, what would happen to the temperature of your house.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/f...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_...
The warming of the last 10 years doesn't look like anything to worry about.

The sun does not have a thermostat.

If you turn up the heat, the house warms up, but it doesn't continue to warm indefinitely.

The sun has not warmed for 35 years.

How long before you accept that waeming is no longer due to the sun?

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
The sun does not have a thermostat.
If you turn up the heat, the house warms up, but it doesn't continue to warm indefinitely.
The sun has not warmed for 35 years.
How long before you accept that waeming is no longer due to the sun?

Our sun has not warmed for 35 years? Where did you get that? 35 years ago was 1976.

http://www.solen.info/solar/cyclcomp.html

Cycle 21 started in 1976, had a SSN value of 12.2 higher than any other previously recorded cycle. Cycle 22, started in 1986, beat the previous high by just one point, SSN 12.3.

If you heat your house to 100* and turn the heater off, how long would it take for your house to return to a temperature comfortable enough for you to sleep.

Here's something for you to read. It is a study of solar activity throughout the holocene. There are graphs that indicate that the solar activity we have just experienced is not only the highest in the last 400 years, but is among the highest levels of the entire holocene.

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aa7704-07...

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
You obviously didn't.
Your claims are founded only on your existing ignorance; no surprise they don't stand up.

So you claim, yet your claims have yet to stand up to any real examination.

As for ignorance, your the one who seems to be lacking in a grasp of history, not I. By the evidence you have presented it seems like thou is the one professing thy ignorance.

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
Warming hasn't stopped. 2 degrees more looks certain by the end of the century. Even that conservative estimate is way out of the range of the last 10,000 years.

oh good 'game', lets add that one to the list.

http://www.lowerwolfjaw.com/agw/quotes.htm

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
What you disingenuosly fail to mention (as usual) is that the sun's output has been flat for 35 years.
It doesn't explain recent warming.

Has it? What proof have you to say that it is constent. I even found a source that you trust claiming the exact opposite. I included one so that the alarmist have what they consider a reliable source. One middle of the road and one that skeptics have trusted. All three talking about the fact the sun's output has varies or in other words has not been flat.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activit...

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/235...

http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-wa...

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
The sun does not have a thermostat.
If you turn up the heat, the house warms up, but it doesn't continue to warm indefinitely.
The sun has not warmed for 35 years.
How long before you accept that waeming is no longer due to the sun?

How long before you accept that warming is no longer due to man?

FuGyou wrote:

The turth is out there

Did it escape?

FuGyou wrote:

Warming hasn't stopped.

That's good to know.

FuGyou wrote:

2 degrees more looks certain by the end of the century.

And the band played "Believe it if you like."

FuGyou wrote:

Even that conservative estimate is way out of the range of the last 10,000 years.

You'll be saying that with your dying breath.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Our sun has not warmed for 35 years? Where did you get that? 35 years ago was 1976.

That's right!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs...

FuGyou wrote:

How long before you accept that waeming is no longer due to the sun?

I need to know what 'waeming' is before I can answer that question?

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
Error number 2.
Historical temperature data only goes back to the 17th century, or the mid 19th century globally.
Proxy studies show temperatures as relatively stable for the last 10,000 years, with some natural variation up an down.
They do not show a warming trend over the past few thousand years.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

So, what you are saying is that in approx. 2000 years, the mile thick ice sheet that covered most of N. America melted and receded? And then, temps have been "relatively stable" since then? Wow, that's some amazing rewriting of history. What kind of temp rise would have been required to make a mile thick sheet of ice melt all the way back to the pole in just 2k yrs? BTW, what would've caused that much of a rise in temp? I'll bet it was those damn neanderthals burning all those campfires. At least it wasn't George Bush's fault.

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
They do not show a warming trend over the past few thousand years.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

If you think this is a true statement, then you have been posting nonsense. If I'm not mistaken, today is included in the "last few thousand years".

Referencing wikimedia, wikipedia, skepticalscience? Sources are weak at best and your retreads are wearing thin.

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
That's right!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs...

And yet skepticalscince made an entirely different claim with this.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activit...

Besides your the one making the claim. So you have the fun of proving that it is true. If all you have is skepticalscience then you have nothing.