But being that Arctic ice is quickly diminishing, while Antarctic ice is stable, or even increasing, and being that air temp warming is relatively marginal (I think the latest revisions are less than 1* F in the past 100 yrs) seems indicative that the melting is due to sea temps.

]Which would seem to be largely solar variability influenced (an anectdotal example is to consider that satellite shots generally show the seas to be practically black, which indicates a heat sink,

and being that the mass of sea water (in atomic weight, for example)

is humongously more than that of the atmosphere,

there is a lot of heat-retention capability down there.
Admittedly amateur's speculation, but I think worth considering.

After the 1998 peak, didn't temps drop, and I believe the latest temp chart show a nice downward graph trend.

Also, I would think that the retentive heat effect would be like the hottest part of the day being around 3 to 5 pm in the summer, rather than high noon, or that the lowest winter temps n. hemisphere are around the middle of Jan, rather than Dec 21, the solstice.

This paper is an opinion. Correct or incorrect. My point, as written in my first posts, is to highlight the comparisons between a .25% increase in solar output since the Maunder era, compared to a .02% increase in CO2 emissions. I am simply utilizing the data of Dr. Lean.

The correlation of reconstructed solar irradiance and Northern Hemisphere (NH) surface temperature is 0.86 in the pre-industrial period from 1610 to 1800, implying a predominant solar influence. Extending this correlation to the present suggests that solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55?°C surface warming since 1860 and one third of the warming since 1970.

But keep in mind the original assertion: IF sc24 is weak, it will be revealing.
If the solar output lowers, and temps start again to go up in the ensuing years, you are vindicated.

If temps drop, the Question I pose is time well spent.

beltaine said (12-24-07): "There is no historical precedent for what is happening today. "
====
my comment: oh yeah,there were precedents. The 1930s have been newly-determined to have been the hottest decade over the past 100 years. And the hottest era was that around 1000AD.

But the present anamolies might well be explained thus:
First, you have to go to the bottom of this 2002 NASA site:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/18jan_solarback.htm

and click the block
"sunspot counts recorded during the past 400 years"
Now, you have to add on the latest solar max of about 160 in 2002 to this, because it has (for what reasons, I have no idea) not been included in the graph.

There is a conspiracy forum going on somewhere, too, that you could join.

Oh! and CO2 is not a toxin, it's an asphyxiant and only in large quantities and I know this because I use it a lot in my profession.....so there

The only silver lining on an oncoming ice age would be to shut up knotheads like Gore.

Beltaine, I'll attempt to minimize pasting, and causing clutter, and will attempt to respond in a narrative, using keywords and phrases of yours.

1) decreasing Arctic ice, stable Antarctic ice: pretty universally accepted. No use making cites.

Also, the air temps you use (I will semi-stipulate as correct) substantiates my whole point.

These increased air temps are not affecting Antarctica's ice. They are not that significant. And, of course, these temps (assuming correct) could be in the "total paradigm" or local.

2) the satellite shots: this is substantiated by common knowledge that the deeper you get in the seas, the darker it gets. While there is some reflection, the predominant apparent effect is solar retention

3) sea water (atomic) mass vs atmosphere: the whole aspect of "moles" is to allow minute elemental weights to be utilized in "our world" using scales and the like. The atomic mass of the seas is obviously mega-weightier than the atmosphere. Also, atmospheric pressures pale in comparison to pressures 10,000 feet deep in the seas, for example

4) Beltaine says: "The thing is, your amateur's speculation HAS been considered by the professionals...some time ago. Remember, you used it in some of your quote mining. They concluded that, while changes in solar emissions has had a greater effect than we thought, the amount that we are responsible for is still quite significant and has been increasing."

my comment: that is the whole question posed by this piece. IF sc24 is weak, that conclusion by these "experts" will either be vindicated or eradicated.

5) Beltaine says: "After '98, temperatures dropped from that abnormal temperature spike...then they started going up again. You can't get an honest evaluation of long term trends if you don't remove the short term "noise". "

my comment: looking at the sites immediately below, the temp drops look like more than just local "noise". Especially, at the first listed site, note the deep "noise" drop of the past year, the steep slope. There is definitely a possible trend here. We are 9 years removed from the 1998 spike.

Eight consistent years of bad measurements is VERY unlikely. CO2 measurements have been rising quickly (esp due to, ironically, those signatories of Kyoto).
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/HadCRUG.html
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html

Note: These script-generated graphs are auto-scaled by default. Users must be aware that scales vary such that the Y1-values virtually fill the plot area and that this might (probably will) distort the impression gained from casual perusal.

6) Dr Judith Lean: her findings / assertions are not restricted to the article you keep referring to. Example, see: http://www.americanscientist.org/AssetDetail/assetid/39261
The AGU article was apparently one person's opinion utilizing the data of Dr Lean.

This comparison shows without requiring any recourse to modeling that since roughly 1970 the solar influence on climate (through the channels considered here) cannot have been dominant. In particular, the Sun cannot have contributed more than 30% to the steep temperature increase that has taken place since then, irrespective of which of the three considered channels is the dominant one determining Sun-climate interactions: tropospheric heating caused by changes in total solar irradiance, stratospheric chemistry influenced by changes in the solar UV spectrum, or cloud coverage affected by the cosmic ray flux.

My point is obviously to note the .4% solar variance from the c. 1900's vs the c. 1600's. Misuse of that info is irrelevant.

7) Beltaine says: "CO2 levels have gone up by 2.4% over the past 5 years, so I don't know where you got the 0.02%...did you just copy straight across from "concentration in atmosphere" to "change in concentration"? Do you understand how big a mistake that is?"

comment: obviously, I am talking of CO2 increases as a percentage of total atmosphere (.02% = 200 ppm) while you are talking about increases in comparison to CO2 date "a" versus CO2 date "b".

8) Beltaine says: "The forecasts for the next solar cycle are that it's going to be anything BUT weak"

my comment: NOAA, for example, has modified its forecast. There is some contention that it will be a cycle anywheres from weak to strong. As of last year, the estimates by the likes of NOAA were that it would be strong to very strong.

9) Beltaine says: " Over the past 5 years or so, solar output has been decreasing and the temperatures have been trending up."

my comment: that is apparently incorrect, according to the info I have cited (I think note 5 in the previous post)

10) Beltaine says: "The question you posed was answered more than a decade ago, and it was time well spent"

my comment: right. And the Titanic could not sink, and the 90's were the hottest decade (that has been modified to the 30's), and everybody at NOAA agrees on the severity of the next solar cycle. We shall see, IF....

11) Beltaine says: "No real evidence to back your claims, I notice...but I remember the 1930s data correction, and how it got spun by the media. They kept leaving out the relevant details, such as it just being a question of where the "high water mark" is, not general trends...as well as how the two years were "neck and neck" for first place.....or how all that happened was the years in 1st and 2nd place just got transposed....or how that the whole incident only affected the continental US...about 2% of the globe....and had no effect on anything other than keepers of top 10 lists."

my comment: right. But the USA and Europe were (aguably) the two most fastidious record-keepers.

For some reason I would not put too much stock in the records from the Sudan.
Again, refer to my ?note 5? I'll double check that after I post this, but my assumption there is that that is worldwide.

Due to an error in calculations of mean U.S. temperatures, 1934, not 1998 as previously reported, is the hottest year on record in the United States. NASA scientists contend that the error has little effect on overall U.S. temperature trends and no effect on global mean temperatures, with 2005 still the hottest year worldwide by far, followed by 1998. The data corrections have added new fuel to the climate change debate, however — and could spell more public relations woes for NASA.

12) Beltaine says: "You truly have mastered the art of climatology and are worthy of every Nobel in the upcoming prizes for your complete refutation of everything that professionals have been saying for decades"

my comment: is your comment telling?

Also to be figured in (is) increased solar radiation = diminished cosmic rays = diminished clouds = more heat penetration to Earth.

Global combustion places almost 7 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, of which, on average, the Earth absorbs about half.

CO2 contained in cylinders of ice samples, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm

From what I have read, the infrared component of solar radiation is about half.

Otto Bonn - a German who loves to drive on the local super highways.

At standard temperature and pressure, the density of carbon dioxide is around 1.98 kg/m³, about 1.5 times that of air.

Below an altitude of about 100 km, the Earth's atmosphere has a more-or-less uniform composition.

CO2 is listed as 383 ppm (0.0383%), while Methane a mere 1.745 ppm (0.0001745%).

At standard temperature and pressure, the density of carbon dioxide is around 1.98 kg/m³, about 1.5 times that of air.

This means that, in still conditions, CO2 stays close to the ground which makes sense really because plants need it in abundance to photosynthesize.
With this in mind, how does the greenhouse effect work again?

Again, I say that the CO2 argument is a misnomer.
Methane has a density of 0.717 kg/m³ which makes it very boyant in the atmosphere and is 25 times more 'greenhouse' effective than CO2

There are so, so many factures that influence our climate and to outline just one potential and say that IS the soul factor is downright rediculous.

Afterall, lets not forget. The largest extinction event to happen on Earth 250million years ago has been attributed to the massive release of methane from the clathrates in the ocean floors.

The CO2 is absorbing the heat from the earth, holding it temporarily, and then remitting it in various directions. This keeps the heat from escaping directly to space. Perhaps its high density is what makes it one of the most effective of the greenhouse gases.

The CO2 is absorbing the heat from the earth, holding it temporarily, and then remitting it in various directions. This keeps the heat from escaping directly to space. Perhaps its high density is what makes it one of the most effective of the greenhouse gases.

There's no getting away from density and CO2 is more previlant close to the ground. It's heavier than air so it has to sink whereas CH4 is lighter than air so creates a layer in the upper atmosphere, along with many other aerosols.

You're just re-enforing my concrete argument here.
Solids hold heat much more effectively than gasses, 1000's of times more.
If billions of tonnes of CO2 can hold X amount of heat then billions of tonnes of concrete can hold X times 1000. Effectively acting like a radiator after nightfall, warming up the atmosphere.

I still pose my question: Do the other posters here really believe that there is enough time to turn around the global warming phenomenon or will the average temperature keep increasing even with our current levels of CO2?