Why can't anthropogenic global warming skeptics explain these simple facts?

Probably because the only theory that can explain these facts is the one that says humans are causing global warming!

Then again, global warming skeptics don't seem to care much about science.

Simply repeating the same old junk science does not make it fact,your fist assumption it fataly flawed,the sun has been emmitting solar flares stonger than any recorded in twenty years since 2001,indicating an increase of at least 40,000,000 jewels of electrostatic microwave heat which more easily clears the outer and inner layers of the earths protecting ozone layer,to my knowledge we have no effect on the suns ability to heat or cool its self and this FACT has never been disproven or even disputed since it was put forth in 2002 buy the meterologist sociity,this FACT alone will explain an increases in the surface tempreture over the last three decades,and possibly longer,also your claim of the current rate of warming is base on the Luger-Albertson computer model based on the amount of oxygen found in core samples drawn from glacier ice,but this finding is desputed by several scientists as a flawed formula,so even this would account for a flawed result in the statement you made as to the rate of temp increase after the last ice age,but a Toronto scientist Dr Calvin Woodridge has put forth his opion on this matter stating that the rapid increase if proven and I repeat IF proven correct might in fact represent at climatic peak preceeding a cool down prior to the onset of another ice age at some time in the future,Please understand that picking out people and orginizations that put forth the opion and statements that you agree with does not speak well of a person objectivity,and by no way make them FACTS.

Mt Zion - liberals like these?

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

"I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive - but considered - response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial."

Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr.

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

You can quibble about the details in this question, but they're basically correct.

It is a relatively large increase in a known greenhouse gas, and it's scientifically proven to cause the warming.

Do you honestly think all those world leaders are working so hard on this because someone made a silly scientific mistake, that hasn't been noticed? Not credible.

Or that scientists haven't considered all the "skeptics" arguments, and know that they're not true? Talk about an "unreasonable" view.

"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists. I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

NASA's Gavin Schmidt

I thought I felt my ears burning.

#1 "The Solar activity has remained unchanged"

Kind of like leaving the stove on the high setting.

#2 Solar activity has still been higher than it has been in the last 8000 years.

#3 Atmospheric CO2 was 10 - 15 times higher than it is now during a major ice age that lasted for over 20 million years.

#4 The stratosphere is primarily warmed by energy in the UV part of the spectrum. UV has the largest variation with solar activity, up to 100%. Solar activity has actually declined slightly in the past 3 solar cycles and ozone depletion also contributes.

#5 I have a real problem with that statement. Your assumption is based on ice core data. The ice cores should be considered as relatively low resolution data in my opinion, because of ice sheet dynamics that allow air to circulate in the snow for decades before being compacted enough to be trapped. The Arctic and Antarctic snow is not the wet snow we are used to seeing that falls to the ground and stays put. It is the extremely cold dry type that blows around for decades. It is also a well known fact that a few meters below the surface snow, a layer exists that contains liquid water that allows the air bubbles to float upward and mix with newer air bubbles of different concentrations. So if there happened to be a 50-100 year period of high CO2 concentration it may not show up as high as it should.

As for Svensmark, I believe he is onto something. Of course it flies in the face of the “consensus” AGW theory, so many attempts will be made to discredit him.

If you put a pan of water on the stove and turn the flame on high for a minute the water will warm. If you turn it down to medium high, the water will continue to warm until it boils.

1. So what, the sun doesn't have to increase output for us to get warmer. I would hope you would at least contest to the fact that Earth has gone through warming and cooling phases before.. if you can't then stop reading now. Now the warming without solar output could easily be explained by thermodynamics as could the Earths climate flux's through it's existence. I'm not going to give you a crash course on thermo. on YA because frankly I don't think your going to listen to me no matter what I say. However the fact that solar output has or hasn't changed in 30 years doesn't mean squat on either side of this argument.

2. So what, based off the same thing I said above.

3. Once again, SO WHAT, those of us who dissagree with AGW dissagree with the idea that CO2 is doing anything that drastic. What you you have is a corelation.. corelations are not evidence. CO2 is going to increase as technology increases.. so why are we surprised it has increased since the 1800's. If the Earth is on a natural climate cycle this means the temp is going up... and going down as CO2 rates constantly increase.. if it has constantly increased we have no data to suggest that slowing it down is actually going to help at all.

5. Yea based on what.. your mythical "average global temp". NEWS FLASH... you can't get an "average global temp" and you sure as heck can't get it from the way they are doing it. The complex algorithms they use are littered with the potential for huge error. It is not possible to talk about one temperature for something as complicated as earths climate. Last I checked science strives to be exact.. not political.

You know what I'm tired of.... people thinking that corelations are factual evidence, people who think "consensus" is evidence, people who think that because there on the hip to be taboo bandwagon that they can act like they have any idea about what they're talking about.... and most of all I'm sick of people throwing the word "fact"around like there is actually such a thing in most of science.

You have a theory based on corelations... which is fine.. corelations should lead to research... but when you mix politics in with a theory ( like this AGW crap ) you are going to get a plethera of people supporting it and arguing that it's hog wash for all the wrong reasons.

In short.. nothing you just posted means anything for either side of the argument. Even less of what you posted is "scientific fact"... Do you know what it takes for something to be considered a fact in science? Personally I think scientists should take a hypocratic oath similar to doctors.. this dispute is costing billions of dollars... BILLIONS.... and for what.. the loudest people in this argument have no idea what they are talking about.

The Preacautionary Principle-- as embodied in your own words "don't you think that the potential consequences if the theory is correct warrant that action be taken to prevent it?"-- is almost certain to create unintended consequences that are likely to be worse than the problems caused by global warming itself. There are billions of people on the planet that do not yet have electricity, at all. Is that a good thing? THe consequences of rash action are ALWAYS bad when making policy. As for AGW, it is my understanding that doubling CO2 concentrations from 280 ppb should only result on 1 to 1.5 degrees C temperature change. It is the positive feedbacks that provide the much higher estimates of temperature change due to a doubling of CO2. Positive feedback systems tend to be uncontrolled, resulting in runaway processes (think Venus). If the postive feedbacks were in control, we would have seen something in the geologic record that would suggest this. Thus far we haven't. The relationship between CO2 and temperature change is not linear. Rather it is something more like log (natural log, if you like). Thus, each NEW CO2 molecule has less effect than the previous one. The implications of this relationship are clear. As for solar, we have both seen the Scaffetta and West paper where they put solar contribution at 45 to 50% for 1900 to 2000. They also put it at 25 to 35% for 1980 to 2000. This is a far higher percentage than 5% or so that is often implied by you, Bob, Trevor, etc. It also seems to me that the lastest Lockwood paper contradicts itself in figure 4d, which shows a continuous decline in 10Be levels since 1900, and that correlates with the rise in temps since 1900. This is as it should be, 10Be is inversely related to temperature. Thus, I think the sun plays a far larger role than you do. The GCM's are mathematical models of a very complex system. They can be tweaked in such a way that the data can be backcast accurately, this however, is no guarantee to their skill in forecasting. There are other instances where modelling often comes up short in predictive utility. Financial markets come to mind. Economists and statisticians have been working on predictive models for financial markets for decades (much like climate science) and they still do not have models that can forecast accurately, but they sure can backcast. So, I think the models leave a lot to be desired as well. Finally, I have a real hang-up with attribution. Before any government or governments go off and spend trillions upon trillions of dollars trying to level/reduce CO2 concentrations, there needs to a really good attribution of warming, mechanism by mechnism. The most recent IPCC has a figure that lists what they condider the major forcing factors, but sadly, most of them are tagged with the label "Low Level of Scientific Understanding." That is a major problem for me. Attribution remains nearly impossible, thus we cannot properly distribute limited resources for prevention (ie CO2 reduction) vs mitigation (ie preparing for higher sea levels in low lying countries). This may seem trivial to you and others, but in a world of limited resources, having the best information leads to better decisions regarding the distribution of resources. The actions needed are different based on attribution. 100% sun requires different solutions than 100% CO2. In between these two extremes there needs to be a blend of solutions, but the proper blend can only be identified with proper attribution. In summary: 1. Precautionary principle = bad, 2. Positive feedback, 3. I think the sun is very important, 4. Modelling is difficult, be it markets or climate, 5. Attribution. That is why I remain skeptical.

I would say that you need to find a more credible source for scientific data than Wikipedia and Yahoo answers. You claim to be a scientist, how about some data from recognized scientific research organizations?

Finally someone who has seen the scientific evidence, and thank you for letting me regain some hope in our pitiful species.

1) wrong. see solarweather.com

2) wrong. Mars' poles are also melting.

3) Wrong. If the earth's atmosphere was 37% CO2, we'd already be dead.

4) Theories come and go.

5) That's an assumption.

We do but then when we do you go to liberal sites and not scientific ones that say we are wrong.