Which natural cycles are known to be actively involved in our changing climate?

Deniers are incapable of answering this question, as the answers so far have illustrated, because to answer it you have to first understand a little basic climate science. Which, if you did, you wouldn't deny AGW to begin with. But I'll be happy to answer it.

The primary natural cycle which drives climate change are the Milankovitch cycles, which describe variations in the Earth's wobbles and tilts as it orbits around the Sun. But according to these cycles, the planet should still be gradually cooling as it had been for the past 8,000 years until 100 years ago. Plus we're currently in an interglacial period. The next impact from the Milankovitch cycles will be to take the planet into another ice age, which obviously won't result in warming! Even this isn't due for at least 20,000 years.

The other major natural impact on the global climate is from changes in solar activity. However, solar activity hasn't increased on average in over 50 years now. To blame the Sun for the recent global warming is to deny not only sunspot data, but also satellite data which has directly monitored solar activity for 30 years.

There are also short-term cycles like the El Niño Southern Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, 11-year solar cycle, etc. However, while these have a significant impact on year-to-year temperatures, they are not capable of causing long-term climate change because they're cyclical. They alternate between positive (warming) and negative (cooling) states. For example, since 1950 PDO has had one positive and one negative cycle of roughly equal and opposite strength, so it can't be blamed for the increase in global temperatures over that period.

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

I covered all this stuff in the link below as well. Bottom line is that there is no 'natural cycle' which can account for a non-negligible amount of the recent rapid global warming. The increase in atmospheric CO2, on the other hand, can.

How do we know that THIS cycle is the aberration, and not the previous one? Listen, I'm not for or against the global warming agenda either way, I think it's wise to take the best care of the planet that we can. I just don't trust agenda driven science- from either side. When talking about cycles that take 50,000 years, I don't think 30 years of observation is long enough to draw firm conclusions. There's too much passion behind these arguments, and that's why they're so easy to shoot down in conversation. Science is cold and rational, politics is passionate. Also, I find some of the current work on correcting global warming to be slightly alarming- for example, I saw a special a few months ago about a guy seeding clouds with silver nitrate, with the idea to make them more reflective so they'll bounce more of the sunlight back into space. I'm all for not harming the planet we live on, but that's a little too much like "playing with the thermostat" for my tastes. I guess to sum up, it's not that I reject the possibility of global warming, I just don't trust an excited scientist. If he did his job right, he should be bored with it.

There is not talking to a person such as yourself, you have already closed your mind to the accumulative effects of even the smallest factors in the climate. First and foremost, the full understanding of the sun's influence on the earth is not in our possession. I'm sure you still think it's a distant object, but it is more appropriate to think of the the Earth in a relative low position in the sun's atmosphere.

Now, owner the years the pro AGW tribe has played down the effects of solar activity, but now attribute it to the .4 or .5'C difference between the models predictions and the current instrument pseudo readings? It's one or the other, but like any good liar, they just deny they ever made such statements. So how long does it take for the earth to come into equilibrium with solar output? If in fact, we are told solar output increased in the 1st half of the 20th century, it would take in the area of 300 years to come into equilibrium, that's because warming takes place in the oceans not the air. This is a terrible lie by omission that your scientific activists have failed to tell you. In fact, the CRU emails indicate that their misguided purpose was to deceive YOU. "model democracy", and poor model performance are well know to these activists. Yet they come out and parade them as "most probable" and almost certain, all the while trying to squelch criticism of models and dissenting viewpoints.

I suggest you take a fresh look at what is loosely called climate science, and instead of ignoring views that don't fit your model, take another look to see if that view is plausible. Any real scientist will say all the factors are as yet unknown, not prentend to understand the climate.

This is too special: Planning on countering MIT's Dr Lindzen's study of satellite data with a rehash of tree rings. LOL!!!!!!! This is so petty and pathetic!, but that's activists for you.

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Subject: Re: Revised CC text

Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:40:57 -0700

<x-flowed>

Thanks, Phil.

A bunch of us are putting something together on the latest

Lindzen and Choi crap (GRL). Not a comment, but a separate paper

to avoid giving Lindzen the last word.

Tom.

++++++++++++++++

Phil Jones wrote:

>

>> Tom,

>

> Got to this sooner than I thought. I've responded to your points by

> saying things in comments and also responding to some points at the end

> of the references.

>

> Over the weekend I'll get the references into the same format. Can

> you have another look through? I think we are there on almost everything.

>

> Keith should be replying about the trees - a possible reason why KHAD

> is anomalous relates to permafrost depth. Impossible to prove and it's

> likely much more complicated. Difficult to detail with MM when they

> won't publish anything. They also know the global temperature record is

> robust, the millennial records less so. Taking one or two records out

> makes no difference and they know that. They go on about issues that

> have no effect.

>

> The CC article explains why the global T record is robust, so

> something to refer to. I don't think it is going to help our H-Indexes

> though!

>

> Have a good weekend!

>

> Phil

First, agw and climate change are identical, there is no difference. They both depend solely on greenhouse gases...CO2 specifically, and the warming effect. Rising CO2 will cause warmer temperatures, they say, so let's clear that up. They are two terms with identical meaning.

The sun drives the climate on earth. Ocean currents, prevailing winds, the jet streams, everything is driven by solar energy. Man has no major effect on anything.

There was no breakdown in the relationship between the sun and climate back in 1970. That's been tossed around before but it's based on 100% junk science, junk scientists and junk politicians.

The SUN!! When the sun is in one of its high output mods the planets warm and life becomes easier and more productive. When the sun goes into an extended low output mode like it currently is the planets cool off becoming less productive causing people to starve to death because the amount of food a colder climate produces is reduced. But it takes a conservative or moderate mind to comprehend these climate related factors as liberal minds just do not have the functional mental capacity to comprehend these basic facts.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/12/another-para...

http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/lisa3/beckmanj...

http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/fish_wrapper_wont_p...

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTlhOTNiOWFlM...

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-show...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volumetric_heat_capac...

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/globa...

http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-change-non-co2-...

http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html

1970? were you even born yet because you must have missed the coming iceage predicted in 1975..

how about the natural cycle of temps going up and down as they have forever