Did I miss a memo or something?

The normal argument from the average liberal is the sun has little to no effect on the worlds climate and human industry is the reason the world warmed up after the Dalton solar minimum not the increased output of the sun that went up to and average of 120 to 130 spots on a fairly consistent basis as against 70 to 80 during the Dalton minimum and 10 to 20 during the earlier maunder minimum from 1650 to 1720 the coldest part of the little ice age. But now our sun has one spot every other month and the liberals claim the wold is over heating while the citizens are complaining about freezing from record low temperatures not seen in a hundred years. So it seems as per normal liberal minds have a severe disconnect from actual reality. I wonder will we have another year without a summer like 1816 to thrill us in a couple of years with the liberals standing in the streets wearing snow parkas complaining about the world getting to hot because no one will follow their religion. We will soon be seeing interesting phenomena like ice skating on the Thames river in London town with liberals on the banks and bridges in artic clothing protesting global warming. It should make for very interesting viewing to say the least!!

Some scientific information revealing the truth about global warming, when it happened and what probably caused it. And as well how many years, centuries or millennia it might be before the world warms up again from the coming ice age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:0Master_Past_200...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.h...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data....

http://reasonmclucus.tripod.com/CO2myth.html

http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Atmosphe...

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

Where the heat came from and why it was abnormally cold previously

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/215....

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

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

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

I think you're a bit confused. I haven't seen anyone claim the solar minimum is a reason for "flat temperatures". What most of us have been saying is that *despite* the solar minimum, we're still in the middle of the hottest decade on record, and 2009 will be among the top 3 hottest years on record.

Further, it's true sunspots don't have any effect on global temperatures. Sunspots are a good proxy for solar irradiance, which does. Solar irradiance and sunspot number also haven't increased in over 50 years. Thus your argument while accidentally true (if you think sunspots effect global temperatures, some ridicule may be warranted), the argument you meant to make (solar activity impacting global temps) is a strawman argument. It's people who claim solar activity has impacted global temperatures over the past 50 years, while it's been flat, who are ridiculed.

No, that's totally backwards, and I think deliberately so-I sure see a lot of this kind of disingenuous stuff here at Y/A. Nobody to my knowledge has EVER said that sunspots don't have an effect on global temperatures...this is another "you guys said the sun isn't a factor in warming" strawman argument that is so completely ludicrous as to defy belief. I really don't know why people who dispute AGW keep bringing things like this up when there are so many legitimate issues environmentally, economically and geopolitically to discuss...this sort of argument just makes skeptics look like deniers of the silliest ilk.

"But I thought the official word was that anyone who thought sunspots could have any effect on global temperatures was to be ridiculed as being totally ignorant of basic scientific principles."

Can you cite one specific instance where this has occurred?

I believe the "word" was that the sun can not account for much of the recent warming, not that the sun has no influence on climate. That would be ridiculous.

--------

"Ah, I see. So, If I was wrong and sunspots do effect global temps, does that mean that the hockey stick is broken and there really was a global little ice age during the Maunder minimum?"

Non sequitur.

Me thinks it's called backpedaling.

One of the most interesting of the climategate email outlines a difficulty the scientists were having with balancing the energy budget. So apparently they need more basic education. The high powered scientists who contribute to YA should offer a survey course or maybe a seminar series to help them figure it out.

They forgot to even include the sun in their models, and when asked why, they said that the variations in output in the sun are not enough to contribute to the heating, even though, it has been shown that the output of the sun was higher than normal.

When shown more research that said the sun is a major contributing factor, they said the sun only accounted for less than 30% of the increase in temps. Now that the temps are leveling out it is due to the sun.

To be honest, I have trouble keeping up wiht all of the times they change their stories. Conveniently when they are caught changing their stories, they pull a Reagan and say "I have no recollection of that."

Certainly scientists are allowed to change their opinion when the facts change, but a good scientist will not state things as facts, unless they are indeed fact, and will not likely ever change. When they continually state things as facts and are having to change their "facts," that is a sign that they are not good scientists.

They are clinging to any shred of proof they have! No matter how weak the argument!