"...the abrupt warming of Greenland occurred about when carbon dioxide was at maximum..."

Exactly correct! Only... "about." The problem is that CO2 **lags** warming. Fascinating how "scientists" are able to reverse time!

Albert what scientist every made the claim that all past warmings were triggered by CO2 changes? Moronic reasoning leads to moronic conclusions.

"Before humans were affecting the Earth, what we are finding is regular warm and cold cycles,"

How many more studies will it take before the AGW campers take responsibility for their exaggerations and let us all move forward to end oil addiction?

The fact that manage to simulate the history of climate is quite a success to demonstrate the validity of a mathematical model. Very impressive, but it won't prevent AH like Stas Peterson to keep deniing global warming being a fraud and conspiracy oraganized by california. 130 years after the publication of the "Origins of Species" by Darwin there is still people (like Sarah Palin) who want the creationism to be taught in schools like if it was a science, and people are ready to vote for it.

Actually should of wrote that the study further confirms AGW, rather than the absoluteness of the theory of AGW.

That's the foundation of a theory, which is intrinsicly stronger than a law in science. It encompasses various laws to give ideas on how and why things happen the way they do. It grows and evolves. Unfortunately that is taken as a weakness for those that wish to abuse it's existance. The overwhelming evidence is ignored for some edge cases that have yet to be explored or the explainations for them are dismissed.

Have to agree with you, treehugger. But the Palin mention will probably create a firestorm of flaming on behalf of the potential VP even if what you say is true (which too is unfortunately real). So I'm glad you said it and not me. ;)

There is such thing as “scientific method”. Any theory (like AGW theory), explaining known facts is not yet theory, it is hypothesis. Hypothesis became a theory when it is able to generate non-trivial falsifiable predictions, and these predictions come true – multiple times. AGW hypothesis is nowhere near to present positive track record of predictions come true.

Presenting to the public unverified hypothesis as proven theory is scientific fraud of Homeric proportions.

By simulating past climate in support of AGW, we're talking about the last 100 years. Of course there is no need to acknowledge the previous 4.5 billion years.

Because theories explain why something happens, they should have predictable consequences from their possible existance though.

I don't quite agree that evolution can't predict quite what will be evolved because you may be able to define the evolutionary pressures that must be overcome for succcessful passing of the genes ie selective breeding for traits. Of course you may never guess the strategies that may be developed to get over the obstacle in nature, whether behavioural or structural ie genetic healthiness mate selection through visual or physical cues, which are easier to evolve than changing molecular mechanisms in slower evolving organisms. But the consequences of evolution exist in the fossil record as stored historical changes. But the predictive ability of evolution is not ameniable to mathematical analysis.

For astrophysics, ie the big bang, we have things like the microwave background radiation, the doppler shifting, etc. We test that they fall within the parameters that would have happened if the big bang took place.

But your point is taken. Theories are by their nature unprovable because of the use of inductive logic. But reproducible and repeatable observations that are reviewed and tested, give credence to theories even if all the bits aren't there. And you can never get all the bits.

"This study supports the theory that a key driver in all this is ocean currents and circulation patterns, which created different patterns of warm and cold climates depending on the strength of various parts of the global ocean circulation system." Ed Brook

But ocean currents and radiative forcing don't fall into the confines of man made CO2 = global warming. So it should be dismissed!

CO2 traps longwave (ie infrared)radiation. A fact known since Fourier and Arrhenius. 19th century physical chemistry.

That means it directly effects radiative forcing. Present amounts of measured radiation shows that the average temperature would be -18C instead of the 15C it is. So man-made CO2 does contributes to it.

Since the heating is not even, it will be transfered by standard convection ie, wind and waves and currents.

I would remind what the title of this piece is about. Trying to take a piece out of context as a sort of proof is bold but cherry picking of the ultimate underhanded sort of attitude.

It also says "...and the higher levels of carbon dioxide magnify the warming..."

And if anyone thinks that human made CO2 is somehow less damaging than naturally made CO2, then your should get your head examined.

A quick look at the relationship between solar cycle and surface temperature provides some clues.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2007/07005gerhard/images/08.htm

And what is "global climate stabilization?" - climate has been changing continuously for 4.5 billion years.

Ah the farmers almenac, which are observations that were created to help farmers plant crops. Scientific they aren't.

Ultimately they don't tell you why something happens anymore than stonehenge or the the complex building calenders of the Aztecs, Mayans, or Egyptians, which are based on complex math on real observations too, developed for farming and is just as scientific. It certainly doesn't try to explain why in a quantifiable reasonable non-trivial way. It doesn't have open standards of seeing it's methodology or observations. Just the result, which by the way you could've looked up on the net even before the publication was printed.

AGW is based on thousands of scientists who have done peer reviewed work and on scientifically calibrated observations. It accepted by every scientific organization as the way climate works because it meets rigorously those standards for years. It has and continues to survive the standard.

Let D'aleo or whatever he is send the basis of his work to be reviewed for peer publication or better yet, you do it. I'm sure you can pick it later after they've laughed at it, in the dumpster. Just because the public buys it or you do, doesn't give it scientific validity. Just because you accept the attacks on AGW without prejudice doesn't mean there are accepted scientific explanations for all of them.

This type of attack is also used on Darwinian evolution today. Even after over a hundred years, there are those who would attack it in such a fashion. So called "scientists" who parade around giving so called professional opinions. It fools the public but not the professional scientists. Not those who can see something disguised as science.

The irony isn't lost. You are totally free to send it in anywhere as "science". And it will be scrutinized and thrown out on it's merits. The merits of AGW have survived many attempts on it's existence. The fact that crap that you serve as observational data is no better than the farmer's almenac because what you consider scrutiny is a joke. The few non-peer reviewed garbage that is continstantly compared to reems of peer-level studies and research are not equal.

You demeaned the process. Tried to compare the entire scientific process to the same level as that put into that book. But scienctific enquiry is a meritocracy. Your delusion that the almanac has undergone equal levels of scrutiny and testing is a joke and shame on anyone who tries to put forth the very idea that the almenac is of equal merit. If you think it is, you deserve the science you get.

So go to the fortune teller because that is where you get your information, someone who strokes your ego and sells you BS. Ego stroking BS.