Global Warming?

Sun Oddly Quiet -- Hints at Next "Little Ice Age"?
This year's number of sunspots is still at a low, even though the current 11-year cycle points 2008 as a minimum and 2009's numbers on the up. This lull in activity reminds some scientists of the Little Ice Age (around 1300-1850), with the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) being the coldest and having a deep dip in activity. With there having no statistical warming for the past 10 years (source) it does make one wonder of the two correlations, even with the pro-AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) National Geographic desperately wanting to strap us down and look the other way.

Unfortunately the sun's variation with sunspots does not create a massive change in temperature compared to other changes by humans. Even if they're correlated over the last decade, historically the variation attributable to them is small.

Ocean Cooling to Briefly Halt Global Warming, Researchers Say
Incidentally, the Pacific Ocean has already experienced an extended La Nina. Another natural factor of the complex nature. Even the head of the IPCC has had to acknowledge (source) that Nature doesn't think much of AGW. That the natural cooling is having an effect on the IPCC's run-away, mega-catastrophic, ultra undeniable alleged fact of a warming world. Furthermore, the oceans may even make the northern hemisphere become colder. Not quite the news northern USA would want to hear, considering the heavy snow fall they received this winter that even crippled numerous areas (no clue about Canada, so sorry fellow Canadians if any suffered similar conditions). In the big view of things, I believe this may just be a sign of the north catching up with the cooling the southern hemisphere has already experienced.

This doesn't make sense, El Nina just shifts the temperatures (hotter Australia = cooler North America) it is entirely within the system and doesn't cause global temperature change.

Back to the Jennifer Marohasy interview. NASA's Aqua satellite data disprove the current model that as more CO2 is pumped to the atmosphere and a warming ensues, more water vapor is created and a positive feedback happens. Instead, a little bit of warming is compensated by weather processes, thereby limiting the greenhouse effect and having a negative feedback. As Michael Duffy surmised, "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?" And thus, all the models need to be overhauled to include this new finding. Pretty amazing stuff, as new technology further deepens our understanding of nature and move science one more step away from the Neanderthal rationale of the IPCC and to a certain extent the AGW religion.

It doesn't disprove the model, it just shows that we haven't reached a critical point with water vapour yet. As you said, a little bit of warming is compensated by increased precip. and cloud cover, cooling it again. I'm pretty sure that was already known.

Decay of the Greenland Ice Sheet due to surface-meltwater-induced acceleration of basal sliding
This simulation predicts that the melting ice sheets will contribute to sea levels a rise of 18 cm by 2100. Though if you look at Figure 1 in the paper (download the PDF file for a copy) they used scenario WRE1000 for their simulation. Which probably denotes Cubasch et al.'s worst case scenario of run-off CO2 emissions and a +3 degrees Celsius change of global mean temperature by 2100. Also, note that these scenarios show an exponential characteristic as time advances. Though, interesting for me at least, not before a semi-linear delta T is seen until about 2020-2030.

Thus another nail or two against the AGW coffin is nailed in. No rise of five meters per century as preached by the IPCC, or even 10 meters by that NASA reject Jim E. Hansen (link 1, link 2). Nothing catastrophic at all.

They pretty much guessed at the best parameters by trying until it fit the best. I don't know how seriously I can take that model, even if it makes extreme assumptions (the "worst case CO2") they just found something that fits the previous 3 years data and used it to project the next 300 years. That doesn't speak to me of accuracy. I haven't really looked at how the IPCC's numbers are determined but I'm reasonably sure they do a more thorough job of looking at possibilities, they're not just trying to push an agenda.