Mowibble, I looked at TheLorax's post and reply as follows.
snuff - GHG from humans are not the only driver of global warming or cooling, they are an addition to the natural flux. IN a cooling period driven by natural forces the human GHG will keep it slightly warmer than it would have been, in a warming phase driven by natural forces it will get slightly warmer. The overall trend is warmer.
According to the AGW explanation the GHGs do not cool, only warm so your first comment is wrong. However I am pleased to see you agree that natural flux occurs as we saw with the Medieval Warm Period and the Maunder Minimum. I have to accept the concept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I have to accept that in a rising CO2 level there should be imposed on the normal fluctuation of temperature a slight upward pressure on temperature, the amount of increase is in dispute. But with regard to temperature as we are actually seeing it we must also acknowledge the temperature has been rising because we have been coming out of the Little Ice Age as experienced for two to three centuries before the 1880s. This rising is due to that natural flux IMHO. While you say the overall trend it warmer, what would you think if ten years from now the temperatures has still not changed significantly, as we saw from about 1949 to about 1978.
Increasing GHG will not lead to a linear increase in temperature, temperature will go up and down but trend up, it is what we are seeing in the data. Wait for the sun to ramp up after its recent lull and for an el Niño to kick in again, then we will see what you have to say about the cooling.
Accepting, as you do, the the natural fluctuation in temperature then it will impose its own trend on temperature increase or decrease. However, that rising CO2 level has been unable to impose itself on the temperature for almost 15 years. CO2 level has had an insignificant effect over that period on temperature. It also proves that the CO2 level is not as important as the models predict. David Evans video shows how the Hot Spot predicted by the models is not there. I do not know all the factors that affect radiation from the sun but we can be sure that the sun is the ultimate driver of temperature on the earth. What it does is crucial, CO2 is insignificant when compared. The AGW theory is really about how CO2 influences that radiation, or interacts with that radiation.
We are in a natural cooling event with a solar minimum and an la Nina, by the skeptics reckoning it should be a lot cooler, so wit all your ( not just snuff but all skeptics) where should the global temperature be, we have most of the cooling forces in play and yet the sea ice is not at the maximum, the global temperatures are not at a minimum, so what’s going on?
I have not seen claims about how much cooler it should be but I do know that in my part of the world it is cooler in my opinion, the fruit is quite late ripening. That, however is anecdotal and no proof. With regard to sea ice, I would expect a lag in response to cooling temperatures, as I would expect a lag for warming. With regard to glaciers, I would expect any change to also lag but also depend on the amount of precipitation. No snow or rain, no ice on a glacier to build up.
So what's going on? How about that natural fluctuation you refer to. It happened during the Maunder Minimum why not now?
With regard to what warmists say of CO2, I have been watching this for a few years now and nowhere have the main protagonists acknowledged that natural fluctuation was in play NOW, it is all about CO2 (and methane) and it is so bad we have to cripple our economy. Al Gore shouted it out in his film. I would love for Flannery to back off and admit that but he will not, he is too far out on a limb.
As for Mowibble and The Lorax, I am pleased to see you do not accept the CO2 story completely.
