We know for example that the Great Lakes are affected in their levels and currents by the moon in it's orbit as is the ocean... so the ability to be affected by external forces would appear to be in play for the lakes.

I wonder if the same can be said for a swimming pool?

You fail science. Any body of water, or any body of anything for that matter, is effected by the moon's gravity.

The reason I bring up the lake thing, though is that it far easier to measure with any acuracy...

And also not indicative of global activity as a whole, which my anecdote points out.

But if I compare sunspot activity to my pool level, it proves that there is no connection between solar activity and water levels. My anecdote carries as much weight as yours.

(Hmmmmm) An interesting notion.

We know for example that the Great Lakes are affected in their levels and currents by the moon in it's orbit as is the ocean... so the ability to be affected by external forces would appear to be in play for the lakes.

I wonder if the same can be said for a swimming pool? I've not heard of such an experiment. The measurements would be far smaller of course and possibly harder to track in the pool than in the natural body, owing to size, of course. I would think the pool's evap rates would be somewhat higher, given salinity and temp factors.

The reason I bring up the lake thing, though is that it far easier to measure with any acuracy... this woud seem a major consideration, given the recently noticed errors on the measurement of ice at the poles... an error which once zeroed out, completely disproved the notion that our ice caps are melting at record rates... turns out they are in fact growing.

The Clear and Cohesive Message of the International Conference on Climate Change
By Marc Sheppard

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” -- from the Oregon Petition, signed by over 31,000 scientists
United by that conviction, over 800 scientists, economists, and policy makers arrived in New York City last Sunday to attend the Heartland Institute’s 2nd Annual International Conference on Climate Change. They came to talk a wide range of subjects, from climatology to energy policy, from computer climate models to cap-and-trade, from greenhouse gas (GHG) effects to solar irradiation. But most of all they came to help spread the word that the answer to the question posed by this year’s theme -- Global warming: Was it ever really a crisis? -- is a resounding NO.

Read the full article at http://www.americanthinker.com

Well, look, just for laughs, let's take the discussion out of the oceans and put it into the frame of a somewhat better controlled and thereby more measurable environment; Lake Erie.

Check this article on the connection between sunspots and the lake levels on Lake Erie.

But if I compare sunspot activity to my pool level, it proves that there is no connection between solar activity and water levels. My anecdote carries as much weight as yours.

Check this article on the connection between sunspots and the lake levels on Lake Erie. Among other issues, it brushes up against your question of the long cycles, Alex.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1933PA.....41..198N

There has not been enough time to collect data on these long cycles while we know something about the eleven year cycle of sun spots.

I am as clueless as you are..

Rainforest doesn't grow back...

I don't think this statement is defensible. I heard the same thing about Yellowstone National Park after the big fires there in 1988, where the intense heat supposedly destroyed the soil and it would be at least 500 years before the forests would return. I was there 10 years later and it clearly was recovering quite nicely and much, much faster than anyone had predicted. Nature is much stronger than you imagine.

The problem with this reference is that both the "Medieval Warming Period" and the "Little Ice Age" were not global events--they were localized to parts of Europe and North America.

Are you sure about this, or is it just that we have more data from these periods for parts of Europe and North America than most of the rest of the globe? Any idea how much ice there was in Antarctica during these "non-global" events to test your hypothesis?

There is no argument that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Why we're going to quibble over the variances of people's predictions is beyond me. Even if our Earth is more than capable of absorbing the CO2 and we're in a natural warming/ cooling cycle WHATEVER, it doesn't change how the C02 is produced: The destruction of rainforest and the burning of fossil fuels.

Either way is unsustainable. Rainforest doesn't grow back, and but for the thinking of a very few, oil isn't constantly being replenished. Y'all can say it's a tax on stupid, but to me investments on alternatives/ sustainables is the *only* way to guarantee a peaceful, prosperous, and healthy future.

There are several IPCC models with varying assumptions, but some of the intermediate models track temperature within the expected standard deviation.

Eneils,

But sun spots seem to cycle every eleven years on a much longer sinusoidal wave function lasting hundreds of years measured in radiant energy delivered to the earth, measured in watts per square metre.

Do you have some peer reviewed evidence for this? I can't find this description of a large sunspot cycle anywhere.

That's how we get the Medieval warming period and the mini ice age, lasting hundreds of years.

The problem with this reference is that both the "Medieval Warming Period" and the "Little Ice Age" were not global events--they were localized to parts of Europe and North America. So even if you use this as evidence of some over-arching sunspot cyle, it's not an explanation of GLOBAL climate change. We are currently seeing an increase in mean GLOBAL temperatures, and have since the 1850s.

Eneils,

I'm not sure what you mean by sunspot activity affecting temperature, as sunspot activity rises and falls in roughly 11-year cycles. For your hypothesis to be correct, global temperatures should also rise and fall in roughly 11-year cycles, but this does not appear to be the case.

Yes, you are right about the eleven year cycles of sun spots.
But sun spots seem to cycle every eleven years on a much longer sinusoidal wave function lasting hundreds of years measured in radiant energy delivered to the earth, measured in watts per square metre.. That's how we get the Medieval warming period and the mini ice age, lasting hundreds of years. In the cold periods and in the warm periods, we still have sun spot activity, cycling every eleven years. Sun spots still have some effects on short term climate. There has not been enough time time to collect data on these long cycles while we know something about the eleven year cycle of sun spots.

which calls into question whether there is a conflict of interest.

And why should these be called into question, if we're to accept as gospel, the claims of those working for Al Gore and George Soros?

Do you have an actual link to that Japanese report?

The original report is in Kanji, Alex.
However, there are translations of key areas, for example, at The Register