http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200804051322.htm[/URL][/quote]
Is that statement as peer reviewed as http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027142.shtml?
[quote]...The sun might have contributed approximately 50% of the observed global warming since 1900...[/quote]
or [url=http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo156.html]this one?[/url] (link doesn't work for me at this moment but the ref:
[quote]Nature Geoscience Published online: 23 March 2008 | doi:10.1038/ngeo156
Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon
V. Ramanathan & G. Carmichael
Abstract
Black carbon in soot is the dominant absorber of visible solar radiation in the atmosphere. Anthropogenic sources of black carbon, although distributed globally, are most concentrated in the tropics where solar irradiance is highest. Black carbon is often transported over long distances, mixing with other aerosols along the way. ...
... In the Himalayan region, solar heating from black carbon at high elevations may be just as important as carbon dioxide in the melting of snowpacks and glaciers. The interception of solar radiation by atmospheric brown clouds leads to dimming at the Earth's surface with important implications for the hydrological cycle, and the deposition of black carbon darkens snow and ice surfaces, which can contribute to melting, in particular of Arctic sea ice.[/quote]
(It's also covered here:
[PLAIN]http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/umwelt_naturschutz/bericht-106086.html[/URL])
or [url=http://www.uah.edu/News/pdf/climatemodel.pdf]this one?[/url]
[quote]David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, and S. Fred Singer, 2007; A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions, International Journal Of Climatology 27: (2007) ([url]www.interscience.wiley.com[/url]) DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651
...We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modeled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modeled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data. [/quote]
From the summary/conclusion:
[quote]On the whole, the evidence indicates that model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent with observations, which indicates that, since 1979, there is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to the surface. If these results continue to be supported, then future projections of temperature change, as depicted in the present suite of climate models, are likely too high... [/quote]
[quote="Schrödinger's Dog, post: 1676055"]No one knows if AGW is real or not for sure, the only people who do it seems are non scientists.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps it's slightly more subtle. I don't believe that there is anybody seriously doubting greenhouse effect, it's only about the extent.
For instance on a recent http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/program.cfm, [PLAIN]http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/manhattan_declaration.html[/URL] was issued
[quote]“Global warming” is not a global crisis
We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,
Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;
Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;
(...)
Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:
Hereby declare:
That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.
That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.
(...)
That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.
...cont'd
[/quote]
I never argued average global temperatures don't change. In fact the opposite. There is ample undisputed evidence that global temperatures are in a constant state of change going back to year dot and the recent warming trend which peaked 10 years ago which followed a prior cooling trend are all part of the same natural variation.