an 0.1% increase will only increase temperatures by 0.07K. That is negligible compared to the 6K/100 yrs being talked about by climatologists. It seems your alternative theory just doesn't account for the facts

You are calling that 6K/100 years fact? Don't be silly. It is just a figment of a highly politicized set of models. The IPPC is claiming a trend of 0.2K per decade. However the actual temperature measurements only support something like 0.11K per decade for the rise between the 70s and 90s. The solar flux changes we have been discussing happen on a timescale of roughly half a decade...

The more relevant aspects of the debate are actually what biological and ecological consequences can be expected from global mean temperature rise and its rate of acceleration.

Not relevant at all because in the last few years the global temperature has been dropping markedly. The reason that that does not show up in the official data sets being foisted on us is because they have been busy hiding the decline.

Next time you go to the kitchen, do a little experiment with the sugar: does it dissolve more easily in hot water, or in cold water? I think you'll find it's the same with CO2. Better find another explanation.

No it is not the same for dissolved CO2: the solubility of gases in water decreases with increasing temperature. My explanation stands.

This is simply not something that can be kept secret or which isn't studied.

It is surprisingly tricky to study these short wavelengths. You must be in space, and you cannot use normal mirrors or lenses to focus this radiation onto a detector since those will absorb it. But in recent years a smattering of satellites have been sent up that contain the special optics (grazing angle reflectors etc.) needed.

But there is a very good reason for the fact that the results have not been given much exposure. It has to with the mechanism that keeps the solar corona so hot. The corona is mostly a hydrogen/helium plasma. If you study those under laboratory conditions, strange things happen.

The images don't say anything about the Sun's energy output at various wavelengths.

Actually, the 171A image allows you to make a guesstimate. You can calculate the black body flux at that wavelength from Planck's law and the surface temperature. That should give you a number for the output of the surface at that wavelength. It should be uniform across the surface. From the image you can estimate how many times larger the non-uniform corona-based intensity is. The energy output at that wavelength will then roughly be that many times the 6000K black body body output at 171A.

Are you saying that a significant fraction of the Sun's energy output is at EUV or X-ray wavelengths?

Yes I am.

a black body radiator at just 6000K isn't going to have X-rays as its primary radiation.

True, but the Sun is not just a black body radiator at 6000K. The solar corona has a temperature of 1-2 million degrees Kelvin. Though the corona is not really a black body radiator either, it definitely has massive short-wavelength emissions as evidenced by the X-ray image I linked before. Just look at the solar surface in that image: it is relatively "dark".

The coronal emissions vastly outweigh the surface emissions already at 171 Angstrom as can be seen here.

Explaining, of course, why we continue to see verification of those models.

No, why we continue to see "verification" of these models was explained in 1993 when members of the Club of Rome published the book "the First Global Revolution". In it, they give the reasons for why the environmental agenda has to be pushed at all cost. Quoting:

"It would seem that humans need a common motivation...either a real one or else one invented for the purpose....In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

There are too many factors to say for sure that increased CO2 is a good thing.

There are many factors indeed. However more CO2 is of benefit to agriculture. This is not theory: many greenhouse proprietors inject CO2 in order to speed the growth of their crops markedly.

It has been determined that down around 150 PPM CO2, plants can no longer cope. The low CO2 concentration in the (geologically speaking) modern era is the result of plants and algae having depleted atmospheric CO2 (the concentration used to be much higher millions of years back) down to a level where photosynthetic biomass started to reduce, thus establishing the modern low equilibrium.

A factor of 2 variation in 0.1% of the Sun's total power is irrelevant.

Is it? Earth's average surface temperature is 285K or so. Vary the solar output by 0.1% and you can expect an effect of roughly 0.07K (taking into account the T^4 dependence of the earth's black-body flux). That is already significant.

Now consider that we are talking about only a small 260-330A slice of the combined EUV and X-ray bands. The solar emissions in those bands are not determined by the thermal spectrum of the solar surface. Most of the EUV and X-ray emissions are from the corona which is much warmer (1-2 million Kelvin) and as a consequence the peak of those emissions is to markedly shorter wavelengths than the linked graph shows.

I take it you've never tried to grow your own food? A few degrees can mean the difference between getting a juicy tomato or just a leafy vine.

Don't worry, the models are bunk, CO2 is not the driving force behind temperature change. But what the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration will definitely do is be a great benefit to plant growth. Plants are starved for lack of CO2.

Uh, what does that fluctuation in that plot prove?

It proves that the solar output in that band of the EUV varies by over a factor of three during the solar cycle. That is a huge variation and as such should be included in the measurements of the total solar irradiation. But it is not. For example, ACRIMSAT measures only the 2000 nm to 200 nm window.

x-rays and EUV don't make it to the surface of the Earth anyway

True, they get absorbed in the very upper layers of the atmosphere. However, roughly 50% of the energy does reach the earth's surface through secondary effects such as fluorescence, ionisation-recombination emission, heating and conduction, heating and thermal emissions, and so on. The physics behind this is perfectly analogous to why of the infrared radiation captured by greenhouse gases about half the energy still ends up in space instead of being reflected back to earth.

And we know it's not an increase in solar output causing the warming we've observed.

Sorry, we do not know that. The conclusion that it cannot be because of the sun is based on space-based measurements of the total solar irradiance (TSI). These found a fairly stable 1365 W/m^2 (see for example here). But these measurements are wrong! Why? Because the EUV and X-ray part of the solar spectrum is not included.

Take for example ACRIMSAT. It is sensitive only down to 200 nm and as such it wholly misses out on the EUV and X-Ray bands. Moreover, to properly observe the whole x-ray flux you have to capture a fairly wide field of view that includes the corona as this X-ray image of the sun shows.

A predicted 6 degrees Celsius rise in a century? Oh, how scary! Let's introduce onerous carbon-curbing measures.

But wait, the models that make these predictions all have CO2 as the driving factor behind climate change. The historical record shows, however, that the atmospheric CO2 concentration follows changes in global temperature instead of leads it. Not surprising: higher temperature -> oceans heat up -> less dissolved CO2.

Moreover, there is a perfectly plausible alternative explanation for what is causing the rapid climate fluctuations (historically going both up and down on a fairly short timescale): the sun. If you include the EUV and X-Ray bands of the spectrum, it becomes obvious that the sun's output changes much more than it is being given credit for: http://www.usc.edu/dept/space_science/sem_data/SEM%20Data%20Graphs/SEM_1996-2009.jpg

Another good writeup on the leaked emails can be found here. Summary: manipulation of evidence, private doubts about whether the world really is heating up, suppression of evidence, fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists, attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period , and communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.

Though there is little variation at visible and near UV wavelengths, the solar flux has a huge (factor of three) variation with the solar cycle in the extreme UV: http://www.usc.edu/dept/space_science/sem_data/SEM%20Data%20Graphs/SEM_1996-2009.jpg.

EUV and X-ray photons constitute a marked fraction of the total solar output. A much larger fraction than you would expect from the short-wavelength tail of the black-body spectrum of the solar surface. Indeed, these emissions are mostly from the corona, not the surface: EUV at 171A http://www.lmsal.com/YPOP/ProjectionRoom/latest_TRACE_171.html, and an X-ray image http://www.lmsal.com/YPOP/ProjectionRoom/latest/sxt/full/sxtdag_512.gif.

Such high-frequency photons are absorbed in the very upper layers of the atmosphere. However, roughly 50% of the secondary energetic effects (heating, fluorescence, ionization-recombination emission, etc.) will reach ground level instead of going back out into space.

If something here on earth is varying with the solar cycle, the first cause to consider is therefore the solar EUV and X-ray flux.

Every climate model that utilizes atmospheric chemistry uses UV since it plays an important role in ozone and methane in the atmosphere.

Please do read before commenting: I was referencing EUV, not UV. That stands for extreme UV. Recent space-based observations of the sun have shown that the EUV and X-Ray components of the solar spectrum are highly variable, are not caused by the short-wavelength tail of the black-body spectrum of the solar surface, but instead are correlated to the solar corona, solar magnetic fields, and solar wind.

The EUV flux graph I linked to shows the variability. To observe the mentioned correlations, have a look at the following EUV (171A) and X-ray images of the sun: http://www.lmsal.com/YPOP/ProjectionRoom/latest_TRACE_171.html, http://www.lmsal.com/YPOP/ProjectionRoom/latest/sxt/full/sxtdag_512.gif.

Has this variation in the short-wavelength part of the solar spectrum, which is obviously highly relevant to climate change, been included in the models you fawn about? No, it has not.

You can read the various refutations of the guys claims.

So predictable: when the official dogma is in danger, the heretic has to be burned.

Do you really think there is a worldwide conspiracy for climate change?

In 1993, the Club of Rome published the book "the First Global Revolution" in which they explained their reasoning behind pushing the environmental agenda. Quoting:

"It would seem that humans need a common motivation...either a real one or else one invented for the purpose....In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

He's an expert in dowsing as well as an expert on geophysics.

Good for him. I am sure that, being a proper scientist, he has more interesting and valid things to say about dowsing than that circus-act magician (the Amazing Randi) you link to.

But let me guess, you just know that there can be no truth to any claim of extra-sensory perception. Well, time to be enlightened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew.

There is an ironic analogy with global warming: another case where the mainstream view has been turned into dogma with alternative views being taboo even though they are supported by extensive experimental and observation evidence.

A rather discredited expert.

If you cannot argue with the science attack the person, eh?

I want a model, skeptics. I want a scientifically valid atmospheric dynamics model that shows that increasing the amount of CO2 does not impact global climate and yet still explains our observational data.

Ah yes, shift the burden of evidence. The fact of the matter is that the climate models that favor CO2-induced anthropogenic global warming are woefully incomplete and as such not scientifically valid.

To see that that is so, take for example this observation: http://www.usc.edu/dept/space_science/sem_data/SEM%20Data%20Graphs/SEM_1996-2009.jpg. That's our Sun changing its EUV output in a broad wavelength band by a factor of three on a timescale of five or so years. That graph makes obvious that any reasonable model for global climate change will have to include the EUV part of the solar spectrum. Guess what: current models ignore the short-wavelength range of the solar spectrum.