My point is that CO2 is not the cause; therefore we are not the cause. Do we contribute? Maybe a little. That does not change the fact that the IPCC's temperature graphs have falsified for their high CO2 emission scenarios.

That bit about the arctic is funny though. Are you using a single year to justify your argument?!? It is as though you never read that NASA blamed the 2007 arctic ice melt on wind and the PDO. ( http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/10/03/nh-sea-ice-loss-its-the-wind-says-nasa/ )

That June 3rd article seems to have been a bit premature. As of the end of June, the Northwest Passage is still impassable. ( http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/northwest-passage-still-impassable/ ) While the ice extent may be less than the 20 year norm, we are still no where near where we were last year.

That whole ocean oscillation concept has allowed us to warm and cool. That is the primary driver, but what is the background warming that could be from CO2? The background warming is what matters. Looking at the HadCRUT data, the world warmed for about 30 years (1855-1885), then cooled for about 30 years (1885-1915) then warmed for about 30 years (1915-1945), then cooled for about 30 years (1945-1975), then warmed for about 30 years (1975-2005). It is no longer warming. The 1945-1975 cooling period is just of special mention since the CO2 levels started to skyrocket around 1945. In light of these oscillations within the temperature record, suggesting that all of the 1980's and 1990's warming is from CO2 does not make sense. That is the subbing part. You are correct that subbing is not correct, but they had nothing else, so they put it on a pedastal and called CO2 the primary driver. This little thought experiment of mine here does not lay blame and simply looks at what is happening. For now, I am ignoring the why.

Let's look at the background trend instead. Taking the mid point of each warming period from the HadCRUT June 18, 2008 data I estimate this:

1870 -0.3
1930 -0.2
1990 0.2

Graphed: http://users.vianet.ca/paulak2r/AGW/HadCRUT20080618.JPG
Current data: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly
(the second column is the global anomoly in Celsius)

This is a very poor sample of only three points, but it is just for discussion due to the short period of direct temperature measurements. The trend seems to have increased from 0.1 C to about 0.4 C every 60 years. If the 0.4 C trend holds, by 2110 we would be about 0.8C warmer by this measure which is much less than the IPCC TAR's lowest case scenario. It would also be near the top end of the AR4 idealised constant composition commitment scenario for which we don't qualify. Of course, this assumes that the trend will continue at the 1930 to 1990 pace.

The wiki page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation ) says "[t]he level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional — the last period of similar magnitude occurred over 8,000 years ago." I will not quibble over the 70 year value. That wiki page also quotes Sami Solanki saying 60 years. Will that trend continue to be as high? Maybe. Will it decrease? Maybe. I have no idea what the probability of either is. I want to know if it is linked to this trend increase from 0.1C to about 0.4C every 60 years. The reason for the cooling periods is key at this point.

This is just 'back of an envelope' type of calculation. I submit that I am simply reading numbers from a graph while guessing at the mid points and assuming that the mid points are close to the average. My midpoint of 0.8 C in 2110 could easily be 0.4 or 1.2 C. The point is that background warming (climate) is not the +4 C by 2100 catastrophe that the IPCC has as its upper bound for its worst case scenarios where CO2 emissions continue to be high.