>(Note that I'm not saying natural cycles ARE responsible for the bulk of observed warming - just that this research doesn't seem to prove they're NOT.) Well i

>(Note that I'm not saying natural cycles ARE responsible for the bulk of observed warming - just that this research doesn't seem to prove they're NOT.) Well it can't, can it? All it can do is provide evidence one way or another. Now if you think that there is a problem in the model they are using, could you point to it and explain the specific issue? I assume that it is somewhat updated since 9/11 and I also suspect that aerosol effects of airliner exhausts will have been known about to the subject of atmospheric physics, 9/11 will have just given some solid numbers. Which are now presumably in the models.