Geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning and chemist Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt comment at their Die kalte Sonne website:

Especially the cold phases of the North Atlantic described by Gerard Bond were represented by distinct dry periods in the investigated core from southern China. Fengling Yu and colleagues concluded that the largest part of the observed climatic fluctuations in their study can be explained by changes in solar activity.

The authors also gave thought to how the the sun has an impact on on climate. Presented are the two most important solar amplification models via UV and cosmic radiation. With respect to impact on monsoons, the scientists speculate that the solar-dependent temperature changes influence the strength of Siberian highs. During phases of strong solar activity the Siberian highs were more intense, which led to stronger winter monsoons with reduced precipitation.

Many of the solar-synchronous climate cycles documented in the study are well-known from Chinese history. During the warm and stable wet phase of 7200 to 6000 years before present, the Neolithic Yangshao culture of the Yellow River as well as the Majiabang culture at the lower Yangtze level reached its zenith. The sudden cold phase 4000 years ago led to the failure of the Longshan and Liangzhu cultures in eastern China.”

So there we have it: yet another relatively new study showing the sun is the main driver and that human cultures flourish in warm phases and fail when it turns cold.

If it is "induced" by mankind, it's not a natural change to the climate.

So far there is increasing but still to be proven, evidence that there are natural factors, ie; an increasing volume of papers on the solar induced influences on the climate, and that these changing solar influences, might also have have been the cause of the entirely natural and recent swings and changes in the global climate, as has always been the case over past geological time.

Not sure where or why you are fitting polar ice caps into this? They just go along with and are shaped by and influence the changes in the long term global climate.

Brilliant new draft paper by James Hansen and Makiko Sato on climate sensitivity.

They've narrowed the error margins on their CS value of 3°C for doubled CO2 to ± 0.5°C, which is a huge step forward from the previous error margins of ± 1.5°C.

Climate Sensitivity Estimated From Earth's Climate History

I don't see a problem with Hansen's formula.

Here's the facts about the deep ocean temps during the Cretaceous.

A very gentle temperature gradient from the equator to the poles meant weaker global winds, contributing to less upwelling and more stagnant oceans than today. This is evidenced by widespread black shale deposition and frequent anoxic events. Sediment cores show that tropical sea surface temperatures may have briefly been as warm as 42 °C (107 °F), 17 °C (63 °F) warmer than at present, and that they averaged around 37 °C (99 °F). Meanwhile deep ocean temperatures were as much as 15 to 20 °C (59 to 68 °F) higher than today's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous

Warmer than a Hot Tub: Atlantic Ocean Temperatures Much Higher in the Past

Those are all misquotes from the original study in question. The study says just +9.0C as all the other proxy data says. Briefly 42C is just 9.0C to 10.0C above today's briefly 32.0C sea surface temps. It is impossible debating when people just misquote the actual data contained in the study.

The supplemental contains the sea surface temperatures estimates produced by the TEX86 proxy for sites 534, 603, 766 and the numbers are only 10C above today's numbers for the region.

Hansen did not even use any CO2 estimates in his study except for the ice age numbers which do not come anywhere near the numbers which are required to explain the -5.0C temperature reduction in the ice ages. It is just more garbage.

And I have one of the biggest databases regarding historic temperature and CO2 estimates. So I have all these numbers and know when someone is trying a snowjob.

That study is from the Demerara Rise. There is a nice map below of what it looked like at the time the data came from. There are lots of studies from this particular drilling program leg 207.

I think if you look at the actual data in the study, one will find a 10C increase from today (just like the 1,000 other data points from the +/- 10 My period). On-line copy of the study here.

http://www.whoi.edu/science/GG/people/kbice/Bice_etal_2006.pdf

Demerara Rise 94 Mya.

http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/1921/atlantic94mya.jpg





While it is a nice map, it does demonstrate some of the other things that can affect the climate. At the time, there were no landmasses near the poles. The Trade Winds were pushing the equatorial surface currents through the Mediterranean/Thethys ocean, into the equatorial Atlantic, and then through the unclosed Panama Isthmus and into the Pacific Ocean where it traveled for another 25,000 km2 before it re-entered the Thethys again.

Very warm equatorial region given this full circumference West-East equtorial current. Therefore not much of a Gulf Stream. The North Atlantic was not even open yet anyway.

But we do have huge amounts of the continents flooded by the ocean. The Atlantic was just opening up and was only 2000 metres deep while today it is 5000 metres deep. It takes more than 50 million years for a new ocean basin to sink in the Mantle and reach its mature depth.

The overall average ocean depth was less than today and the ocean had no where to go except onto the Land. Europe is underwater. There is 100 metre to 200 metre shallow sea in the middle of North America from Texas to Inuvik (which probably flowed warm equatorial water right into the Arctic Ocean).

Shallow warm oceans covering 35% of the continents (and much of our oil comes from the shallow seas of this time period, much more is yet to be found in the shales from the period).

Nice warm climate (without the need for higher CO2 to cause it all - the continental arrangement, lack of high-Albedo polar ice, high sea level and ocean current configuration could lead to a +10C climate all by itself).

Today, mean annual temperatures in the upper 40 m at Demerara Rise (
9
N latitude) are between 27 and 27.5
C

Brilliant new draft paper by James Hansen and Makiko Sato on climate sensitivity.

They've narrowed the error margins on their CS value of 3°C for doubled CO2 to ± 0.5°C, which is a huge step forward from the previous error margins of ± 1.5°C.

Climate Sensitivity Estimated From Earth's Climate History

Hansen would have to be one the most biased pro CAGW protagonists in existence, I fail to see how any of his recent work in climate science could be seen as anything but propaganda given his past history and failed predictions, endless adjustments to global temperature records with GISS and recent activism.
One wonders why NASA is still called by that name given it's recent flight from space and major attention towards climate change.

I dont know how you can post such garbage CeeBee. Actually i can because you are one of the deluded ones in this world.

Not one person in the AGW camp defended HAnsens lastest ramblings about the oceans boiling because everyone on the planet Knows that its a ridiculous lie not even worth wasting oxygen on.

Not only have we cooled since 1998, GISS shows a cooling trend since 1930, until Hansen decided to adjust the data mindlessly to show a large warming trend.

It all started in 2000, this was Phil Jones in 99.

August 1999

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath…..

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

And we know what happened after that, so just give up, no one believes this stuff and we know its all PAL reviewed papers.

As i have said repeatedly for a few years now, the longer time goes on, the worse it gets for the AGW camp, which is why they are so desperate right now. The climate is proving every theory wrong, and will only continue to do so in an even stronger manner.

An especially intense El Niño event in 1998 caused an estimated 16% of the world's reef systems to die. The event temporarily warmed air temperature by 1.5 °C, compared to the usual increase of 0.25 °C associated with El Niño events.

This El Niño had already become the strongest in the 50+ years of accurate data gathering.