^Ok, i am sorry for your misunderstanding of what i meant and my inability to properly phrase it. I meant that the real effects of CO2 would be measurable because of the drop in solar influence on any data.

The problem is that solar irradiance is what is trapped by greenhouse gases.  A weak SC, by way of simple arithmatic, will reduce the amount of warmth trapped by those gases.  Temperatures are headed down in the next 10 years, and any warming (regardless of significance) caused by greenhouse gases will be heading down as a direct, obvious, and irrefutable result of that.

Note that this prediction for SC24 is actually old and is much stronger than current predictions.  The article I linked mentions NASAs prediction of a 1900 to 1914 level of activity while true skeptics are expecting something even worse than that (ie less activity).  I'm not solidified in my position on what will happen yet - still doing much reading on the SC24 issue and the patterns are not as clear as they initially appear - I have the impression however that NASAs SC predictions tend to be optimistic on the high side as they historically reduce predictions and rarely increase them - so I would treat that as a good upper end of what is likely.

I can give some information on why. Over the past 500k to 1 million years the Earth's climate (on a large scale) has been controlled by variations in orbital parameters, called Milankovitch cycles. The most important of these cycles in the orbital shape the Eartch takes which varies from almost circular to quite eliptical. Obviously this changes the position of the Earth relative to the sun. When it is closer, temperatures naturally increase which then likely raises the temperatures of the oceans, allowing them to abosrb less CO2 and so atmospheric CO2 levels rise. The question then is whether this rise in CO2 creates a greenhouse effect further raising temperatures. If this is the case then we could be in for some trouble now as CO2 levels (due to man) are higher than they have been for the last 500K plus years. We are currently at the end of one of these orbital cycles and should be enetering a cooling period but unnatural levels of greenhouse gases may cause the opposite effect. So it is pretty clear as to why the Earth changes, the unknown is what effect we will have and there is evidence to suggest it may not be good.

why do we always argue?

let me just get this clear: do you think we should continue consuming fossil fuels and the like at the rate we are now?Do you think that we should ignore thousands of scientists saying how we have made a major contribution to global warming?Do you htink that al the scientific evidence piling up saying climate change is becoming rapid and if we dont do anything will lead to  irrevrsable events is wrong?

1) Absolutely not, I think alternative energy solutions are vital to the future of mankind - I just don't think C02 emissions from our current primary energy sources are causing the globe to heat up.   But conservation issues are a far more realistic threat that require different solutions.

2) Ignore them?  Absolutely not.  Debate the issue in an open and honest way that focuses on the merits of what is said and not who says it? Absolutely.

3) The question pre-supposes that evidence is piling up - an assertion that I disagree with completely (just the opposite is true in fact).   Further your question falls short of an accurate description of the issue at hand.  You are asking about irreversible events when we should be asking about catastrophic or at least negative impacts that are irreverseable.  To which I would say no to both cases - if anything warming will have a net beneficial impact on human existance.

well im not being dumb but every time they go to an expedition to the artic or antartic they say that ice levels are falling quicker than expected.

Is it?

The antartic sea ice is doing quite well actually

What you were thinking of is the artic sea ice, which has been low lately:

However disconnected from the trend in the antartic the case for a global cause is tenous.  The case that things are getting worse is especially tenous when 2009 has more ice at every point when compared to 2007.  The key being "at every point" - that is striking.

Note that you brought up antartic sea ice and I could have easily just not shown the artic sea ice to paint my picture.

In total world sea ice is about ~500,000 square kilometers over the 79-00 mean. This is figure was absolutely true earlier this year, but since I posted more recent graphs below I decided to edit this to avoid this figure being incorrectly attributed to current conditions which I've not seen the net number for.

This just makes me angry. NKAJ, you believe what you want to believe. The majority of opinion just isn't this gullible anymore.

Data makes you angry? Kind of anti-science no?

Although I do agree NKAJ should form his own opinion and should do his own research including reading the research of skeptics and alarmists alike.

edit - I scaled it down so the graphic could be seen in full - Sqrl