Nah. There's no such thing as global warming, right, cjheap?

Arctic sea route opens

Sat Sep 15, 8:10 AM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - The Arctic's Northwest Passage has opened up fully because of melting sea ice, clearing a long-sought but historically impassable route between Europe and Asia, the European Space Agency said.

Sea ice has shrunk in the Arctic to its lowest level since satellite measurements began 30 years ago, ESA said, showing images of the now "fully navigable" route between the Atlantic and the Pacific.

A shipping route through the Northwest Passage in the Canadian Arctic has been touted as a possible cheaper option to the Panama Canal for many shippers.

"We have seen the ice-covered area drop to just around 3 million square km," said Leif Toudal Pedersen of the Danish National Space Centre, describing the drop in the Arctic sea ice as "extreme."

The figure was about 1 million sq km (386,870 sq miles) less than previous lows in 2005 and 2006, Pedersen added.

The Northeast Passage through the Russian Arctic remained partially blocked, but in the light of the latest developments it may well open sooner than expected, Pedersen said.

Polar regions are very sensitive to climate change, ESA said, noting that some scientists have predicted the Arctic would be ice free as early as 2040.

Almost all experts say global warming, stoked by human use of fossil fuels, is happening about twice as fast in the Arctic as elsewhere on the planet. Once exposed, dark ground or sea soak up far more heat than ice and snow.

September and March generally mark the annual minimum and maximum extent respectively of Arctic sea ice.

The ESA announcement on its Web site came amid a scramble for sovereignty rights in the Arctic.

Russia, which recently planted its national flag on the seabed beneath the ice of the North Pole, has been staking its claim to a large chunk of the resource-rich Arctic region.

Countries such as Russia are hoping for new shipping routes or to find oil and gas.

Canada has also been pressing its Arctic sovereignty claim and has announced plans for a deep-water port at Nanisivik near the eastern entrance of the Northwest Passage, which will allow it to refuel its military patrol ships.

Wow, A Global study that spans 30 whole years.  You do realize that  it was far warmer during the 14 th century.

BTW, I do not dispute that the global temperature changes, I dispute the wild claim that Humans have caused it.

 

natescape:

Nah. There's no such thing as global warming, right, cjheap?

Arctic sea route opens

Sat Sep 15, 8:10 AM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - The Arctic's Northwest Passage has opened up fully because of melting sea ice, clearing a long-sought but historically impassable route between Europe and Asia, the European Space Agency said.

Sea ice has shrunk in the Arctic to its lowest level since satellite measurements began 30 years ago, ESA said, showing images of the now "fully navigable" route between the Atlantic and the Pacific.

A shipping route through the Northwest Passage in the Canadian Arctic has been touted as a possible cheaper option to the Panama Canal for many shippers.

"We have seen the ice-covered area drop to just around 3 million square km," said Leif Toudal Pedersen of the Danish National Space Centre, describing the drop in the Arctic sea ice as "extreme."

The figure was about 1 million sq km (386,870 sq miles) less than previous lows in 2005 and 2006, Pedersen added.

The Northeast Passage through the Russian Arctic remained partially blocked, but in the light of the latest developments it may well open sooner than expected, Pedersen said.

Polar regions are very sensitive to climate change, ESA said, noting that some scientists have predicted the Arctic would be ice free as early as 2040.

Almost all experts say global warming, stoked by human use of fossil fuels, is happening about twice as fast in the Arctic as elsewhere on the planet. Once exposed, dark ground or sea soak up far more heat than ice and snow.

September and March generally mark the annual minimum and maximum extent respectively of Arctic sea ice.

The ESA announcement on its Web site came amid a scramble for sovereignty rights in the Arctic.

Russia, which recently planted its national flag on the seabed beneath the ice of the North Pole, has been staking its claim to a large chunk of the resource-rich Arctic region.

Countries such as Russia are hoping for new shipping routes or to find oil and gas.

Canada has also been pressing its Arctic sovereignty claim and has announced plans for a deep-water port at Nanisivik near the eastern entrance of the Northwest Passage, which will allow it to refuel its military patrol ships.

cjheap:

Wow, A Global study that spans 30 whole years.  You do realize that  it was far warmer during the 14 th century.

Again, our friend heap is wrong. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

10 out of 10 peer reviewed papers say heap is wrong. I wonder if heap has a peer reviewed paper that says he is right?

cjheap:

BTW, I do not dispute that the global temperature changes, I dispute the wild claim that Humans have caused it.

 

Here is my dilemma (and probably others if they are honest), laypeople, politicians and the Hollywood mouthpieces 'screaming that the sky is falling' are not educated or knowledgeable enough to conclude that humans are causing climate change or that even with drastic changes we can correct it. I've seen reports debating the issue both ways and have one that is way over my head sitting on my nightstand that details many shifts in climates throughout world history. There is a politically charge group once again wanting to 'blame America' and expecting lifestyle changes by the 'common folk' based on questionable conclusions. A conclusion that suggests 'humans ... and particularly Americans ... are the cause (or a significant component) of the current global warming trend. (few notorious politicians and celebrities leading this three ring "global warming" circus seem to be excluded from the 'common folk' expected to change their ways)

I'm not ready for radical change, yet I'm the first to admit that I don't have the proper credentials to even express and educated view. That said, I have no problem making sensible iimprovement in areas where emission changes do not significantly impact our way of life or cause unnecessary stress on our nation's economy.
 

Really, then explain how grapes were grown in northern Europe and the UK in the past yet it is too cold now Mr Botanist.  Also explain the Viking agrarian settlements in Greenland that had to be abandoned during the little ice age.

You should quit depending on studies by proponents of global warming for all your info. And what say you about the correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature rise on the planets in our solar system?

BTW, the open northern sea lanes will do wonders for reducing Global Warming  since the ships will not have to make the long southern trip  any longer reducing the fuel burned.

 

 

froggy:

cjheap:

Wow, A Global study that spans 30 whole years.  You do realize that  it was far warmer during the 14 th century.

Again, our friend heap is wrong. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

10 out of 10 peer reviewed papers say heap is wrong. I wonder if heap has a peer reviewed paper that says he is right?

Just noticed Froggy's link ... and thought I would post a paper that 'someone' here might be able to digest. (tough reading for me)

Link to the PDF Paper: Evironmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.pdf 

Here's just a little bit of what it includes .... 

Summary

World leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to consider a world treaty restricting emissions of ''greenhouse gases,'' chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2), that are thought to cause ''global warming'' severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences. Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth's temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly.

To be sure, CO2 levels have increased substantially since the Industrial Revolution, and are expected to continue doing so. It is reasonable to believe that humans have been responsible for much of this increase. But the effect on the environment is likely to be benign. Greenhouse gases cause plant life, and the animal life that depends upon it, to thrive. What mankind is doing is liberating carbon from beneath the Earth's surface and putting it into the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living organisms.

 

What effect is the rise in CO2 having upon the global environment? The temperature of the Earth varies naturally over a wide range. Figure 2 summarizes, for example, surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea (a region of the Atlantic Ocean) during the past 3,000 years (7). Sea surface temperatures at this location have varied over a range of about 3.6 degrees Celsius (ºC) during the past 3,000 years. Trends in these data correspond to similar features that are known from the historical record.

 

Figure 4: Annual mean surface temperatures in the contiguous United States between 1895 and 1997, as compiled by the National Climate Data Center (12). Horizontal line is the 103-year mean. The trend line for this 103-year period has a slope of 0.022 ºC per decade or 0.22 ºC per century. The trend line for 1940 to 1997 has a slope of 0.008 ºC per decade or 0.08 ºC per century.

For example, about 300 years ago, the Earth was experiencing the ''Little Ice Age.'' It had descended into this relatively cool period from a warm interval about 1,000 years ago known as the ''Medieval Climate Optimum.'' During the Medieval Climate Optimum, temperatures were warm enough to allow the colonization of Greenland. These colonies were abandoned after the onset of colder temperatures. For the past 300 years, global temperatures have been gradually recovering (11). As shown in figure 2, they are still a little below the average for the past 3,000 years. The human historical record does not report ''global warming'' catastrophes, even though temperatures have been far higher during much of the last three millennia.

What causes such variations in Earth's temperature? The answer may be fluctuations in solar activity. Figure 3 shows the period of warming from the Little Ice Age in greater detail by means of an 11-year moving average of surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere (10). Also shown are solar magnetic cycle lengths for the same period. It is clear that even relatively short, half-century-long fluctuations in temperature correlate well with variations in solar activity. When the cycles are short, the sun is more active, hence brighter; and the Earth is warmer. These variations in the activity of the sun are typical of stars close in mass and age to the sun (13).

Figure 4 shows the annual average temperatures of the United States as compiled by the National Climate Data Center (12). The most recent upward temperature fluctuation from the Little Ice Age (between 1900 and 1940), as shown in the Northern Hemisphere record of figure 3, is also evident in this record of U.S. temperatures. These temperatures are now near average for the past 103 years, with 1996 and 1997 having been the 42nd and 60th coolest years.

 

Figure 5: Radiosonde balloon station measurements of global lower tropospheric temperatures at 63 stations between latitudes 90 N and 90 S from 1958 to 1996 (15). Temperatures are three-month averages and are graphed as deviations from the mean temperature for 1979 to 1996. Linear trend line for 1979 to 1996 is shown. The slope is minus 0.060 ºC per decade.

Especially important in considering the effect of changes in atmospheric composition upon Earth temperatures are temperatures in the lower troposphere at an altitude of roughly 4 km. In the troposphere, greenhouse-gas-induced temperature changes are expected to be at least as large as at the surface (14). Figure 5 shows global tropospheric temperatures measured by weather balloons between 1958 and 1996. They are currently near their 40-year mean (15), and have been trending slightly downward since 1979.

 

Figure 6: Satellite Microwave Sounding Unit, MSU, measurements of global lower tropospheric temperatures between latitudes 83 N and 83 S from 1979 to 1997 (17,18). Temperatures are monthly averages and are graphed as deviations from the mean temperature for 1979 to 1996. Linear trend line for 1979 to 1997 is shown. The slope of this line is minus 0.047 ºC per decade. This record of measurements began in 1979.

 

Figure 7: Global radiosonde balloon temperature (light line) (15) and global satellite MSU temperature (dark line) (17,18) from figures 5 and 6 plotted with 6-month smoothing. Both sets of data are graphed as deviations from their respective means for 1979 to 1996. The 1979 to 1996 slopes of the trend lines are minus 0.060 ºC per decade for balloon and minus 0.045 for satellite.

Since 1979, lower-tropospheric temperature measurements have also been made by means of microwave sounding units (MSUs) on orbiting satellites (16). Figure 6 shows the average global tropospheric satellite measurements (17,18) the most reliable measurements, and the most relevant to the question of climate change.

Figure 7 shows the satellite data from figure 6 superimposed upon the weather balloon data from figure 5. The agreement of the two sets of data, collected with completely independent methods of measurement, verifies their precision. This agreement has been shown rigorously by extensive analysis (19, 20).

While tropospheric temperatures have trended downward during the past 19 years by about 0.05 ºC per decade, it has been reported that global surface temperatures trended upward by about 0.1 ºC per decade (21, 22). In contrast to tropospheric temperatures, however, surface temperatures are subject to large uncertainties for several reasons, including the urban heat island effect (illustrated below).

During the past 10 years, U.S. surface temperatures have trended downward by minus 0.08 ºC per decade (12) while global surface temperatures are reported increased by plus 0.03 ºC per decade (23). The corresponding weather-balloon and satellite tropospheric 10-year trends are minus 0.4 ºC and minus 0.3 ºC per decade, respectively.

 

Figure 8: Tropospheric temperature measurements by satellite MSU for North America between 30º to 70º N and 75º to 125º W (dark line) (17, 18) compared with the surface record for this same region (light line) (24), both plotted with 12-month smoothing and graphed as deviations from their means for 1979 to 1996. The slope of the satellite MSU trend line is minus 0.01 ºC per decade, while that for the surface trend line is plus 0.07 ºC per decade. The correlation coefficient for the unsmoothed monthly data in the two sets is 0.92.

Disregarding uncertainties in surface measurements and giving equal weight to reported atmospheric and surface data and to 10 and 19 year averages, the mean global trend is minus 0.07 ºC per decade.

In North America, the atmospheric and surface records partly agree (20 and figure 8). Even there, however, the atmospheric trend is minus 0.01 per decade, while the surface trend is plus 0.07 ºC per decade. The satellite record, with uniform and better sampling, is much more reliable.

 

Rich:

cjheap:

BTW, I do not dispute that the global temperature changes, I dispute the wild claim that Humans have caused it.

 

Here is my dilemma (and probably others if they are honest), laypeople, politicians and the Hollywood mouthpieces 'screaming that the sky is falling' are not educated or knowledgeable enough to conclude that humans are causing climate change or that even with drastic changes we can correct it. I've seen reports debating the issue both ways and have one that is way over my head sitting on my nightstand that details many shifts in climates throughout world history. There is a politically charge group once again wanting to 'blame America' and expecting lifestyle changes by the 'common folk' based on questionable conclusions. A conclusion that suggests 'humans ... and particularly Americans ... are the cause (or a significant component) of the current global warming trend. (few notorious politicians and celebrities leading this three ring "global warming" circus seem to be excluded from the 'common folk' expected to change their ways)

I'm not ready for radical change, yet I'm the first to admit that I don't have the proper credentials to even express and educated view. That said, I have no problem making sensible iimprovement in areas where emission changes do not significantly impact our way of life or cause unnecessary stress on our nation's economy. 

Rich, this sounds like 'let them eat cake'. There is overwhelming evidence to anthropogenic climate change. Just because Bono says its true doesnt necessarily make it false. Which begs the question, what would convince you? What piece of evidence would get you to over to the other side?

There is also another component to this issue that most poeple miss. Its not only CO2, its how humans have acted upon the ecosystem as a whole. Let me offer some examples in addition to the huge amount of CO2 we have inserted into the ATM from dinojuice;

Human made heatsinks that were once green. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island   This also includes houses, highways and shoveling your driveway in the winter (yes you heard me).

Industrial ag lands. http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3F_adv_prop%3Dimage%26fr%3Dyfp-t-471%26va%3Dfarm%2Bsoil%26sz%3Dall&w=792&h=612&imgurl=www.nass.usda.gov%2Fresearch%2Fatlas02%2FEconomics%2FFarm%2520Production%2520Expenses%2FExpenses%2520for%2520Fertilizer%2C%2520Lime%2C%2520and%2520Soil%2520Conditioners%2520as%2520Percent%2520of%2520Total%2520Farm%2520Production%2520Expenses.gif&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nass.usda.gov%2Fresearch%2Fatlas02%2Fatlas-econ.html&size=85.1kB&name=Expenses+for+Fertilizer%2C+Lime%2C+and+Soil+Conditioners+as+Percent+of+Total+Farm+Production+Expenses.gif&p=farm+soil&type=gif&no=1&tt=19,582&oid=88fd0d9128578cba&ei=ISO-8859-1   Industrial farming typically doesnt utilize a cover crop and thus, the soil becomes a heatsink.

Human biomass usage changes.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming   Normally, fire would be a large mechanism for CO2 to be transfered back into the ATM. Prairie fires, forest fires, wetland fires, even peat and coal fires. But thru human factors, we have eliminated these mechanisms. So instead of global dimming, we have shifted the ecosystem to a 'digestion' of biomass mode. This new shift is also added by the increase of fert's into the system by human additions which include man made and mined fert's, Soil erosion, plowing the soil (which digests duff better in the soil whereas it produces much more CH4 and losing soil carbon), more cattle not grass fed, human waste streams, newly developed wetland and dam'ed ecosystem digesting like crazy http://www.dams.org/docs/kbase/thematic/drafts/tr22_workshop.pdf  , I can go on and on. This shift from CO2 to CH4 emissions is a huge player in GHG issues. This CO2 to CH4 human shift is nicely shown here   .

We can go on and on but the point is that to think that humans arnt having an impact on the planet is akin to Marie-Antoinette ignoring the starving peoples and you know what happened to her ... 

cjheap:

Really, then explain how grapes were grown in northern Europe and the UK in the past yet it is too cold now Mr Botanist.  Also explain the Viking agrarian settlements in Greenland that had to be abandoned during the little ice age.

You should quit depending on studies by proponents of global warming for all your info. And what say you about the correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature rise on the planets in our solar system?

No studies eh? Didnt think so. Never any facts out of you, just speculation. I cannot comment on your speculations about sunspots or others. When you have some actual data to support what you say...let me know.

So you are disputing the facts I posted? And you call yourself a botanist?

You have no problem looking up information when it supports your views though????

 

Just because something does not agree with you skewed views does not make it false.

 

Lamb (1966) points out that in the warmest times of the last 1000 years, southern England had the climate that northern France has now. For example, the difference between the northen-most vineyard in England in the past and present-day vineyard locations in France is about 350 miles. In other terms that means the growing season changed by 15 to 20 percent between the warmest and coldest times of the millenium. That is enough to affect almost any type of food production, especially crops highly adapted to use the full-season warm climatic periods. During the coldest times of the LIA, England's growing season was shortened by one to two months compared to present day values. The availability of varieties of seed today that can withstand extreme cold or warmth, wetness or dryness, was not available in the past. Therefore, climate changes had a much greater impact on agricultural output in the past.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

 

The Conclusion is that the CLIMATE CHANGES OVER TIME.

 

 

froggy:

cjheap:

Really, then explain how grapes were grown in northern Europe and the UK in the past yet it is too cold now Mr Botanist.  Also explain the Viking agrarian settlements in Greenland that had to be abandoned during the little ice age.

You should quit depending on studies by proponents of global warming for all your info. And what say you about the correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature rise on the planets in our solar system?

No studies eh? Didnt think so. Never any facts out of you, just speculation. I cannot comment on your speculations about sunspots or others. When you have some actual data to support what you say...let me know.

froggy:

Rich, this sounds like 'let them eat cake'. There is overwhelming evidence to anthropogenic climate change. Just because Bono says its true doesnt necessarily make it false. Which begs the question, what would convince you? What piece of evidence would get you to over to the other side?

Hey I'll admit that I'm on the fence and don't fully understand the impact that man and his CO2 has on the environment ... or what kind of change that it would take to actually significantly correct our 'spewing' it? I don't have a problem living a bit more sensibly, using resources more efficiently or encouraging industry and citizens to abuse their environment less. But ... I have a problem being told what to do by self designated Global Warm-ites who rarely see eye to eye with my political philosophy as to what is best for my country. Do they also have agendas?

I cherish my liberty to make choices for family, my business, my property, the  community in which I live and my country. I also know others around the world do not see eye to eye with my views of less government and more market forces.There are people, and some from within my own country, that I don't always share my values and many acting in ways I see as leaning towards socialism ... if not fully fledged socialists.  Sorry gang, its just not my thing. There are too many people telling me what to do from their 'high horse' while they zip around in their private jets and living in luxury homes ... or two or three. If you want to motivate me to change, do it like Ed Begley. (at least with him I respect his lifestyle and lifetime of advocacy)

I need data, not your dumb opinion. My job isnt to make your argument for you, that is your job. I have NOAA and the other links that I posted. That is what we call DATA. Actual studies by peer reviewed climatologists. I dont look up data that supports only my views, I look up data and read the conclusions of the pro's. Its clear, in black and white, 90-95% sure its anthropomogic in nature. That is my data...where is your study? I dont have an agenda...I look for data, where is your data? Its clear that you DO have an agenda.

cjheap:

So you are disputing the facts I posted? And you call yourself a botanist?

You have no problem looking up information when it supports your views though????

 

Just because something does not agree with you skewed views does not make it false.

cjheap:

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html 

The Conclusion is that the CLIMATE CHANGES OVER TIME.

This is your 'evidence'?

Did you even bother to read the link? Jeezewize... Let me quote from your 'evidence'...

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/index.html

Note to general public:

My position on the current global warming is the same as the overwhelming majority of international climate scientists: the current rate of global warming is unprecedented and is being caused by humans. In no way should my summary of the research regarding climate change and the Viking civilization/Little Ice Age be used to "prove" the current global warming is due to a natural cycle. Human forcing (output of greenhouse gases) was just not as large a factor before the 1900s as natural forcing mechanisms. That would be like comparing the number of traffic fatalities today vs. a time when there were no cars!

I highly recommend that you read the information being presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at http://www.ipcc.ch/

It is true that there are natural climate change cycles but most of these are on the order of thousands of years to millions of years. The current global warming is not a natural cycle and is of utmost importance because modern-day humans live on time scales much smaller than the natural cycles. Therefore, mankind cannot just simply wait thousands of years for a natural cooling to occur.

It is my opinion that those who still proclaim that "the jury is still out" or that modern-day climate change is natural, are either ignorant about the scientific evidence or are politically motivated to ignore it.

Not enough of your own link? how about this part...

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/conclusion.html

Below are some excerpts from the IPCC WGI 4th Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007) which leaves little doubt that the present climate is experiencing an unprecendented global warming rate which is primarily due to human (anthropogenic) activities:

How about somemore of your own medicine...

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/conclusion.html

 It is this shorter time scale that humans must be most concerned with because these are the time scales in which we live.

Gee wiz heap...nice research and idea development. And just incase there is any question about it, YES that was a personal insult.

My Dad tells me that during the Voyages of Zheng He in the early 13th century the Artic was supposed to be ice free I have no evidence for this.

Love it, froggy. It's great when someone posts something that actually contradicts their point.

Rich, global warming is a left wing thing, no doubt about it. You're quite right to resist it for ideological and selfish reasons.

froggy, nice work. It always pays to follow cjheap's links because he simply Googles his favoured terms, and slaps down the first link that matches his terms. I have also showed elsewhere one instance where his 'evidence' that he didn't bother to read in fact contradicted his own argument. 

As for grapes in the UK, desperate people have always grown them, generally for making their own alcohol. The grapes and the alcohol are quite foul, but they serve a purpose. I drank some once in the early 80s and vowed never again. This one piece of 'evidence' which always crops up is never examined for its truth or for its meaning. Now at last grapes of tolerably high quality are being grown in the UK, because the CO2 and methane emissions of humans have finally made it warm enough. Whether growing them will be profitable when the crop is destroyed by freak weather events remains to be seen.

You are really desperate. You ignored the data and posted up his opinion.  You have the agenda, not me.

An you wanted proof that it was warm enough to grow grapes in the past and that the vikings grew crops in Iceland.Why are you changing the subject?

As for your 10 out of 10 , I can not imaging how 10 studies posted on a Global Warming site would agree with each other.

Read your quote carefully, .

In no way should my summary of the research regarding climate change and the Viking civilization/Little Ice Age be used to "prove" the current global warming is due to a natural cycle

In other words, Just because his study points to a different conclusion, he wants to ignore it and be a sheep .

 

froggy:

cjheap:

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html 

The Conclusion is that the CLIMATE CHANGES OVER TIME.

This is your 'evidence'?

Did you even bother to read the link? Jeezewize... Let me quote from your 'evidence'...

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/index.html

Note to general public:

My position on the current global warming is the same as the overwhelming majority of international climate scientists: the current rate of global warming is unprecedented and is being caused by humans. In no way should my summary of the research regarding climate change and the Viking civilization/Little Ice Age be used to "prove" the current global warming is due to a natural cycle. Human forcing (output of greenhouse gases) was just not as large a factor before the 1900s as natural forcing mechanisms. That would be like comparing the number of traffic fatalities today vs. a time when there were no cars!

I highly recommend that you read the information being presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at http://www.ipcc.ch/

It is true that there are natural climate change cycles but most of these are on the order of thousands of years to millions of years. The current global warming is not a natural cycle and is of utmost importance because modern-day humans live on time scales much smaller than the natural cycles. Therefore, mankind cannot just simply wait thousands of years for a natural cooling to occur.

It is my opinion that those who still proclaim that "the jury is still out" or that modern-day climate change is natural, are either ignorant about the scientific evidence or are politically motivated to ignore it.

Not enough of your own link? how about this part...

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/conclusion.html

Below are some excerpts from the IPCC WGI 4th Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007) which leaves little doubt that the present climate is experiencing an unprecendented global warming rate which is primarily due to human (anthropogenic) activities:

How about somemore of your own medicine...

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/conclusion.html

 It is this shorter time scale that humans must be most concerned with because these are the time scales in which we live.

Gee wiz heap...nice research and idea development. And just incase there is any question about it, YES that was a personal insult.

natescape:

Love it, froggy. It's great when someone posts something that actually contradicts their point.

 

It does not, Read it again.

His personal agenda is not supported by his published research.

What it does show is that I will post up data from sources that do not march lock step with my opinions.