John: The difference between weather and climate is elemental and real. Weather is characterized by short-term fluctuation. Much more variable and subject to fleeting influences than overall climate.
More here , if you're interested.
With the addition of 2005 in the averages, the claim that most warming occurred before 1940 is indeed incorrect. After all, global warming refers to average temperature anomaly. Did you happen to catch
this comparison of 1930-1940 anomaly to the 90's? And we're obviously getting a good start on the 21st century.
As for it being normal for temperature to increase after a volcanic eruption: If anything, volcanoes have a cooling influence in the shorter term (from particulates and sulfur dioxide), and present-era volcanic activity puts out relatively little CO2. The observed
increase is traceable to human activity, not volcanoes. If you're asserting that warming in the 90's was somehow a result of volcanic activity, how about citing the papers on which you base this?
As for the Inuit and sunscreen, you seem to be confusing ozone depletion (increased ultraviolet penetration) with global warming (increased re-radiation of infrared). Readings of insolation are the essential measurement - the dermal preceptions of the Inuit could be influenced by increased sunburn from UV, and perhaps even regional changes in cloud cover or aerosol pollution.
The tiny percentage of the greenhouse effect claim is an old, misleading one (although I don't know where you get the .028% from), and ignores feedbacks in the climate system. See
here for discussion.
On Greenland, I didn't see the other thread, but choosing 1991 (a single year) for the comparison seems like more of a cherry picking expedition than using the decade from 96-06. What's important is that the decade shows a pronounced change, and one that accompanies a multitude of other changes around the world. These are not explained by natural processes or regional fluctuation.
Your comment on consensus in non-sensical. Science is an open process of exploration and the testing of theory. It's aim isn't to reach a consensus, even though one may arise in the course of study (and warrant attention from society).
On the mid-holocene climatic optimum, the link actually says "
Warmth during the mid-holocene, about 6000 years ago, is a similar story, with non-synchronous seasonal warmth at high latitudes", and provides a link to scientific discussion. Where's your supporting evidence saying they're wrong and that the ice cores suggest is was a major global event? You make vague counter-claims without backing them up. Regardless, the current trend perists in the absence of an orbital forcing.
I don't know why the links "saddened" you with their lack of explanation of climatic stability during a mild interglacial. That's pretty much a given relative to other periods. Things had remained relatively calm, with no significant forcings that would create
instability. Humans have changed that.
dhammer: You're mistaken in suggesting "they" are counting all of the increase as human-caused. It's widely acknowledged that solar flux accounts for part of the trend - but a small one. And you make broad statements about how scientific data is presented without giving any specifics. Your provision of "
several links to places where the scientist have talked about other causes" isn't the same as supporting the claim that "
most of the increase in temperature was due to natural causes and natural cycles". You're avoiding the point.
Your responses to my remark don't answer the question of what natural mechanisms account for the persistent warming trend. What we do have is a sharp rise in CO2, with CO2 being the primary persistent greenhouse gas and a precursor to other changes that amplify warming. Your claim that man isn't primarily responsible remains unsupported. Until I see links to studies that have passed peer review suggesting that some combination of natural effects are mostly responsible, while human emission of 7+ gigatons of carbon equivalent annually has little effect, I'm done here.
