I've been a member since before I got my original X-Box. Not sure how long ago that was but I would guess about 10 or so. I had to create a new account recently though as I haven;t been on in years.

@MystikFollower: We are not coming out of an ice age. Actually we have been heading for the next ice age for the last 6000 years as Milankovitch cycles, or cyclic changes in Earth's orbit, have been heading in that direction for that long. If you are talking specifically about the Little Ice Age that has a known cause. It was caused by what is known as the Maunder Minimum and related ocean cycle feedbacks. As well there was an increase in volcanic activity during this time.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/MannetalScience09.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/abstract

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Shindell_etal_1.pdf

Also, you should be aware that climate change due to the forcings mentioned above have definite fingerprints in the system. these fingerprint are not present. what is present are the fingerprints related to temperature change due to increases in greenhouse gases.

That being said, basing global climate change off local weather variations is the wrong way to go about it as some areas have been getting hotter while other have been getting colder due to changes in heat redistribution in a warming system. You have to look at long term trends which is what you basically do when you state that temperatures have been breaking quite a lot of records. Just remember, what is likely the coldest month in the US in recorded history was offset by the warmest year in recorded history in Australia. Heat gets redistributed. We have to look at the overall energy balance of the entire system to find the truth.

@deeliman: No. I have taken several university courses dealing with climatology and related education though including such things as classes pertaining to geology and geography as well as recent classes such as Navigating climate Change Conversations and David Archers class in modelling. Currently I am taking Climate Change in Four Dimensions out of the University of San Diego and Energy, the Environment and Our Future out of Pennsylvania States University with Richard Alley. These are online courses from http://www.coursera.org

I do speak with a few climatologists and people who work in related fields though.

Every scientific organization on the planet, virtually every climatologists that posts in scientific journals, and so on say it's happening as well but you just keep your hatred for Al gore going there and denying the planet is warming or that humans are the cause.

@Jacobistheman: There isn't a dot before the numbers. It is just 33%, not 0.33%. Water vapour is a feedback and will always be. Check out the water cycle and why it rains and how clouds condense. You want math? Okay.

The Suns effect on Earthly temperatures can be figured out with the following equation: S(1-α)πr^2 Where S is the solar constant and α is the albedo, a number between 0 and 1.

The overall temperature of the first layer of surface can be figured out with the following equation: εσT(a2)^4 + εσT(g)^4 = 2εσT(a1)4 where epsilon is the emissivity, usually about 1, sigma is the stefan boltzman constant (5.67*10^-8), T(a2) is the temperature of the second layer of atmosphere, T(g) is the temperature of the ground and T(a1) is the temperature of the first layer of atmosphere. Without any greenhouse gases the temperature of the surface using this technique is about 255K. With greenhouse gases that temperature increases to 288K, the actual temperature of the planet. As we add a greater amount of greenhouse gases to this mix the temperature increases. You are using the same old nonsense I've seen other people use before in that the concentration of something small can;t possibly effect something big. This is foolish. And to top it off you are off by quite a large margin.

http://sexton.ucdavis.edu/CondMatt/cox/ipccpdfs/ch4atmchemistry.pdf

http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/archer.ch4.greenhouse_gases.pdf

some of the courses these books deal with I've actually taken including David Archers climate modelling class.

On top of that, I provided you with the statistic last post regarding CO2 atmospheric increase compared to human emissions.

Human emissions = over 33 billion tonnes per year, Atmospheeric increase = 15.6 billion tonnes per year, more than half of what humans emit are being taken up by carbon sinks.

Scripps CO2 data: http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/in_situ_co2/monthly_mlo.csv

CDIAC emission data: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems

Conversion factors: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html#3.

CO2 has increased from 280ppm to 400ppm since the beginning of the industrial revolution. This is not a small increase. this is about a 40% increase.

@Jacobistheman: Your math skills are severely lacking. 1/3 is not .28%. 1/3 is 33%. As well the amount of energy retained by CO2 varies by region. It ranges from about 10% to 25%. Water vapour itself only makes up less than 1% of the total atmosphere and all greenhouse gases together make up about the same. This small concentration makes the Earth 33C than it would be otherwise. To understand how the greenhouse effect works and why an increase of CO2 would cause an increase in the overall temperature of the planet you'll need to go a lot deeper into it than making false claims.

CO2 absorbs in a small band centered at a frequency of 667 micrometers per cycle. numerous scientific studies have shown that outbound longwave radiation at these ferequencies show the most change in additional retention of energy regarding possible forcings. These studies include the following:

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 (Harries et al; 2001)

Observations of the Infrared Outgoing Spectrum of the Earth from Space: The Effects of Temporal and Spatial Sampling (Brindley & Harries; 2003)

Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave Radiation over the Tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 Using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS (Griggs & Harries; 2006)

A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS (Chapman et al, 2013)

And many more. They all show the changes in outbound radiation at specific frequencies and state that CO2, as well as other lesser forcings such as methane and feedbacks such as water vapour increases with the greatest forcing being CO2. As well, it has been measured that the atmospheric concentration is rising at a current rate of 2ppm or 15.6 billion tonnes as per Scripps CO2 data. CDIAC estimates worldwide contribution to CO2 increase via burning fossil fuels is over twice this at 33.5 billion tonnes. More than half of what humans emit is being absorbed by carbon sinks, such as the ocean, and overloading the system. This is why he oceans are currently decreasing in pH during a warming period, something that would not occur naturally.