Some other factors that have to be taken into account that affect climate on this planet.

1) The rotation of the Earth is slowing down. Increases the amount of time the Sun shines on a given area. Produces warming.

2) The Earths inclination is increasing. 22 to 24.5 degrees. We are currently at 23.4 degrees. Tilts the earths Poles more towards the Sun.

3) The Magnetic Poles are moving further away from the North & South Poles. This effects the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth.

4) There are 3 large Volcanos under the Artic ice cap that have recently become active. This would account for the greater Artic ice melt.

I find it rather strange, given the amount of armchair experts we have on this post, that nobody has mentioned these natural factors.

Meme,
“in conclusion” are 2 big words grown ups use after developing an “argument”. You’re not old enough yet to know what an “argument” is, but let me just say it uses things called facts and data. Strong arguments also have things called rebuttals which disprove earlier arguments and data put forward by the other team. Rebuttals make an argument strong, but just ignoring solid data and facts submitted by the other team make it weak.

Anyway, that’s all too hard for you right now.

It doesn’t matter because I just heard the bell for “little lunch” which means there are milk and cookies out in the play ground! Hooray, milk and cookies hey? Your favourite! Listen, they’ve got the Wiggles playing as well. Out you go now, have a *nice* play.

(Get back to us when you have found peer-reviewed papers that disprove the science of spectrometry and how wavelengths of energy react to Co2 molecules, and disproves that spectrometry tells us *what* Co2 does, and disproves the Radiative Forcing Equation which tells us by *how much* they do it. I’m not interested in whining petulant sneering from the likes of Plimer quoting material out of context and publishing books because the peer review process would not publish such crap.)

*Jayb*
1. Not significant enough to account for the speed of recent warming.

2. Link please? Increasing by how much, over what time period?

3. Link to peer reviewed paper calculating by how much this would affect climate please?

4. Volcanoes don’t turn off with the seasons. Why is the ice melting with the normal seasonal variations, only increased by the extra energy of global warming (that we count with the Radiative Forcing Equation). Are you asking us to believe that the volcanoes “turn off” during winter? Why did the IPCC and other groups ignore this? How far away from the affected region? What about GLOBAL increases in temperature?

I find it strange, given the quality of the “armchair expert” posts, that you have not bothered linking to any peer-reviewed sources that demonstrate your points for you.

Eclipse Now,
Can you debate this issue beyond being a petty, childish and argrumentative troll? This is the end of the world we are talking about. We are talking about you going around clutching this 23 year old cultural trend called glowbull warming and yelling "fire" in the movie theatre and crying "wolf" promising a doomsday soon for everyone on this planet.
Do you expect us to wait through another 23 years of IPCC threats? Of course not and soon you silly global doomers will evaporate from the scene and make way for responsible environmentalism.
WHAT WOULD THE CLIMATE HAVE TO DO TO PROVE THE THEORY WRONG!

1) The rotation of the Earth is slowing down. Increases the amount of time the Sun shines on a given area. Produces warming

1. Not significant enough to account for the speed of recent warming.

You are probably right here but it is still a factor in as much that over a long period of time (see millions of years) it will have a warming effect.

2) The Earths inclination is increasing. 22 to 24.5 degrees. We are currently at 23.4 degrees. Tilts the earths Poles more towards the Sun.

Sorry I meant decreasing. Tilting the poles AWAY from the sun. This will have a cooling effect.

2. Link please? Increasing by how much, over what time period?

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

3) The Magnetic Poles are moving further away from the North & South Poles. This effects the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth.

3. Link to peer reviewed paper calculating by how much this would affect climate please?

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

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

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

Well it doesn't really say here but I have seen articles that have indicated that the stripping away of our atmosphere would have a heating effect by allowing more solar radiation to hit the earths surface. Therefore an increase in warming. to be continued...

Meme, I'm not promising doomsday for EVERYONE on the planet (unless we actually end up nuking ourselves back to the stone age over the remaining oil, water, or other resource disputes). I'm just accepting that "advanced common sense", this crazy little thing I like to call SCIENCE, tells us that we need to change our ways... or else.

If I have my way, we'd design such oil-free, low carbon, localised economies that we'd have a more resilient civilisation, cleaner cities, and less social fragmentation and isolation (which are the ironic side effects of highways through every suburb). We'd be thoroughly prepared for the imminence of peak oil, peak gas, and peak coal, have energy security, and never rush into an oil-war again.

We'd have more friendly neighbourhoods, a "sense of place" and community, and run everything on the ample, clean green electrons from renewable energy.

We'd spread some of our military budget around the world because just 5% of the world's military budget could meet all the vital needs of the poor (adequate fresh water, nutrition, housing, education, medical, family planning) and thereby SOLVE population growth.

If you had your way, we'd just ignore global warming and peak oil and drive straight off the cliff into complete climate disaster and oil-crisis.

How would we prove climate-change wrong? D'uh! Burn all the coal and watch global temperatures drop *continually* (not just for a few years of La Nina like your 1998 claim!) back to preindustrial levels. Temperatures would have to STOP rising as they have the last 10 years! I KNOW 1998 was super-hot, but the FACT is that was an El Nino year. The last 10 years were meant to be "colder" with La Nina, BUT it was still the hottest decade on record. Have you got that bit? We are talking about decade long averages, not just picking ONE super-hot fluctuation and putting up a big sign, "Colder from here!" while ignoring the TREND of the whole decade!

I've answered you repeatedly, now you answer me. Spectrometry & RFE rebuttal please. Do your homework or go away.

You have your very own special and personal definition of the CO2 theory. Good for you. Its’ ok, because I’ve never come across a warmie that didn’t have there own special self serving definition of this self fulfilling prophecy called global warming.
I really don’t care what you say personally Eclipse, not in the least. What I do care about is what you are supposed to be representing, the IPCC’s theory. I’ve learned more about theory as a denier than you as a believer are willing to do.
I’ve read all 19 IPCC reports and I suggest you do the same. If you did, you can then put your worrisome and tension filled life to rest and not be so hysterical with this nonsense of climate crisis.
The doomsday prediction of the IPCC’s global warming theory clearly defines outcomes of “life as we know it” to “catastrophe” and of course the good old crisis. But if one believes in global warming, crisis is just a meaningless word in a foggy world of self denial.
Here is your homework Global Doomer:
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/international-economy/41719-ipcc-fraud.html