There is an assumption here that Global Warming is one thing, and "natural cycles" are another thing. I need to read no further.
"Global warming" is generally used to indicate the warming of the globe that has occurred since the mid-1800s. There is considerable scientific evidence that this warming, particularly the warming which occurred in the late 1980s into the 1990s and to present, has been augmented by human activities, particularly those that add CO2 to the atmosphere. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased about 100 ppm since the mid-1800s, and this is about 100 ppm higher than the natural maximum over the past 640,000 years, as determined from measurements of CO2 in ice core bubbles.
Feel free to continue thinking that global warming is entirely natural. The scientific data does not support that line of thinking.
Exactly. They insist -- dishonestly -- that it's a given that man causes global warming.
I want them to tell me why it is 82 degrees here today. In all my life in NM there has never been an 82 day in summer w/o rain and heavy cloud cover. The sun is shining and it's quite cool out there, it should be 99 or 100 degrees by now.
"Global warming created about half the extra warmth..."
If Global Warming is the result of solar heat retained by the planet through the increased concentration of specific atmospheric gases generated by the irresponsible combustion of carbon dioxide releasing fuels, then how can this same result be responsible for creating extra warmth? Global Warming is an end result that may have further consequences, but it can't, in and of itself, create energy in the form of extra warmth. Could this be an example of circular logic rather than factual reporting?