What is the "natural phase"? Do you believe it changes by magic? Your belief can be better discussed if you can explain what natural cycle you think is causing warming in a way and at a rate that has never before happened on earth. This is what climate scientists do (and what scientists building theories in any field do). Propose a theory and test it.
There are a number of forcings on climate, natural and caused by humans. But the dominant change over the past 100 years has been warming at a rate 3x that in periods of natural warming.
If you believe there are natural factors such as solar cycles, gamma-ray belts and volcanic activity that have caused temporary increases and decreases in the rate of warming then you are well supported. If you believe that some natural cycle has contributed in a significant way to the net warming over the past century then you either believe in magic or you are aware of some natural cycle that nobody else is aware of. Some climate scientists believe there is small natural component to this century's warming, but most believe that the net natural change in the absence of human activity would have been cooling. (There is a small handful of climate scientists who believe nature has caused the majority of the warming but they have been unable to specify the natural forces causing it, have been unconvincing due to lack of support, and it's a very small number - perhaps only one of recently published researchers.)
In all climate change, CO2 is a key factor. Without changes in the proportion of greenhouse gases, there is no change in the amount of heat the atmosphere retains. So, if your theory is that there is some force other than the greenhouse effect causing such rapid warming then you are saying you believe this cycle is unlike any cycle anytime in the earth's history -- and you have to explain why nights are warming more than days. If you believe that the warming is related to the increase in CO2 just like every warming period but you think the CO2 increase is natural, then you have to explain what happens to all the CO2 created when we burn stuff for energy, why the carbon isotopes in the atmosphere are increasingly those found in wood and fossil fuels, and why carbon is increasing in the oceans when in natural warming the CO2 comes out of the oceans.
If you have a theory, it should explain the observations and not be falsified by the observations. So far, there is no robust theory of natural changes causing the rapid rate of warming that holds up. Your theory of natural change has to address at least the known conflicts I listed here.
**************
To correct Jim Z, who regularly makes thoughtless comments here, there has never been significant long-term climate change that was not driven by changes in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases. There has obviously been times in which CO2 increased for natural reasons -- most often as a feedback to other warming. But in those times the CO2 comes from the ocean -- which it is not now -- and is predominantly based on the C13 carbon isotope which is more prevalent in the ocean whereas now the increased CO2 has more-than-natural C12 which is more prevalent in plants and animals (and therefore wood and fossil fuels). To understand what is happening with climate you have to look at the known facts and consider the range of possible explanations that might co-exist with those known facts.
It's purely natural. The Sun controls climate, not people.
Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Boy your question pulled a lot of DA deniers out of the woodwork.
Yes there is natural and man made warming. However the current acceleration of GW/climate change is man made and 95% of all climatologists are in agreement with this along with the majority of the world's climate organizations.
As to slow, GW is moving along at the same rate as CO2
Yes, both nature and human activity have effects on climate change.
Yes, climate change is both natural and man made.
Some (and we're not clear on that either) believe recent climate change in the form of warming of global surface temperatures is mostly man made. I'm not sure what that means but as I have studied this issue it is my opinion that the evidence for making such a statement is weak and appears to be motivated for reasons other than science.
Mostly a natural cycle, but man MAY be helping THIS time!
Clearly it is man made and natural. There is nothing in the recent past that isn't consistent with the more distant past so it is pretty difficult if not impossible to separate how much warming is from humans. Those who desperately want people to know we know are nothing short of political hacks or cultists IMO. They certainly don't behave as scientists should.
Gryph, don't you know what nonsense it is to say that AGW is moving at the same rate as CO2? As a scientist, I read something like this and I can't help but wonder what could make someone say something so ridiculous. Words actually have meaning to me or at least when they don't it makes me wonder what was meant. First AGW is temperature and CO2 is ppmV so there is no correlation in units. Let's just assume you only meant that both are rising. In fact, CO2 has been steadily rising for the approximately 50 years it has been measured at Mauna Loa and temperature has not correlated very well at all. Instead of insulting skeptics by calling them DA (district attorneys, duck's ***?) deniers, you might want to do a little basic research and stop depending so much on others for your science.
Bacheous, all changes in weather and climate aren't "cycles" or at least identifiable cycles. There are so many identified cycles that are poorly understood that it is impossible to know exactly why it was warmer or cooler this year than last so even if climate was driven only by cycles we still wouldn't know. Is it El Ninyo related? Is is PDO? Is is solar (one of many)? etc. Bacheous would have you believe that climates can't change without human emission of CO2. Clearly, natural history has demonstrated he is incorrect. Ignorance of the cause of warming isn't a theory that it must be from human emissions. When you want to blame humans, it become a convenient theory but it is a stretch to call it a theory. I would probably just call it wishful thinking.
Note: To Correct Bacheuous and his sycophantic morons.
<<
<<
<<
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/sp...
<<
Rubbish. There is no proof. There is only proof to the contrary. Man does not have enough power to alter the climate on a global scale. Only nature does.
No. Climate change is a natural process.
They are both and they both have effects on eachother
My theory is that the Earth is going through a natural phase of warming that is being slowly increased by humans. Thoughts?
Its only natural.
