To see what would happen if humans were not present on the planet and see what would happen if human emissions were taken out of the equation we'd have to look at all the other forcings that cause temperature change, the major one being the Sun. The Sun, as measured by sunspot number, has been declining in output since before 1960 and measurements via satellite from 1978 also show solar input to be declining.

http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-index-graphic...

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi...

Milankovitch cycles, or periodic changes in Earth's orbit, are directly related to the amount of solar radiation the planet receives. In the current phase of orbital eccentricity we are currently moving closer to the Sun at a very slow pace. A perfect circle has an eccentricity of 0 and a parabola has an eccentricity of 1. Currently the Earth's eccentricity stands at about 0.0167 and will continue declining until it reaches 0.0034. The planet's axial tilt or obliquity currently stands at 23.44 degrees and is decreasing as well and will continue to do so until it reaches a minimum of 22.5 degrees. As this obliquity declines the poles get less and less sunlight throughout the year, on average, and glaciation occurs. Both of these phases in Earth's orbit are contrasting one another, changes in eccentricity currently providing warming and changes in obliquity currently providing cooling. The overall outcome of those, as well as precession, is a general cooling.

http://courses.washington.edu/holocene/K...

However temperature changes due to these cycles occur on long time scales in tens of thousands of years. There are other shorter causes of variation of Earth's temperatures such as oscillatory cycles. ENSO or the El Nino Southern Oscillation is on much too short a time scale to account for the warming we've endured throughout the past decades. As you can see from the ENSO Index linked below it is mainly a biyearly cycle.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/

There are other longer term oscillations such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation that can either mask or exaggerate the effects of man-made global warming. The AMO switched to it's warm phase in 1995 and the PDO, which is most likely caused by the same thing, switched to it's cool phase in the same year.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/clim...

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/img/pdo_...

To find out what the major reason of the warming is we have to look at what frequencies are associated with it. Different frequencies have different sources and causes of warming. The Sun emits mostly shortwave radiation or radiation below 4 microns while the Earth emits radiation above 4 microns based on the temperature of the objects. As there is no increase in shortwave radiation we know that the current warming is neither due to the Sun or decreasing aerosols. If we look at the frequencies of energy associated with the warming we see most of it occurs at a small band centered at 667cm^-1 with other lesser changes elsewhere. If we look at the frequencies associated with this warming we see that these are the frequencies related to specific greenhouse gases. Namely CO2, methane, ozone, and so on.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1...

Humans emit all these gases. I have not been able to find any data on methane emissions but mainly have been keeping my studies specifically to CO2 as it is the major cause of the warming. Currently CO2 atmospheric concentration is increasing at an average rate of 2ppm or 15.6 billion tonnes per year.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/in_situ_...

While human emissions account for over 33.5 billion tonnes per year.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim...

If humans were not providing the planet with the increase in CO2 and the associated retention of energy the planet would be cooling and CO2 concentration would be declining.

Just look at Jungle Jim (We call him Rainforest Jim because that is what jungles are called now.) Where he tells you to look at the 2007 IPCC report.

In the opening of the report it states, "The AR4 is a remarkable achievement involving more than

500 Lead Authors and 2000 Expert Reviewers, building on the work of a wide scientific community and submitted to the scrutiny of delegates from more than one hundred participating nations."

That is pretty self-serving, don't you agree. Here is one of those who provided 'scrutiny' and was shoved aside.

Quote by Madhav L. Khandekar, UN scientist, a retired Environment Canada scientist: "Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth's temperature trends and associated climate change….As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth's surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed."

That is hardly an endorsement of the IPCC report. Obviously the IPCC report supports AGW since without it there would be no IPCC. So to write a report to deny AGW would be akin to admitting that this AGW hullabaloo is a scam. Now after getting rich from this boondoggle, they are going to admit the truth?

Quote by Nobel Prize Winner For Chemistry, Kary Mullis: “Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple."

Quote by Martin Keeley, geology scientist: “Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.”

Quote by Eduardo Tonni, paleontologist, Committee for Scientific Research, Argentina: “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.”

Quote by George Kukla, climatologist, research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University: "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid."

So to take the 2007 report as a truthful sustaining factor in AGW is bogus.

The fact is, that the earth has reduced its temperature for over a decade now.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...

Yet the population and CO2 has increased during that time. There is no correlation between the human population number or the CO2 level. I know this in direct opposite of what you ask, so in direct answer to your question: There is no honest evidence.

Learn about how the dust bowl happened. How could soil from Texas end up on the table of the president in Washington DC? How could one relatively small area of a continent effect so much weather? People created the disaster that was the dustbowl, along with the bad weather that was already there. We are in the same situation today. We have bad weather but we continue to do things that add to the destruction, like building nuclear power plats along fault lines. No"beliefs" here. Only raw truth.

A failed science that has no clue at the present on what drives the climate is presenting the evidence. They know that they are in the beginning stages of understanding it. They base future climate states on climate models that have failed since their inception. It's an idea born with the use of politicians (Al Gore) and actors (Ted Danson) who have no clue either. CO2 is the basis of all of life here on Earth.

http://clubtroppo.com.au/2012/12/12/biom...

Quote from Zippi62's link " ... most of the earth has seen a net increase in the 1982-1999 period (in green) and only a few areas saw a decrease (in brown). As one can see, the 1982-1999 period was good for Australian biomass production, as well as that of nearly all highly inhabited areas in the world. If you care about things that depend on our biomass production, such the potential for food production, then this is a very encouraging picture. If this was all you knew, you would want this trend to continue....."

Another quote from Zippi62's link : "By the way, humans constitute no more than 0.1 billion tonnes of dry biomass, making up only about 1 in ten-thousand of each kilogram of biomass on the planet. Our mass according to some estimates is half that of cattle or Antarctic krill, and only a third to one-thirtieth that of all ants. Clearly, we are not yet really on top of the inter-species biomass league!"

---------------------------------

The period between 1982 and 1999 showed a temperature increase of 0.3 C. It's easy to play games with the facts as long as all of the facts aren't presented!

Would evidence hold sway over what you believe?

Here is evidence that CO2 is not the cause of global warming

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/201...

IPCC Synthesis Report http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...

Never read by those who ridicule it

Al Gore says so.

Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/...

-----------------------

New Jersey, they tan too much. makes everything hotter.