That was where my thoughts were going too Scobro. Of course there's climate changes. Always has been. Always will be.
I can't help thinking the term "climate change" is this BS term global warmists adapted to when they started noticing the world stopped warming after 1998. There has been no warming since 1998. Carbon Dioxide, the invisible, odorless, benign gas which exists for the most part naturally in the world, and whose presence is necessary for the survival of the life continues to rise, but the warming has stopped for the present at least. Nevertheless those who subscribe to the global warming doctrine continue to insist human released CO2 will destroy the planet.
As I understand it it's supposed to go something like this. Laboratory experiments show greenhouse gasses such as CO2 re-emit released energy, thus retaining some heat in the surrounding area. That much is actual confirmed science. Then you get out into the real world and everything becomes theoretical. There isn't actually enough energy re-emission from CO2 in the real world to cause crisis level warming. There's about 385 parts per million of CO2 in the atmospere, or about 4 one hundredths of 1% of all gases in the atmosphere. The portion of that which can be attributed to man is about 3% the way I heard it. The warmites tell you yes but CO2 has a lag time of about 100 years in the atmosphere, so the percentage ultimately becomes 30%. That's theory.
They then tell you this 30% creates positive feedbacks by warming the world and releasing moisture. Water is also a greenhouse gas, and by far the most abundant. It makes up about 95% percent of all greenhouse gases. From there the warming creates more positive feedbacks, and the world continues to get warmer and warmer, until one reaches a tipping point from which there is no return and a warming catastrophe is unstoppable. That also is theory, and there's tons wrong with it, starting with the the idea positive feedbacks can dominate. That's not the way observation tells us the natural world works. It's a cartoon explanation, and let me explain that term I just invented. You know in the cartoons where somebody makes a snowball then they roll it down the hill, and it gets bigger and bigger, gathering momentum, going faster and faster until it crashes down houses? That's positive feedback. It works that way in cartoons but try it in real life. It doesn't work. The reason it doesn't work is because negative feedbacks predominate the natural world. The things that slow the snowball down counteract the things that speed it up.
Another problem with the positive feedbacks cause catastrophic warming theory is you must ignore, or minimize all other possibilities which might have caused the warming we noticed coming out of the little ice age. These would include solar and ocean cycles. There's so much we don't know about how the climate works. This would include stuff like how clouds affect climate. Scientists (at least all the climate ones I'm aware of) believe when we understand clouds better, we'll understand climate better, and scientists like Roy Spencer (the guy who helped create the technology which allows satellites to monitor weather) tell us the current information coming back via satellite concerning clouds is not complimentary to the Anthropogenic Warming hypothesis.
So if what you're asking is how much warming is human caused my opinion would be not much, I'm not worried about a human caused global warming catastrophe, and Al Gore is a fraud, a hoaxer who represents about a billion dollars in investments which rely on the average guy swallowing the global warming (not climate change) flim flam.
