Looking at this chart closer, average temperatures after 1940 and up to 1980 were lower.   Wasn't this one of the greatest periods of economic growth in the United States?    Wasn't the period after 1980 when most of the EPA pollution controls went into effect?   Wasn't the post-1980s the period of the Reagan Depression, downsizing, slower growth?   Wasn't it also a time of cleaner cars, factories and more efficient (by 1940s standards) technologies?

The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.

Well, there's a lot of speculation in that retort.  You're claim is that "other gases" countervailed the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.  

During this period, the CO2 warming (a smaller forcing at the time) was temporarily overwhelmed by by other factors, perhaps foremost among them an increase in human particulates and aerosol pollution. Pollution regulations and improved technology saw a decrease in this latter kind of emissions over the '60s and '70s, and as the air cleared, the CO2 signal again emerged and took over.

Well, this raises a lot of points.   For one thing, I don't see a lot of data on what the effect of SO2 should be.   Other than a correlation (which doesn't imply causality) I want to know what SO2 does.

Ok, now to the coup de grâce.   If what you say is true, then the real problem is not a superabundance of CO2, but a lack of SO2.   We are not so much facing high CO2 levels, but a dearth of natural SO2.    If we want to solve this problem, we need to look into the geothermic processes that would normally be creating the vast amounts of SO2 needed to regular our planets temperature.

Last point, I really think that all this data, with is multivariate gases and particulates points more towards the cosmic ray thesis of Hans Svensmark, more than any anthropogenic theory.

The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.

I think I'm also bored and like procrastination. SO2 (sulfate aerosols) and aerosols cool the atmosphere, because they dissipate incoming solar radiation via increased albedo.

SO2 aerosol is produced by burning coal, and in many industrial processes, as well as by volcano eruptions. While the latter occurs naturally, none of the above are a positive from a human-based point of view.

Sulfates were the leading cause of acid rain, which damages infrastructure, and agricultural and natural ecosystem productivity. For example, many lakes in the Adirondacks became abiotic (ain't nothing living there) and forest productivity declined and tree mortality increased as a result of sulfate-driven acid rain. It also creates major health problems downwind (asthma, etc.) when present as an aerosol.

All of the above were caused by persistent sulfate outputs at coal burning plants and other industrial activities, which is what caused the EPA to regulate it through a cap-and-trade scheme. This is why the temperature remained stable during increased industrial activity post WWII.

I can find a bunch of citations, but do not see the need for it as the above is well established in the literature.

Transmission out.

Sorry for my english, but this page does not provide any evidence.

If all years since 1916 have been warmer, that only means that 1916 was a cold record
If all years since 1956 have been warmer, that means 1956 was the second cold record since 1916
The same for 1976 and 1992.

We can use this argument to say that if 2005 is a warm record (and one can argue that one year is not a trend), it means that the precedent record was some years ago (I read 1998 somewhere). Then if we are in 2004, we can reasonnably say that
"each year since 1998 have been colder" and conclude there is a "global colding".

So this page means nothing (according to me)

meb,

You are correct about the evidential strength of the two facts you quoted.  But why do you ignore the fact of the ten hottest years on record in the last fifteen, and the others?  And how can you look at the graph and still claim there is no conclusive trend?

Only one way: being in denial of an obvious reality.

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

do you really think that they just picked a cooler year in 1916? if they did, and all this data doesnt show warming, then what happened to all the really cold years these past 89 years? surely by now we would have had a colder year than in 1918.

also, if your theory is to be believed, then why couldnt they find any colder years since then, to use for their values in 1956, 1976, and 1992? even if they are picking the coldest years, then the coldest years are getting warmer as well arent they? and what does that mean? warming.

and lets not forget the really good graph provided, not to mention the 20 hottest years in the last 25.

The graph sure does show a warming trend, but am I the only person who sees that it defines 120 years out of a couple billion? On that scale I bet you could find a proportional increase in the stock market on Black Monday. I'm worried that the science of global warming - particularly of the man-made variety - is not up for debate in the average citizens' minds. The force of popularization is turning this into an 1800s-style witch hunt for non-believers.
That said, I am one who believes strongly in local and sustainable agriculture, and minimizing my negative impact on the environment. But let's not kid ourselves: producing one million Priuses and maintaining the roads on which they drive is not exactly "green living." It's like trying to cure obesity with a pill or low-fat versions of food. Obesity will be cured by changing habits and lifestyle.
Matt

Your narrow-minded morons! There is no anthropogenic warming. There probably isn't even a natural climate change underway quite yet, and CO2 will have nothing to do with anything! It is insignificant in absolutely ALL respects, expect that small increases (like 30%) have HUGE positive impacts on plants ability to photosynthesize.

Anyway, I wont go in the jillions of hard core facts I have that all point AWAY from CO2 as a cause, driver or even a contributor to climate "change" (just like the quadrillion of facts that all point AWAY from there being any god(s) in this universe, yet ignorami continue to believe...familiar scenario isn't it?)

I just want to put up a challenge in the form of a BET with anyone who's interested:

I will bet you $100,adjusted for inflation, that the average yearly temperature 20 years from now (2027) will be SIGNIFICANTLY COLDER than the same average for 2005 (or any year between 1900-1940 or 1980-2007). Any takers?

I wonder if you will still insist that AGW is just around the corner when you fork over your money to  me? Probably. Once ignorant and easily swayed, always so...

- Anthropogenic Global Warming is the name of a evil, moralistic DoomsDay Cult with gullible scared morons as members. Shame on you!

EVERYTHING in nature is cycles: day/night, seasons, death/life. Can't we accept this is a NORMAL cycle? How else can you explain oil at the north pole? At one time is was very warm there, right?

Ill take that bet but i think its not enough i would like to make the bet a little more interesting, say 1000 but if you want to raise it thats cool too.

..continental drift ,if you know how long it takes for oil to form and if you know that continental plates move around its unlikely the land under the poles was there hundreds of millions years ago.