The idea that Global Warming is a natural cycle is well understood from paleo data covering the past 1 million years. Is there a difference between current climate, and the natural cycle? For the past million years the natural climate has oscillated between warm periods and ice ages. This shifting in and out of warm periods and ice ages is correlated strongly with Milankovitch cycles. In order to understand the difference between natural cycle and human-caused/influenced global warming, one needs to consider changes in radiative forcing and how this affects systems on Earth such as the atmosphere, vegetation, ice and snow, ocean chemistry and ocean heat content overturn cycles and related effects. The current radiative forcing levels are clearly outside of the natural cycle range. Is global warming a natural cycle? Or is global warming affected by human influence? What does the science say? Both are true. In the natural cycle, the world can warm, and cool, without any human interference. For the past million years this has occurred over and over again at approximately 100, 000 year intervals. About 80-90, 000 years of ice age with about 10-20, 000 years of warm period, give or take some thousands of years. The difference is that in the natural cycle CO2 lags behind the warming because it is mainly due to the Milankovitch cycles. Now CO2 is leading the warming. Current warming is clearly not natural cycle. Where are we currently in the natural cycle (Milankovitch cycle)? The warmest point of the last cycle was around 10, 000 years ago, at the peak of the Holocene. Since then, there has been an overall cooling trend, consistent with a continuation of the natural cycle, and this cooling would continue for thousands of years into the future if all else remained the same. But since 1750 however, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has deviated from the natural cycle. Instead of decreasing, it has increased because of the fossil-fuel burning. Methane and nitrous oxide have also increased unnaturally because of agricultural practices and other factors. The world has also warmed unnaturally. We are now deviating from the natural cycle. The natural cycle is understood by examining the paleo records. The fact that the earth goes in and out of ice ages distinctly outlines the natural cycles of Earth's climate. This occurs about every 100, 000 years. We are currently in a warm period. Generally, Earth spends about 80-90, 000 years in an ice age and around 10-20, 000 years (or so) in a warm period. 12, 000 Years The Holocene temperatures peaked around 8, 000 years ago. This temperature peak was associated with the perihelion phase of the Milankovitch cycles. That was when it is estimated that the natural cycle climate forcing was at maximum, including associated climate feedbacks. Since then the forcing levels have been slowly dropping and the temperature has been following the slope of forcing in line with the changes in the Milankovitch cycle forcing combined with system feedbacks.

“All but one set of adjusted figures show that we will have already passed 1 °C before the next round of UN talks on a global climate treaty get under way in December, ” according to the magazine. “And if climate talks do not lead to drastic action, we could pass the 2 °C mark around the middle of the century.” The New Scientists warns the planet could warm at a rate “more like those from 1984 to 1998, when it warmed at 0.26 °C per decade” instead of the 0.04 degrees per decade warming trend that persisted from 1998 to 2012. “There’s a good chance the hiatus is over, ” climate scientist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research told The New Scientist. The New Scientist’s graph displays surface temperature readings from weather stations, buoys, ships, etc. from around the world. Some surface temperature readings go back to the mid-1800s, but land and ocean temperatures suffer from many problems that have to be adjusted for by scientists. While these surface temperature datasets show about 1 degree of warming since the late 1800s, satellite temperature readings show only a slight warming trends since 1979 — when satellite data was first taken. Satellites, which measure temperatures in the lowest few miles of the atmosphere, show no significant warming trend for nearly 21 years. Satellites also show much less warming than was predicted by most climate models. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

The thematic maps above are projections from the IPCC AFRICA Some regions are likely to experience water shortages. Coupled with increasing demand, this is likely to result in large increases in the number of people at risk of water scarcity. It is likely to affect livelihoods, the report by the International Panel on Climate Change says. Projected reductions in the area suitable for growing crops, and in the length of the growing season, are likely to produce an increased risk of hunger. In some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% by 2020. Rising sea levels threaten large cities. Degradation of coral reefs and mangroves is likely, with impacts on local fisheries and tourism. Rising temperatures, coupled with over-fishing, will decrease the supply of fish from large lakes, with important impacts on food supplies. ASIA Glacier melting in the Himalayas is virtually certain to disrupt water supplies within the next 20 to 30 years. Floods and rock avalanches are virtually certain to increase. Heavily-populated coastal regions, including the deltas of rivers such as the Ganges and Mekong, are likely to be at risk of increased flooding. Economic development is likely to be impacted by the combination of climatic change, urbanisation, and rapid economic and population growth. Forecast changes in temperature and rainfall are likely to reduce crop yields overall, increasing the risk of hunger. The presence of lethal diarrhoeal diseases associated with floods and droughts is expected to rise in East, South and Southeast Asia and rises in coastal water temperature could exacerbate cholera in South Asia. AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND Ongoing water shortages, notably in southern and eastern Australia, are likely to get worse by 2030. Ecologically important regions such as the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu National Park are likely to lose a significant part of their wildlife before then, by 2020.

Winds play a major role in ushering CO2 around the planet just as they do storms. Credit: NASA This is what your atmosphere looks like on carbon dioxide. And it’s not a pretty sight. NASA provides a stark and stunning view of a year in the life of our planet as humans continue to emit greenhouse gases that warm the planet. The animation comes courtesy of one of the highest-resolution computer models in existence. Since the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide (CO2) has been rising in the atmosphere due to human activities. Seasonal cycles mean that CO2 rises progressive throughout the fall and winter before peaking in late spring. At that point, a flurry of plant growth in the northern hemisphere — where most land is located — draws CO2 levels down over the summer before the cycle begins again. That process is made clear in the saw-toothed Keeling Curve, which shows ever rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. This past spring, it topped 400 parts per million for three months, a symbolic milestone. But while the Keeling Curve is derived from atmospheric CO2 measurements in one location, a new dataset and visualfrom NASA makes clear that CO2 isn’t uniformly distributed across the world. By feeding ground measurements of CO2 and weather data into a high resolution computer model, scientists are able to show in some of the finest detail just how CO2 moves throughout the atmosphere over the course of a year. Winds play a major role in ushering CO2 around the planet just as they do storms. You’d even be forgiven for believing the animation simply shows clouds. But beyond the obvious seasonal cycle that hints at CO2, there’s also another sign you’re watching something other than storms swirling around the globe. Long tails of CO2 extend from the U.S., China and Europe, the world’s three largest emitters. The deep reds and purples show the highest concentrations of emissions coming from these locations as well as the pooling of CO2 in the Arctic throughout the spring. Emissions from rainforests in central Africa and South America also show up due to forest fires of both natural and human causes. But ultimately, it’s human emissions that have thrown a pretty finely-tuned system out of whack. The modeling effort, along with new data pouring in from NASA’s latest CO2-monitoring satellite, will give scientists better insights into sources and sinks of CO2, but the current effort provides one of the clearest views yet of just how humans are having a large-scale impact on the atmosphere and the planet it surrounds. You May Also Like: News of Obama Climate Pledge Caps Epic Week NASA, Other Data Show Globe Had Warmest October Warmer Winter Means Savings on Home Heating Costs

The UK Met Office describes the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis as follows: “It is now clear that man-made greenhouse gases are causing climate change. The rate of change began as significant, has become alarming and is simply unsustainable in the long term” and the greenhouse effect is depicted on their website thus: Solar rays hit the earth and heat up the surface (as shown on the left). The earth’s surface emits infrared radiation back in to space thereby cooling the planet (depicted by two of the red arrows in the right hand picture). Greenhouse gases in the troposphere trap some of the infrared rays reflecting heat back down to the surface. The AGW theory suggests that increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, caused by humans, is raising global temperatures. For the theory to hold true, the observable rate of temperature increase would be higher in the troposphere than at the earth’s surface. The rate of temperature increase would be most noticeable in the tropics because that is where the surface would be radiating the most heat. Yet the observations, from radiosonde (weather balloons) have consistently shown that not to be the case: The left hand picture (courtesy of Dr David Evans' Missing Signature) is the climate model prediction of warming in the mid troposphere due to greenhouse gases from 1958 to 1999. The computer models predict most warming occurs at the mid troposphere at the Equator. The right hand picture shows actual temperatures measured over the same period by radiosonde (weather balloon). Actual balloon measurements show no increase in the rate of warming in the mid troposphere at the Equator, ie. no evidence of hot-spots in the troposphere and what is more none of the scientific papers supporting the AGW theory have claimed to have found such evidence. In short the AGW theory is not borne out by the evidence. Had the AGW hypothesis been subject to the proper scientific method, the failure to substantiate this fundamental premise (of increased warming in the troposphere over the Equator) would have rendered the man-made global warming theory invalid.

Global Warming Awareness is a movement that aims to stop global warming: its participants are aware of the social, political and economic consequences that climate change may have on huge parts of the mankind. Did you ever thinked about the wide consequences that global warming effects will bring to our own lives? Changes that would affect the planet’s environment will also affect directly the populations! How? Mass migrations This polar bear is standing jumping from an an ice cube that is being melted by Global Warming If people, like this polar bear is doing, will suddenly begin to migrate in masses from their countries to the ones where the climate change hasn’t yet bringed its negative effects, we’ll assist to an huge increment of the poor classes and to dramatic racial conflicts . If Global Warming’s negative effects happens to affect a country far enough from ours, it doesn’t mean that we aren’t involved in the problem. We are, directly, since the moment that the people of that countries may probably come to our place. Important changes in the economic power assets If the bering sea would melt down, a new channel of communication will open between Russia and USA There are many implications on the economic side, but we will take one example for all of the macro-economics issues that climate change involves. Imagine the melted down, forever. First, it would be a new, persistent channel for communications and shipping between Russia and USA. Then, that part of Russia (Siberia) would be warmer and warmer and suitable for living and visiting, meaning that it will begin to attract more and more interests worldwide. Other countries, in the other hand, may be too hardly damaged from the change. Join the Globalwarming Awareness movement Can you now realize how big are the implications of all that Climate Changes? Of course you can, so… Balloon saying “Stop Climate Change” – picture courtesy of: Greenpeace Join the Global Warming Awareness: now that you’re aware of the big implications that climate change has,

Evidence of a changing planet can be seen on NASA's website - Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. One of the many features of this site is a series of revealing before-and-after pictures. For example, land is visibly red and scorched after a lightning fire burned more than 14, 000 acres of forest in Colorado in 2012. Engineering has led to a new dam in Pakistan and a growing land mass in Singapore. The massive population growth in Las Vegas, Nevada can be seen through undeveloped land in 1972 through expansion in 1992 to concentrated habitation in 2013. Though many examples show the restorative powers of the Earth, such as land regeneration after a massive volcano eruption in Washington State, numerous images show the detrimental effects of climate change and global warming. Melted glaciers and ice can be seen all over the world including Alaska, Greenland, and Tanzania while drought has shrunk Lake Chad to about one-twentieth its size from the 1960s and has also affected areas in California, central Asia, and Iran. More from AOL.com: France considers banning too-thin skinny models McDonald's workers file complaints about workplace safety

Icelandic landscape (stock image). The theoretical equation reveals the complex relationship between carbon dioxide levels and the ocean system. Burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric carbon dioxide levels leading to global warming and the greenhouse effect, which is partly offset by the oceans taking in both heat and carbon, researchers say. Credit: © ssspablo / Fotolia Research has identified, for the first time, how global warming is related to the amount of carbon emitted. A team of researchers from the universities of Southampton, Bristol and Liverpool have derived the first theoretical equation to demonstrate that global warming is a direct result of the build-up of carbon emissions since the late 1800s when human-made carbon emissions began. The results are in accord with previous data from climate models. The theoretical equation reveals the complex relationship between carbon dioxide levels and the ocean system. Burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric carbon dioxide levels leading to global warming and the greenhouse effect, which is partly offset by the oceans taking in both heat and carbon. The results show every million-million tonnes of carbon emitted will generate one degree Celsius of global warming. They also show that the build-up of carbon emitted over the last 200 years will then last for many centuries to millennia, even if carbon emissions are subsequently phased out. The results also reveal that surface warming is related to the total amount of carbon emitted from fossil fuels, with little change over time as ocean carbon and changes in heat uptake almost cancel each other out.

John Cook’s methodology proves that there is a “pause consensus”. Guest essay by Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute The central premise of “global warming” is that human greenhouse-gas emissions will lead to a rise in the earth’s average surface temperature, and that as emissions continue to increase (a result of population growth and the desire to improve public health and welfare through increased energy availability), global average temperature will rise ever faster, that is, accelerate. The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), back in 2007, claimed the acceleration was happening. This is a central part of both their global warming meme and the notion that it will lead to all sorts of negative consequences (and few, if any, positive ones). Figure 1. Global average surface temperature history with trends through various periods emphasized by the IPCC to bolster their argument that global warming was accelerating (source: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report). As proof the story told by the IPCC represented the “consensus of scientists, ” a research team led by John Cook, founder of the website skepticalscience.com, (which is only “skeptical” about “skeptics”) surveyed the topical scientific literature, and categorized relevant publications as either endorsing the “scientific consensus” that “humans are causing global warming, ” or rejecting it. They found that of those papers in which the authors expressed their opinions, 97.1% endorsed the “scientific consensus.” The results of this study have been trumpeted ever since by climate alarmists and supporters of efforts to curtail greenhouse gas emissions the world over. President Obama even tweeted it: While the White House doesn’t exactly have a reputation for being evenhanded about climate change, we still need to point out that the Cook et al. results said nothing about it being “dangerous.” What Cook et al. did claim to find—that a high percentage of scientists that think that humans play some role in “global warming”—seems to comport pretty well with our own experiences with climate scientists and the climate literature. We definitely would fall within Cook’s 97 percent.

The Sarychev Peak Volcano, on Matua Island, erupted on June 12, 2009. New research shows that eruptions of this size may contribute more to the recent lull in global temperature increases than previously thought. Credit: NASA Small volcanic eruptions might eject more of an atmosphere-cooling gas into Earth's upper atmosphere than previously thought, potentially contributing to the recent slowdown in global warming, according to a new study. Scientists have long known that volcanoes can cool the atmosphere, mainly by means of sulfur dioxide gas that eruptions expel. Droplets of sulfuric acid that form when the gas combines with oxygen in the upper atmosphere can remain for many months, reflecting sunlight away from Earth and lowering temperatures. However, previous research had suggested that relatively minor eruptions—those in the lower half of a scale used to rate volcano "explosivity"—do not contribute much to this cooling phenomenon. Now, new ground-, air- and satellite measurements show that small volcanic eruptions that occurred between 2000 and 2013 have deflected almost double the amount of solar radiation previously estimated. By knocking incoming solar energy back out into space, sulfuric acid particles from these recent eruptions could be responsible for decreasing global temperatures by 0.05 to 0.12 degrees Celsius (0.09 to 0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) since 2000, according to the new study accepted to Geophysical Research Letters , a journal of the American Geophysical Union. The warmest year on record is 1998. After that, the steep climb in global temperatures observed over the 20th century appeared to level off. Scientists previously suggested that weak solar activity or heat uptake by the oceans could be responsible for this lull in temperature increases, but only recently have they thought minor volcanic eruptions might be a factor.