when i think about global warming in contrast to the development of the multiple ice ages i cant help but say that we are still coming out of an ice age and the earth will still be warming up for years to come!!!!!. i beleive that in the early 1900;s or late 1800's not sure wich there was a short lived ise age in which new york received multiple feet of snow in july what do you people think?

The Little Ice age was caused by a mixture of Solar Activity and increased Volcanic erruptions.

Anyways DUHHH.... we of course caused global warming!

Man-made global warming is an interesting topic. The Little Ice Age began, I think, in the late 1200's, early 1300's and ended around 1850. It did snow in June and July in New England in 1816. The earth has been through many climate changes, and since the warming trend began around 1850, it is highly possible that we can attribute some of the warming trends to this change in climate. I'm not saying I'm a supporter of one theory or the other. The truth is, only time will tell. Unfortunately, time will only tell long after we are gone. So, our great-great-great grandchildren will have a better answer than we would or do. And I do not wish to argue the validity of global warming at the hands of man with those who support this theory. Here's an interesting article, nonetheless.. Make of it what you will:

The Little Ice Age

Its hard to disprove the theory either way. Yes we've had ice ages before, and yes the "greenhouse effect" make sense. The X-Factor is the pollutants in the air that have neve been there before in earths history.

But it seems these days people form their opinions on the political party they support.

i thank you for an honest reply and the article was helpfull i wasnt trying to start an argument just findout what some other peoples thoughts were on the subject thank you to all who replied

I find it a little naive to think that burning untold tons of fossil fuel a day would NOT have at least some effect on climate. the degree and what else is happening in our atmosphere, I have no idea. But surely, burning all that fuel MUST be having some sort of impact.

regardless, it makes sense to conserve fuel whether or not it is causing global warming.

i agree that it would be naive to think that there is no possibility that the amount of prticulate matter put into the air has absolutly no effect but also after reading the article given, there are potentially hundreds of causes to the cooling or heating of the earths temperature. but the blame cannot fall entirly on the human race. if you think of all the world polluters and "greenhouse" gasses methane is also a factor and that can be atributed to every thing and evry one so isnt fair to say that it is only humans.

Certainly, there are potentially hundreds of causes.

I'm not saying that climate change is ONLY the fault of humans. But clearly, burning that much fuel MUST have some sort of impact. I am not a climatologist, so I can't speak as to what that impact is. But it seems to me that a large majority of climatologists think that it does have a significant impact.

Despite the realists out there, and the supposition that humanity must surely have some impact on climate trends be it large or small, there is ALWAYS some one that says THIS!

Because THEY have fallen hook line and sinker for the Hollywood liberal hype. When in reality, we do NOT know what impact we have had, and we don't even know if we are indeed experiencing any thing more than a natural trend in our weather patterns.

Or maybe common sense would indicate that it is unlikely to burn tons of fossil fuel every day without having SOME type of impact....

Exactly what, I don't know. But it seems unreasonable to think that human burnign of fossil fuels has NO impact on climate. Eh?

Global Warming.

this is what I think. I think we are having an effect on the planet and it isn't good. first El Nino and now global warming. I just dont know if I believe the hype. Seems a bit extreem changing the temperature of the world and all.

iamtheone.. I wasn't saying you were trying to start an argument. Sorry if my reply was misinterpretted as such. I was simply saying that I didn't want someone who believes strongly in either direction, to blast me, since I am on the fence on this one. I like to look at all sides, then come to a conclusion on my own... Then, sometimes, I look at all sides and remain just as stumped as I was to begin with. However, at least then, I'm a very informed stumped...

Common sense would indicate lots of things that are not always true.
We just don't know. And saying "Duh, it's obvious." when we DON'T KNOW, is pretty stupid, even if Al Gore says it's so.

The world Cycle works like this...we have an ice age, then we turn tropical, then back to ice age ect....we are coming out of and ice age so of coarse there is global warming, we are becoming tropical again, to a degree we sped up the process of global warming but it was something what was going to happen...

the cycle of warming and cooling is something that i had read about and that is why i started this topic. i just thought that maybe i had misinterpreted what i read . so i beleive is is possibly tre that we sped up the warming process or maybe this is how it works naturally qwho can really tell. my point is that no one and i mean no one not even al gore can say that humans are the only one destroying the world. this is just the way it works, i think, and in the end nature will do its balancing act and even the playing field. i don't think that a force as awsome as nature could be totally voided by burning fossil fuels and cutting trees. or well i could be wrong its happened before!!

While I agree pollution in general, and fossil fuels especially are bad bad bad, I just don't believe Al Gore or his minions. I think nature has much more to do with this MINOR warming trend than any one wants to admit.

I should say I agree with you 100% egg...

I am not quite sure what Al Gore intended to do with his man-made global warming idea, but he most certainly has no particular knowledge about climatology, and given the fact that his position (which has grown more radical and frankly, wacky with time) has recently been trashed by hundreds of climatologists who appeared before congress, I think whatever he was trying to do has failed.


The fact is that the average globalized temperature for the planet hasn't risen one bit in the past 6 years. In fact, it's lowered a bit over the past 2 years, and is lower in 2007 than it was in 1998.

And those facts are utterly insignificant climatically, but they do make Gore look like a moron when he speaks of the ice caps melting and Greenland's ice becoming a lake that'll bury New York City by 2030.

Man made global warming has always been about political ideology. There is no evidence that man has contributed one bit to the global temperature, and all sorts of evidence that the earth is unaffected by men.

The atmosphere of the earth weighs about 6 times more than the sum total of all humanity alive today.
It's volume is almost 13,000 times the volume of all humanity alive today.
A major volcanic eruption spews more polutants and CO2 into the atmosphere in a matter of hours than all the automobiles in the United States could spew in a decade, and yet, the planet takes care of itself and recovers swiftly. Indeed, an eruption like Mt. St. Helens was a mere pimple on the earth's face.

People think that man actually has a global climatic effect because of an overtly inflated sense of self-importance and an extreme lack of rational and critical thinking skills, a lack that has increased exponentially in the past several decades. Humanity can no more effect the planet than a gnat can effect an elephant.

...man can, and does effect local ecosystems and environments. He can also effect his health in such environs, and does. Visit any major city and you'll see this unpleasantness graphically (as well as smell it). We should pay attention and act to fix that. But that has no bearing whatsoever on global climate.

The fact is, the planet's been on a natural, cyclical warming curve for 10 to 12,000 years, and, if it's anything like the last 4 or 5 such cycles, it's coming to a gradual end and another long cooling period will begin, one that will probably last 100,000 years.

Just because we can actually see the details in a small segment of that 10-12,000 year post-ice age warming period (the past 100 or so years) means nothing but perhaps the rational idea that the warming periods are not a smooth curve. We see a spike for a decade or so, and make unwarranted conclusions about it. And the most un-warranted conclusion yet is that man has some contributory factor in it. About 3 decades ago, the same people saw a dip in the upward trend...
Just as today we laugh at their predictions of an impending ice age 30+ years ago, we shall, in a couple decades be laughing at the dire predictions of doom associated with man-made global warming.

This is about nature. It has nothing to do with men.

This subject has become so politicized that people have lost sight of the real issues.

It only matters whether humans have caused the change or not insomuch that if we have, we can take preventative action. Otherwise it's a completely irrelevant question. We should work towards living in a greener environment, if it turns out that we were causing the climate change then this will avert the situation, if not, no harm done. What people do need to focus on, regardless of whether or not we're the cause, is damage control; floods, crop losses, drought, mass extinction events, disease and economic strain are all very real possibilities.

I recently heard (some TV show that was leaning to human causes for global warming) that if all fossil fuels stopped being used now, there would be no change in what's already taking place for decades.

That being said, I am still indeed for being a greener society than we are today.

This is about nature. It has nothing to do with men.
[/quote]
this is what i was getting at and this is what i beleived to be true but as this discussion has brought on many points of view and i have been reading about it i have decided that although the ammount that we can affect this trend may be insignifigant compared to some of the natural polluters we still indeed must have some evenm if it is only a little some affect on the way natures cycles have been occuring. i think we could move toward a greener society and never see the actual effect that we are looking for in the near future. like so many people say the things we do today do not affect us but our grand children and maybe not even then it could be longer

if we do not change global warmign may not even be the issue that we are fighting but some future problem that doesnt even exist yet and by changing our ways we could prevent this or... maybe nothing will happen the only people who will know are the ones who will be alive during the time that these effects arise and become something that they are all used to dealing with on a daily basis and wont place the blame on any one because they wont know any better.

Perusing the June 24, 1974 Time magazine. Here's some interesting quotes:

"However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round. Scientists have found other indications of global cooling."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,944914,00.html

I'm old enough to remember plans were discussed by the UN for the aerial spreading of soot onto the polar ice regions to increase melting.

I mention this to give us all a little perspective.

i remember reading somewhere a while ago (not sure if it's true) that a single volcanic eruption releases more CO2 into our atmosphere than the whole of mankind does in a year.
I also remember watching a tv programme about a year ago which stated that the sea also released an enormous amount of CO2 compared to us.
if this is all true, then we are seemingly having very little effect on global warming, that is, if the world is even warming up at all.

You are essentially correct on both points, and in your conclusion.

...the fact is that Mt. St. Helen's eruption released more CO2 and pollutants into the atmpsohere in one day than all the automobiles in the United States could release in a year! And yet, Mother Earth handled it for what it was...a pimple erupting on her face.

The fact of the matter is that the globalized average surface temperature of this planet have not increased at all in the past 7 years. In fact, they have dropped for the past two years.

Global warming has rather naturally been occurring for over 10,000 years.
The idea that man has anything to do with it is a politically motivated position...

I think the whole "save the planet" view is hilarious. The planet isn't going to die. Do people really think the earth itself is actually getting damaged? The earth will be fine and here long after we're gone. We're in fear of what will happen to humans. I suppose some people are worried about other animals, but when it comes down to it it's about saving our own guilty butts. The planet doesn't need saving. That's ludicrous. Are humans seriously that pompous? The planet has survived through many climate changes, catastrophes, and mass extinctions. These movements and theories are asinine. Everyone knows we sped up a naturally occuring process to an extent, we don't need to elaborate on it. We know how to ease and mend "global warming" the best we can, but we wont. I definitely don't think we're the single cause for this. That's just silly. Climate change happens naturally, but I think we did aid it to an extent. I think that is fairly obvious. It's all just ridiculous to me, and I hope I am not the only one with these views.

Hav'nt gone threw the whole thread, but if GW isn't caused man (in most cases anyway) and just total flatulence as many claim/ed here and on other threads in the past...Why do we even need the Kyoto Protocol/Agreement in place to reduce man-made green house gases with 174 countries signed in and ratified?...

hahhahaha! Whoever put this under urban legend is a genius.

MID not to attack you or anything mate, but don't you think that the scientists who are opposed to the notion that humans are causing global warming might also be politically motivated?

And Asphodel that's EXACTLY the point. They are worried that the earth isn't going to be inhabitable by humans. They aren't so worried that the world is going to implode into many pieces and scatter across the universe... that is, they don't care about it's physical existence, simply it's ability to sustain human life. I think caring more about the physical planet more than human life is a bit ludicrous and crazy if you ask me. Sure, the earth might physically exist... but if it can't sustain human life anymore why ought we care?

Now I'm starting to come off as a crazy liberal hippy, which isn't true at all, I actually agree with you (Asphodel) that while we may contribute a little bit to global warming other factors play a much larger role in it.

If a volcano is an erupting pimple then mankind is a hand grenade...

I believe that what's happening now is just a part of a cycle.. It get colder and warmer. I also believe that humans play a part in this. The changes are going faster than it should be. I live way up north in Sweden and I see a HUGE difference between my childhood winters (only ~10 yrs ago) and now.

There is objective proof that global warming happens, and completely without any influence from human activity.... Venus.

Anything is possible in this day and age. It's a reasonable question.
However, I would have to say that the answer is no, at least on the surface of the foundational arguments.

The scientists who have come out againsts the man-made global warming hypothesis are a group of people (the majority, frankly, by significant margin) who are motivated by empirical evidence and the scientific method in which they were trained, and they fully understand that this man-made hypothesis is that (an hypothesis), and that only. They also understand that a consensus among a group of U.N scientists is not only untenable, it is not a part of the scientific method. We have hypothesis, experimentation, and verification as theory or law; or, alternately, refutation of the hypothesis to the trash bin of "good idea, but it doesn't fly". The man-made idea is an hypothesis which hasn't passed the remaining parts of the process. In fact, it is weakly supported at best.

In thinking about their position, and my own (which is in concurrance with theirs), you could say it is politically motivated as well.

That motivation is interested in not allowing a faulty hypothesis which hasn't passed scientific muster (and probably won't) to allow policy makers (who are decidedly un-educated in these matters) to impose draconian restrictions on human freedoms and rights in support of it. Higher taxes to support increased government to support restrictions on people, increased restrictions on the most highly regulated and restricted industry in the country by far, the oil industry, and a for-sure insurance on dependency on foreign oil, higher energy prices in the future, and a weakened economy that has little hope of research and development into alternative energy sources for the future.

In 1815 the Tamboura volcano put so much dust and ash into the air that it caused red sunsets and below-normal cold around the world for two years following the eruption. 1816 became known as the Year Without a Summer. Frosts occurred in every month in New England and snow fell in New York.

The Little Ice Age lasted about 200 years (about 1640 to 1840). Its beginning coincided with a low sunspot phase called the Maunder Minimum, but low temperatures continued well after the end of the Maunder Minimum. The coldest year was 1841. Since then, temperatures have been increasing slwoly.

In 1976, global temperatures began an upward excursion. This culminated in 1998 with inland temperatures in North America running about 1.4 F warmer than previously. Since 1998, global temperatures have remained statistically unchanged, yet carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continue to rise.

During the Altithermal, temperatures averaged about 2 degrees above current. The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than current. During both these periods, CO2 levels were about 280 ppm (compared with 365 ppm now).

Current warming is different from past warming: this time, warming is occurring in dry areas more than wet ones (The Arctic interior in winter is one of the dryest places on earth.). This is exactly what would be expected if CO2 were the forcing mechanism. It has also been noted that warming fluctuates with sunspot activity and that the past 285 years have seen increasing sunspot activity. This activity is now slowing down and some authorities think we are entering a period of reduced sunspot activity. This has led to two schools of thought: 1) Global temperatures are driven by CO2; 2) Global temperatures are driven by sunspot activity. The first predicts that temperatures will rise over the next fifteen years, while the second predicts they will decline.

I can hardly wait to see who's right. In the meantime, we don't know enough about climate to say with certainty what is going to happen. To base policy decisions on what we know about climate is ludicrous (Belongs on the religion page.). BUT: it won't hurt one little bit to make the air and water cleaner just to have breathable air and potable water. Conserving fuel and switching to alternatives like wind and hydrogen is a good idea whether it affects climate or not.
Doug

This particular detail turned out to be wrong. The summer ice cap started thinning in the 1950s; the winter ice cap started doing so in the 1970s. The original results were obtained by averaging ice-thickness readings taken by US submarines, which took many more readings on the Soviet side of the Arctic Ocean than they did on the Canadian side. When these were re-analyzed and corrected for spatial bias, a different picture emerged.

The coldest period in North America since 1948 was in the late 1970s. The coldest period in North America during the 20th century was about 1907. Examination just of recent history would have put things in perspective.
Doug

One has to mistrust IPCC becuase it has as many politicians in it as it does scientists. IPCC relies in climate simulation models which I think are being confused by a phenomenon called confounding. When two variables vary together, it can be very difficult to separate their effects so that the process can be understood and replicated on a computer. I do statistical modelling and know from experience that you can't completely trust the process.

Also, politicians and the popular press have greatly distorted scientific findings. There's a lot of misinformation and hype out there.
Doug

Excellent points.

It may not be overly well known, but climate modeling is not really all so swift. If we are observant enough, it's not a long step to see that the National Hurricane Center, in attempting to predict the character of a hurricane season, has moments of completely humorous innaccuracy (like the past couple fo years, for instance). What they try to do (for reasons that escape me completely) is to predict weather over a course of months. That, is essentially impossible, although you have to give them credit for trying.

In fact, it is still impossible to accurately forecast weather at all with any reasonable accuracy beyond about 48 hours (all one has to do is test the 5, 7, and 10 (!) day forecasts put out these days by the media against the actual conditions experienced on those days, and you shall see that the forecasts are little more than guesses, and most often, bad ones).

These MMGW people are actually attemtping to model climatic conditions decades into the future, and in many cases are making declarations of fact about it. The lunacy of such a proposition seems to be hidden from most people, but it is in fact almost insanity to take it seriously.

Same here.
The fresh water creek just up the road from my farm used to get flooded every winter bout 15-20 + years ago.
As kids we used to hobby fish there on weekends, but now even the lizards & snakes are dying of thirst. lol

dont u guy get it global warming is a good thing its a cycle of the earth read about it

That's a hugely over simplified view of global warming and not necessarily correct

it may be over simplified but it still a valid point without the earths cycle and seasons life here would be impossible even the tilt of the earth is creadited with making life on this planet possible. so if some thing like that can have that big of an effect on life so can the cycle of warming and cooling. but still back to the original thought oh well i dont remember what i was thinking the night i started this but that doesnt mean i changed my mind.

I form my opinion based on the evidence presented by the general scientific community...

When it comes to ice ages and the warming the Earth has never warmed up like it is now and the polar ice caps have never completely disappeared like they are doing now. We know this because of the ice core samples taken from the arctic... If the polar ice cap in the north completely disappeared after an ice age their would be no ice core samples.

This being said the changes in global weather patterns are astonishing... Areas that have gone untouched like mountain top rain forests for example are dying, bees are going extinct, hurricanes are frequently more powerful... just the slightest changes in global temperatures is enough to alter Earths weather patterns...

Once the arctic ice cap melts the water will continue to warm, this will cause the dissolved oxygen in the water to rise to the surface and escape. If this happens or should I say when we could be looking at 98% of fish and other species going extinct. After most of the Earths life is extinct and greenhouse gas levels plunge the globe will be plunged into another massive ice age.... Essentially after we f*ck it up enough the globe will reset itself over a few hundred thousand years... perhaps if another intelligent species evolved they won't make the same mistakes we have made in our history and will succeed so far where we have been failing miserably.

bees are going extinct,


you cant really tell me that bees cant handle warm weather

It is not quite that simply, it about the amount of change over such short period of time.

insects are known to contain the most resilient species on earth i know that bees are very important to all life on earth and yes i saw the news reports on tv and i know what they are saying but i find it hard to beleive that something with such a profound effect on nature on all levels is going to just die out.

Why do people assume that just because someone holds a view which is similar to the views expressed by politicians and popular culture they must have formed that opinion based on the views of the latter? I think it's entirely possible to come to a logical and well thought out conclusion on your own... just because it happens to be the same as Al Gore's or someone else's doesn't necessarily mean you're a blinkered sheep blindly following the status quo.

Personally, I agree that current climate trends are most likely the result of some natural process, accelerated by human behavior. And, as has been said, it's certainly sensible to try and curb our energy use regardless of whether or not we believe excess is causing global warming.

It's not just the Warming that is the problem - it's the RATE of the warming that is most indicative and alarming.
If you look at satellite pictures of the Arctic from the 70's and compare to today, over a third of Arctic ice is gone.
Scientists have dug deep into earth all over the world, and taken core samples from ice millions of years old, and cannot find any rate of warming as fast as ours is happening.
Then take the fact that Each Gallon of gas produces 20 pounds of Co2 gas when burned, coupled with the fact that if we continue to spew Co2 into the atmosphere at present rates (and this is Just One Pollutant), then Co2 levels in Ocean Water will kill All Existing Coral in the Oceans, (Google it, this is science fact) then one can start to get the true picture of how industry/mankind is destroying the planet for the love of money.

But then again .......

"TheClassic" is so correct when he says:
"But it seems these days people form their opinions on the political party they support."

So....if one is the type that spews the word "liberal"
like it's some sort of cuss word, ....

Then such will only believe what his favorite
talk-show host regurgitates into his mind anyway.

Doug's statement here is very logical and something we can All, hopefully, agree upon.

Which, consequently, brings up the issue of getting it done.

Meaning that at least some of us are going to have to start making noise, raising a stink, to get politicians/legislators to force companies to comply with planet-friendly practices.

It should be obvious that the old purist capitalism ways cannot work alone. The money is pouring in too quickly by simply continuing to suck Oil up, and spew Pollutants out. There is not enough monetary incentive for the huge corporations to trade their cash cows in for new ones.
Capitalism works, and is a good viable philosophy.
But Not UNRESTRAINED Capitalism.....
Case in point,... the growth of the American Industrial revolution.
While Capitalism was working. indeed, there still rose some ugly specters such as child labor in factories, and workers being required to work untenable overtime hours without just compensation.
Therefore.... Labor LAWS had to be passed preventing child labor, overtime without pay, and other unfair business practices.
These things prove that to let Corporations operate any way they want, thinking that "supply and demand" will take care of everything, can only lead to cruelty and destruction, of people and the entire planet.

We are now in the coldest winter worldwide since 1965-66 while CO2 levels continue to climb. It's starting to look like the sunspot people are right. But let's keep an eye on the ice cap over the next few years. One swallow...
Doug

here is a little article I ran across today thought it was relevant.

DailyTech

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

Three thoughts to remember:
1. It took 23 years to go from "normal" to a peak temperture and that temperature remained more-or-less topped out for nine years. In past temperature excursions, the decline has usually been quite gradual. One cold year is not a trend, at least not yet.

2. The sunspot cycle will reach a new peak in 2012-2014.

3. ENSO will reach a new peak next year, with associated wild weather.

It's a little early to be claiming victory over global warming just yet.
Doug

P.S.: I checked out NASA's climate data:
2007 was the second hottest year ever, behind 2005. The temperature was 1.31 degrees F. above the 1951-1980 average.
Fall 2007 was the third hottest ever, behind 2005 and 2006. The temperature was 1.28 degrees F. above the 1951-1980 average.
January 2008 was 0.56 degrees above the 1951-1980 average, the coldest January since 2000.
Fall 1992, right in the middle of the temperature excursion, was 0.11 degrees F. BELOW the 1951-1980 average.
This could be just another random fluctuation.

I don't know what that article was based on, but I saw it, too, and posted yesterday's item without double-checking. The actual numbers don't bear it out.
Doug

I think this was because of the eruption of Tambora (Indonesian volcano). !816 was known as the "year without a summer".

The article is not claiming anything just stating what is happening, I however have heard this stuff too many times before, first its an ice age then its global warming, the truth is even though there are a lot of humans we are pretty insignificant in the overall picture, if the earth gets sick of us it will just shake us off like gnats. We give ourselves way to much credit for things we have little if anything to do with. I would much rather have global warming than an ice age though.