If you start with the premise that only 25% of the earths surface is dry land,
then assume that less than half of that is arrable due to deserts, arctic and mountains,
and assume that humans tilled 10% of all arable land, (think even today it’s far less)
that woud imply that using 0.625% of the earths’ surface for agriculture, influences global climate.

I think my assumptions were quite generous. At that, it still seems like quite a stretch.

Thank you Steve. It’s shame when otherwise brilliant minds become too focused on proving an idea and lose objectivity.

The limited agriculture you’re refering to was 100% organic and natural at a time when most of the human population were still hunter gatherers. Claiming to see a signal in the data seems quite incredible. I think that would be a very tough sell outside the culture of like minded peers.

The “short term decrease” seems to have off-set the short term increase blamed on humans, all of which is within observed natural variations.

http://peacelegacy.org/articles/global-warming-precautionary-principle-backfires

Cheers.

A number of prominent paleoclimatologists, beginning with the University of Virginia’s William F. Ruddiman (For most of his career he was associated with Columbia University’s Lamont – Doherty Earth Observatory), have contended that anthropogenic global warming began with the onsent of widespread human agriculture as far back as 8.000 years ago, based on Antarctic ice core data, noting that substantial increases in methane and carbon dioxide are seen first within these ice cores between 8,000 and 5,000 years ago. That trend has only accelerated substantially with the advent of the Industrial Revolution in Western Europe.

The evidence you provided is merely a short-term decrease. What is more important, however, is the extensive data that has been collected reaffirming the fact of global warming as the consequence of increasing methane, carbon dioxide, and other “greenhouse” gases being emitted into Earth’s atmosphere due to anthropogenic activities.

Regarding AGW being put to the test, I must respectfully point out that the GCM models failed to predict the recent decade or so of cooling clearly evident in UAH (et al) satellite data. The prediction of warming in the mid troposphere of the tropics has also failed to materialize.

The rythmic fluctuations of the AMO, PDO, ENSO and solar cycles do explain this cooling.

The most fighteneing thing about Dr. Hansen is this quote from his home page “The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained”.

“to influence the nature of the measurements,…” is a highly dubious methodology.

You’ve added nothing of value to this discussion, and certainly nothing worthy of my further comment.

I would appreciate it if Mr. Johnson would inform us as to what the question of the moon landings have to do with the issues of global climate change, evolution, HIV/;AIDS, etc The clowns who question the moon landings are nutcases, not to be taken seriously. Again, the fact that Mr. Johnson was employed on the Apollo program does not provide any evidence of competence in the area of climate change. If Mr. Gore equated global climate change deniers to moon landing deniers, he is full of prunes.

However, it is a fact that many global warming deniers are also deniers of other issues. For instance, Roy Parsons is a young earth creationist. Anthony Watts is a CFCs/ozone depletion denialist. Fred Singer is a cigarette smoking/lung cancer denialist, as well as a CFCs/ozone depletion denialist. The global warming denialists at the Discovery Institute also deny evolution, HIV/AIDS, and, in the person of John West, the Holocaust.

While I don’t agree with your position, I must concede that you are well within your rights to challenge SLC. In the past SLC has demonstrated that he’s a male chauvinist pig (Having stated more than once that Sheril Kirshenbaum – among others – is “hot”.) whose primary criterion for judging women is their physical appearance (not whether they have sufficient intelligence) and for still repeating rather salacious ad hominem attacks on me. For someone who claims to possess a Ph. D. degree in elementary particle physics, he claims not to know the work of eminent Harvard University physicist Lisa Randall – who works on high energy particle physics as a CERN researcher – who was quite possibly the physicist whose work was most cited in the professional scientific literature between 2000 and 2006.