The relevant question is whether we ought to change our behavior in a significant way. Logic and observation, along with a basic understanding of physics and chemistry, are what we have to work with. Using fossil fuels releases energy that has been stored for a long time. This creates heat. We do not need to look for “greenhouse gas” theories, etc, just the experience of touching a car engine that has been running a while, or seeing the steam and smoke coming from a power plant, to know heat is created and that warms our environment a little bit. It is logical that a lot of car engines burning fossil fuels add up to heat the environment a little bit. Since the whole “climate change debate” started, people have been arguing about just a few degrees or fractions of a degree of average temperature, which is apparently enough warming (or cooling) to drastically change our daily surroundings.

So, whether or not one believes in greenhouse gases, it is foolish to say that human activity is not warming the atmosphere. Mr. Duhamel’s argument seems to be that (1) over geologic time, earth is cooling, and (2) fluctuations occur in cycles due to planetary distance and alignment with the sun. This is true because (1) the heat inside Earth’s core is stored heat from earth’s birth, is radiated gradually and is not regenerated and (2) basic heat transfer laws say the distance and angle to the sun dictate how fast heat is transferred from the sun to Earth. HOWEVER, it is completely IRRELEVANT to the question of whether human activity is having a net warming effect in the shorter (tens or hundreds of years) term, which is the relevant question from a policy standpoint.

We cannot get rid of the basic truth that burning fossil fuel releases stored chemical bond energy into the atmosphere as heat. And while that may be “a drop in the bucket,” those drops add up, and the metaphorical bucket does not need to change very much to cause dramatic changes in local and global weather patterns.

Thank you for your responses. I will retire from this discussion.

By the same token, the very real human reaction of denial as a primary psychological defense mechanism when faced with new and challenging circumstances is a similar theory. Notably, denial was the common denominator in the defense of several of the common historical theories (e.g., a geocentric universe) that were finally disproved.

Might we agree that earth’s atmosphere is a finite resource subject to human effect? Or will some insist, as we once thought of the vitality of the ocean fisheries or the refreshment of the Great Lakes, that human use and abuse would have no debilitating outcome?

You may very well be right. The problem is, we’re placing the bet, but it’s our children and grandchildren who will have to settle up. I’m not much for hugging trees, but I do so cherish hugging my grandchildren. Or is leaving them a more sustainable world somehow a bad idea?

1) Permafrost has an active layer that can vary between two to three feet in a typical place like Barrow AK. That layer has melting and freezing every year.

The methane concentration have been flat in Barrow in recent decades.

2) Permafrost depletion in NH stopped in 2005.

Except for warming during the 1970s and 80s, northern Eurasian temperatures appear to have remained fairly stable. And of that warming, Frauenfeld and Zhang state that “the strong decrease in seasonal freeze depths during the 1970s to “1990s was likely the result of strong atmospheric forcing from the North Atlantic Oscillation during that time period.” Thus, their work provides little to no evidence for any significant warming of this massive portion of earth’s land mass over the past two decades, and absolutely no evidence for recent CO2-induced warming.” [Oliver W Frauenfeld, Tingjun Zhang 2011: Environmental Research Letters]

3) Researchers have discovered that when these melted areas are thawed, the explosion of new growth of vegetation becomes a positive CO2 sink that sequesters carbon dioxide in greater quantities than that released from the thaw. So instead of permafrost melting being a positive warming feedback, it actually becomes a negative feedback.

“northern peatlands can continue to serve as carbon sinks under a warmer and wetter climate, providing a negative feedback to climate warming,” which is the exact polar-opposite of what has historically been claimed by the world’s climate alarmists.” [Shanshan Cai, Zicheng Yu 2011: Quaternary Research]

4) Earlier warm periods, such as the Medieval and Holocene optimum, did not produce unusual amounts of CH4.

“There appear to be no significant CH4-excursions in ice core records of Antarctica or Greenland during these time periods which otherwise might serve as evidence for a massive release of methane into the atmosphere from degrading permafrost terrains.”

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/24/cooling-the-permafrost-scare/