humans don't have anything to do with it... we're actually making it slower... we're over due for an ice age... look up the milancovitch cycles.... i think that's how it's spelled... but that explains everything that is happening...
Eh. I definitely have a foot in the race for the belief of Milankovitch cycles, but I also have one in the race for the ecological impacts by human involvement resulting in climate changes.
Milankovitch had some flaws, as most of his were unproven observations. His span of 100,000 elliptical orbit expansion cycles were varied in his writings from 41,000 to 100,000. The data he used had fluctuations that did not meet up properly with gravitational properties found in physics as we know them. They were largely supported by them, but there are too large of gaps between the spaces of the missing 59,000 years to be compounded into a set of theories that could be considered ONLY to be in relation to orbital expansion.
Ecological impact of human involvement with Carbon Dioxide and Monoxide gases into the atmosphere have been supported with experiments as well as historical data of atmospheric measurements of gases present at various periods of time from the 1940s on.
The volume calculations of atmospheric dissipation of greenhouse gases has only been observed, not properly experimented, and it is still unknown how much actually leaves the atmosphere.
The funny thing, is that we are starting to notice similar correlations to the amount of helium retained within the planet and the amount the temperature goes up. We use helium in balloons and POOF. it vanishes. It is an inert gas, so it bonds to absolutely nothing. It gets removed from sources deep underground along with fuel gases, it gets pumped into pressurized containers, placed into balloons, and then POOF. it vanishes into space, never to return.
Helium goes down, and the temperature goes up.
Well... this is an observation, but does it have any correlation?
No. No.. highly unlikely, because helium is inert; it doesn't bond with anything in any chemical process at all.
We have so many observations that have been made in the world, but the ones that are most commonly analyzed are the numbers of gases that stay within the atmosphere, and continue to be detected, while temperatures rise. So then, we test experiments in controlled vacuums, and similar, and get similar results when we test the same gases within them. Chlorofluorocarbons (or halogens in general) cause photodissociation reactions in upper atmospheres to bond with the unstable O3 atom (ozone) and result in O2 and any Oxide bonds from the broken halogens produced by man in the atmosphere.
In the 80s, we were worried about the ozone layer, so we started to ease production of CFCs and other halogen compounds, and use O3 instead. Propane is just as good of a refrigerant as CFCs, but people are afraid of it, because it can be used as a fuel, so they immediately consider it to be a bomb - even though its flashpoint is ridiculously high. You can convert many car's A/C system over to propane, and even the engine in its hottest state will not cause it to combust. As we eased in the production, use, built reclamation of CFC refrigerants, and better contained leaks in older systems, the pressure of CFC/Ozone awareness lessened, and we started to focus on the next big thing. Fossil Fuels, and their impact on the environment.
Is our impact on the environment producing a tried and tested greenhouse gas experiment on a planetary level? I have no fucking clue. I don't know volumetric chemistry at that level. hell, it was one of my worst subjects in academia. But there is enough concern in bright minds of people who have a mind in that direction to help contain it, that I'm not just going to ignore it.