Do you agree with the common reference among AGW skeptics that climate can only change by natural influences?

Question

1. If so, why?

2. Isn't that similar to stating a female can only become pregnant through intercourse?

Answer 1

No.  We see this argument all the time (climate has always changed naturally), but it's just so amateurish it really bugs me.

Yes, of course the planet's climate has changed naturally many times in the past.  This is exactly what climate scientists study - what causes climate changes.  The main natural forcings are the Milankovitch cycles and variations in solar output.  And these natural forcings cannot account for the recent warming.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pr...

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/comparis...

It really boggles my mind that people think climate scientists haven't considered natural causes of climate change.  They think that 'the climate has changed naturally in the past' is some sort of brilliant insight that nobody has considered.  No freaking duh!

You have to go beyond this simple fact and determine what caused those previous climate changes, then determine if they can account for the recent climate change.  This is exactly what climate scientists have done, and they have concluded that the recent warming can only be accounted for with anthropogenic effects playing the primary role.

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global...

Personally I like the forest fire analogy.  This argument is akin to saying that humans can't cause forest fires because they always happened naturally in the past.

Answer 2

Climates have been influenced by humans, albeit in a minor way.  The amount of that influence is not measureable and may be simply lost in the background of natural changes.  There is no good evidence to the contrary.  There is nothing out of the ordinary with our recent warming trend.  Your belief that we are the primary influence is akin to believing that somehow intercouse isn't what normally gets a woman pregnant.

Answer 3

No. I experienced living at the base of a mountain that burned once and the smoke was so thick that I couldn't breathe without coughing when went outside. The climate was changed by a fire that was started by a man (arson) and the only natural influence was the wind and dry brush -which until the psycho came along were not influences. At any moment it could have begun to rain and changed it once again, and then a lightening bolt could have hit a tree and started another fire....There are natural AND man made influences.



If it were only the natural influences causing global warming then why are the statistics showing massive increases in carbon emmisions in modern times and not in let say the 7th century AD?

Why is the sky so gray and not blue like it should be? Why can't I drink clean water from a stream anymore? Could it be pollution? Caused by man?

When I look at the waste and greed around me I can't find any reason not to blame man for a very big part of it.

Answer 4

nothing we do compares to what nature can do.  it's obvious that everything on earth is cyclical, and we're probobly not the first civilization to have come (and go)  how do we explain coming/leaving of ice ages in the past, when the chinese weren't around? it's obvious to me that man plays little roll in what happens with our climate.  

Answer 5

certainly do.  

Answer 6

Well of course as it is no one has a complete cause, so your correct in stating their could be multiple causes I mean even Al Gore doesn't agree to one condition. In my opinion this is a natural occurrence that is being sped up by damaging the environment.

Answer 7

What is so unnatural about a living being using the natural resources available to it? Fossil fuels have been used to allow humanity survive and vastly grow in number. Isn't that kind of the idea of life? It's basic science.

Richard, sounds like I struck a chord. A little illustration. Elephants are known to be great at deforestation. Do people say their acts of toppling trees are unnatural. Of course not. Why doesn't this same kind of bias apply to mankind. We do what comes natural to us, much like every other living organism. We are made of the same elements as every other living thing. Just because every other animal doesn't act in a sophisticated way doesn't mean they should get a pass on natural and unnatural acts. Sounds to me like you're playing God Richard, not practicing science, third grade or otherwise.

Answer 8

Richard Humans have had absolutely nothing to with any warming period and there has been no warming for over 70 years now. Well up until 1934-40 it was real and it happened because of the end of a period of low sun spot activity and the beginning of a more active period of solar output. It has been well proven now through current and historical records that the overall temperature average or climate of the earth is closely tied to the sun spot activity that directly affects the earth’s climate. Real global warming is a natural cosmic event, the global warming currently in the public spotlight is a fictional event brought about for political and economic gains by an elite group of con men.

The whole concept that this global warming scam is built on comes from a mistake in logic by a chemist back in the late 1800s when things started warming up at the end of the 2nd half of the little ice age. His arguments were adopted by a group of anti-industrial/anti-technology religious fanatics known as Luddites after their prophet to try and return society to its grander days in the early medieval period when nobility meant something. Oh yes, just like today the major adherents of this cult were the 2nd and 3rd sons of the minor nobility and in some cases the 1st sons who had squandered their inheritances on life style instead of productivity.

The anti Co2 cult was enhanced again when the argument was taken up during the late 20s when warming became noticeable and a industrial chemical firm had come up with a fluorocarbon instead of an oxycarbon refrigerant they claimed was not only superior to Co2 as a refrigerant it also would end the threat of global warming caused by Co2. This refrigerant was known as Freon and was in recent years banned because it was suspected of damaging the ozone layer. Now because of the low performance of other substituted refrigerants Co2 is making a huge comeback in the refrigeration industry, especially in newer auto air-conditioning systems that are more compact and efficient.

In the 1970s the Co2 equals warming theory was once again brought forward by a couple of low end climate scientists Mann/Hansen to first warn of the immanent plunge into a new and disastrous ice age because of the production of Co2 by vehicles and industry. This even though it got major media news play flopped like a lead balloon. Then they got involved with a shyster politician that had major oil company connections dating back to his fathers involvement with them who said clearly people are not afraid of cold but they are of heat.

So this politician writes a disaster is coming because of the warming that will be caused by the huge amounts of Co2 the world is pumping into the air. Mann/Hansen then revised their materials to forecast ever rising temperatures in sync with rising Co2 levels. Well when they checked closely they found that world temperatures had no relationship with Co2 levels and instead followed sun spot activity so they had to alter world temperature records to reflect a temperature increase matching the Co2 increase. This worked fine up through 2000 because things were warming up after the 70s cool period at that time. Then after 2000 temps leveled off and started dropping a little and their altered temperature curve that matched the increasing Co2 curve began to radically separate from reality even more than it had from the beginning of the scam when they had interjected an artificial .5C jump that placed the current 1998 peak well above 1934 when it was actually about .1C below 1934. This radical difference between actual recorded temperatures and reported ones quoted by Mann/Hansen is what brought about NASA action to review national and international records. The US national records have been repaired and now reflect the fact that global warming is more than a myth, it is an outright con game played for profit at the highest political and economic levels.

Answer 9

ALL Influences are NATURAL, so the answer is YES

No its not similar,because who are you to say that getting pregnant by a turkey baster is not natural?

Answer 10

The key word is Global.  Local climate can be changed by human influences.  Part of the temperature database used to support the hypothesis of global warming compares data from locations that were once rural communities, (orchard, pasture, parks, etc) to locations today covered in cement and asphalt.  The average temperature is higher.  No Duh! It is the Urban Island heat effect, which has nothing to do with Global Warming but it is real.  When defining climate change, one needs to define how big an area we are talking about.  Globally, The natural influences makes a much bigger change and mask any change than man can do.  But locally in urban environments, there can be a significant change due to the change from a rural environment to an urban one.

Typically generalizations are used to make it easier to understand complicated concepts.  But when you try to run your business on generalizations instead of specific information you waste time effort and money.  Ineffeciency is not green.  

Answer 11

No, and this is why:

1.) Greenhouse gasses let light through, but trap heat in the atmosphere. (definition of a greenhouse gas)

2.) Trapped heat warms the climate. (basic physics)

3.) Therefore, greenhouse gasses warm the climate.

4.) Greenhouse gasses warm the climate. (conclusion from above)

5.) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. (a property of CO2)

6.) Therefore, carbon dioxide warms the climate.

7.) Carbon dioxide warms the climate. (conclusion from above)

8.) Human activities release large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. (fact)

9.) Therefore, human activities warm the climate. (but exactly how much is not certain)

Answer 12

Silly question, which happens more often with reproduction.

Answer 13

Of course.  The sun drives almost all climate on earth, have you never been to school?  Other factors are the earth's rotation and inner earth temperatures.  Man has no capacity in any way to change or modify climate.

Answer 14

I think that climate change is a normal part of nature, but that we can do things to speed it up or slow it down. We cannot think that our activities don't affect the world around us.

Sure, a woman can naturally become pregnant through intercourse, but as we learn what factors affect that (fertility medication, and of course the basic sperm/egg connection) we can have an effect on the natural progress of things. So, I guess your analogy applies.

Answer 15

What's unnatural about it ?