Forest fires can have a natural cause. Does this mean that humans can never start a forest fire?

Question

This is just a simple analogy; many global warming deniers often say that global warming has had natural cycles in the past, and therefore they conclude that chemicals, pollutants, and greenhouse gases that mankind puts into the air will have no effect on the environment. Does this conclusion make any sense?

Answer 1

Be real - No one is saying that we shouldn't reduce pollution.  This is just a straw man argument.  

We don't panic and say the world is going to end in 10 years, that doom and gloom is going to strike us dead if we don't repent and change our evil ways.

It's these arguments that make believers sound like preachers, and global warming appear like a religion.

Answer 2

Poor analogy.

Answer 3

First we need to determine if there is actually a large-scale impending danger or not.

Answer 4

As a denier, or skeptic if you will, my contention is this. Is it at least possible that there is another natural force, not yet well understood that is largely responsible for the current warming? What caused the midevil warm period? Just because you don't yet have an explanation for a phenomenon doesn't mean you should make one up without fully understanding the big picture. That's a little like convicting someone of a murder who was thought to be closest to the crime scene when in actuality the real murderer, because of his intent was careful not to be seen. Dana you can't in good concience, tell me that the experts know with certainty, the causes of past warming periods. And further, to say that past warming periods are irrelavent is really pretty silly.

Answer 5

You are not being honest, or at least you are not being fair; few if any people say "that chemicals, pollutants, and greenhouse gases that mankind puts into the air will have no effect on the environment."  

What many of us say is that we have no experimental control, no steady-state basleine, to determine how much of the global warming - if there is in-fact long term global warming - is "natural" and how much is man made.

To put it in your own awkward terms, "Forest fires can have human causes.  Does this mean that nature never starts a forest fire?"

Answer 6

I think the whole point is they can start naturally, and with that knowledge, think about what happened before we came in with the belief that we need to stop them.  Things probably burned out of control, across much larger areas than the ones we see today.

Answer 7

CO2 is not a pollutant.I've never seen a skeptic promote such.

Answer 8

The analogy is perfect.  I see a lot of doubters back-tracking, because it clearly demonstrates the foolishness of using past climate changes as "evidence" for why the current isn't human caused.

How many times have we seen a doubter post something about "there are no SUV's on Mars" or "no SUV's during the last Ice Age"?  Far too many.  That's foolish and irrelevant rhetoric which has nothing to do with the current climate warming.

MonaLisa - we have no "experimental control" over plate tectonics or evolution either.  Does that mean we can't have any confidence in those theories?

Jim Z - perhaps some simple back-of-the-envelope calculations would help you "fathom".  A 100 ppm increase is a 30% increase in atmospheric CO2.  Without any greenhouse gases, the average global temperature of our planet would be 33 C colder than it is (simple Physics, which you may or may not have ever studied).  CO2 is responsible for 9 - 27% of that effect.  So at normal historic levels CO2 is responsible for 3 - 9 C of our planets global average temperature.  A 30% increase is significant.  By the time we double atmospheric CO2 level (mid-century?), you're in the range of 3 - 9 C above pre-industrial levels (by the time the temperature stabilizes).  You seem to think warmer is better, but not when it's that much warmer.

Answer 9

An ant with gas might cause some infinitesimal warming but should we all worry about it and say that we are heading for disaster is we don't stop up all those ants.  I would say that adding CO2 to the atmosphere should have some effect.  Why alarmists are so alarmed by an increase in a 100 ppmV or so is pretty hard for me to fathom.  They have villainized a vital gas to such an extent that it is responsible for every bad thing from killing the dinosaurs to polar bears.  I remember when SUV's started to get villainized by the Sierra Club even before global warming was much of an issue.  Pretty soon all the leftists jumped on the band wagon.  There seems to be a need for causes in the political left and global warming is simply the latest.  Forest fires are a natural event.  Humans interfered with the natural cycle  with good intentions by not allowing them and now have to live with fires that are much more destructive.  Interestingly those more destructive fires are also blamed  on Global warming bythe Alarmist. .

Answer 10

The analogy is valid, and the conclusion makes no sense.

Anyone who is arguing that the current warming is 'natural' or specifically that it's due to the Sun is essentially making this argument.  Because it's been the case in the past, it must be the case now.

We know this is not true because solar irradiance has remained steady over the past 30 years, and we're in a stable portion of the Milankovitch cycles.

Some skeptics argue that we just don't know and it *could* be some natural cause that we don't understand.  My response to that is that climate scientists are confident they do have a good understanding of most of the variables effecting the Earth's climate.  Just because *you* don't understand them doesn't mean the scientific experts don't.

Answer 11

There are natural causes to global warming, and there are man-made causes.

Increased CO2 happens when there is massive plant death, as in the Amazon rainforest being cut down.

CO2 is also a byproduct of many industrial applications.

The point about global warming is that there is a limit to the amount of 'natural' global warming. Man-made causes are pushing things past that natural limit.

You can only soak up so much water with a paper towel. Once it's full, you can't soak up any more.  The same thing is true about CO2. The natural plant life can only absorb so much of it.

CO2 is a natural greenhouse gas, but the more of it there is, the more heat is retained from sunlight, and the warmer the earth gets.

http://www.jigsawaday.com

Answer 12

There are natural causes with human activity amplifying them.  Your analogy is perfectly reasonable.  Alarmism is not.  Get the fanatics out of the issue.