Global Warming...Natural Cycle?

Question

I've heard all the fuss about how it is caused by humans, but what are some facts or explanations on how global warming is natural?

Answer 1

Interesting article from today

April 09, 2008

The slick trick behind global frauding

By James Lewis

In Stalin's Russia any dissenter from the Party Line was guilty. Innocence had to be proved. It's a standard tyrant's trick. During the reign of Oliver Cromwell in England, witchhunters did not have to prove that their victims were guilty. The accused witches had to prove their innocence.

That's what Al Gore has done to science: He and his friends have flipped innocence and guilt from normal science to Stalinist science.

In Al Gore's America, any "global warming denier" is guilty until proven innocent. He or she must have been bought off by Big Oil.   Skeptics, no matter how well-qualified, must prove the negative about really silly alarmist hogwash. And whenever some prediction is falsified, the warm mongers have an explanation: it's just a temporary glitch in the data. Oh, yes, we were wrong about 1998, but just wait till 2050! The excuses are endless.

Stalin twisted scientific biology over four decades in the Soviet Union. His favorite fake-scientist, Trofim Lysenko, used all the powers of the police state to enforce his batty belief that the bleeding disaster of Soviet agriculture could be fixed just by making plants grow bigger. It's the old idea that giraffes have long necks because their ancestors stretched their necks out more and more, to nibble at higher leaves on the trees. It's nonsense, as horse breeders have known for ages. You can't make a great race horse just by making their ancestors run fast. You have to do selective breeding.

But breeding takes time, and Stalin was in a hurry. So he fell for the Lysenko fraud, and flipped the burden of proof: Any Soviet biologist who disagreed with Lysenko was shot. This went on for forty years, and caused endless suffering as one harvest after the next crashed. People died by the millions, in part because biological science was fundamentally corrupted.

Putting the burden of proof on the doubters is a perversion of normal, healthy science. It's as if Jeremiah Wright demanded that all white folks must prove to him that they're not blue-eyed devils.  If politically correct ideas are true by default, the Al Gores can prove anything.

In normal science the burden of proof is on the proposer. Albert Einstein had to prove in his historic 1905 paper that there was a fundamental flaw in classical physics.  The distinctive predictions of Relativity Theory had to be verified for decades afterwards. Some are still being tested today.  His predecessor Max Planck remarked that he encountered so much skepticism that he had to wait for the older generation of physicists to die off before his work was accepted. Darwin said the same thing.

A healthy scientific community is extremely skeptical. It needs to see more and more evidence, over and over and over again, before it adopts some wild-eyed new idea. It takes all the time it needs; good science is very patient. Einstein himself was a complete skeptic about quantum mechanics, and never accepted it over the last forty years of his life. He had a perfect right to question it, as long as he had rational arguments, and he did. (He was wrong on QM, but he was right on Relativity.)

"Catastrophic global warming," caused by human beings, is a really wild-eyed idea, given the fact that animals have survived on earth for half a billion years, with thousands of massive volcanic explosions, giant meteors hitting the earth, drifting continents, and great biomass changes that would have perturbed the climate, if the hypothesis were true. Just imagine the amount of C02 that must have been released with the Cambrian explosion of animal life. If the earth really saw superfast global ups and downs in temperature, no animals could have survived those 500 million years. The Ice Ages drove animals and people south, but they were not superfast, global events, or you and I would not be here today. Animals and plants are able adapt to temperature changes. Polar bears grow layers of fat and long, dense fur. Camels can stay cool in the desert.

In biology, "catastrophism" has been treated with intense skepticism since Charles Darwin in the mid-19th century. Except today, when biological catastrophism is the in thing. Why would that be, do you suppose?  

How have Al Gore and the fraudsters pulled it off? It's really simple. They just flipped the burden of proof and put it on the "deniers" --- the skeptics, who don't believe the computer models. With the Left in control of the media, you can do it.

So now it's prove to me you're not a witch! Because there is no decisive evidence. There are 21 computer models that "prove" global warming over the next century. By the time 2050 rolls around, most of the modelers will be dead.

To answer the biggest con trick in the history of science, you just have to address a single question to True Believers:  What's your evidence for this barmy idea? (Not: Here's my evidence against it. That's not how it works).

And the answer is: There are no facts robust enough, consistent enough, and verified enough to support the mass  hysteria. The climate system is hypercomplex, nonlinear and poorly understood. The media spinners are immensely ignorant about real science, and just care about the next scare headline. There's a lot of wild speculation and a mob of self-serving politicians, bureaucrats and media types who stand to gain a ton of power and money by suckering millions of taxpayers. Al Gore just started a 300 million dollar PR campaign to convince everybody.  When was the last time you saw 300 million bucks being spent to promote a scientific hypothesis that was already proven? We're not spending millions to prove the existence of gravity. The uproar and money involved in this fraud is in direct proportion to the lack of solid facts.

The last ten years have seen global cooling, not warming.  

Temperatures over the last hundred years look like the stock market: ups and downs, a very slow rise of a fraction of a degree until the late 1990s, then a drop for the last ten years, with so much cooling in the last year as to cancel out a century of warming. Why? Nobody really knows, but Mr. Sun is the logical suspect.

Look it up. But don't get caught in the trap of proving the negative. In normal, healthy science, the skeptics ask questions. It is the proponents who carry the burden of proof.  

Now can we talk about 9/11? That's a fact. But Al Gore doesn't think it's a big deal, compared to his favorite science fiction story. Al Gore just wants power, fame, money, and the US Presidency. Well, three out of four ain't bad.

Oliver Cromwell and his witchhunters would have understood  perfectly.

James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/t... at April 09, 2008 - 02:30:08 PM EDT

Answer 2

We are in an interglacial period of an ice age.  The ice age was caused by continents moving toward the poles and creating an environment where ice was captured by land masses.  Other geologic forces were happening at this time too including the smashing of the Indian Subcontinent into Asia, the creation of the Indonesian Achepelego, and the formation of the Panama Canal among others.  When the Ice age formed, variations in our orbit became more important in changing the variability of our climate.  There various oscillation resulted in a periodicity of about 100,000 years for every period of glaciation.  We just came out of the last period several thousand years ago and have generally warmed since then.  There have been periods of warming and cooling due primarily to solar output variability.  There was a period called the Maunder minimum with little sun spot activity generally associated with lessened solar output that happend in the 18th Century.  This was known as the little ice age.  Since then we have been generally warming, again with minor variations such as  a cool period in the 1970s.  This cool period is difficult to explain if CO2 drives temperatures.  Clearly CO2 is not the driver of temperature variability.

Answer 3

Global warming -- a gradual increase in planet-wide temperatures -- is now well documented and accepted by scientists as fact. A panel convened by the U.S National Research Council, the nation's premier science policy body, in June 2006 voiced a "high level of confidence" that Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, and possibly even the last 2,000 years. Studies indicate that the average global surface temperature has increased by approximately 0.5-1.0°F (0.3-0.6°C) over the last century. This is the largest increase in surface temperature in the last 1,000 years and scientists are predicting an even greater increase over this century. This warming is largely attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide and methane) in the Earth's upper atmosphere caused by human burning of fossil fuels, industrial, farming, and deforestation activities.

Average global temperatures may increase by 1.4-5.8ºC (that's 2.5 - 10.4º F) by the end of the 21st century. Although the numbers sound small, they can trigger significant changes in climate. (The difference between global temperatures during an Ice Age and an ice-free period is only about 5ºC.) Besides resulting in more hot days, many scientists believe an increase in temperatures may lead to changes in precipitation and weather patterns. Warmer ocean water may result in more intense and frequent tropical storms and hurricanes. Sea levels are also expected to increase by 0.09 - 0.88 m. in the next century, mainly from melting glaciers and expanding seawater . Global warming may also affect wildlife and species that cannot survive in warmer environments may become extinct. Finally, human health is also at stake, as global warming may result in the spreading of certain diseases such as malaria, the flooding of major cities, a greater risk of heat stroke for individuals, and poor air quality.

Climate change is very likely having an impact now on our planet and its life, according to the latest installment of a report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). And the future problems caused by rising seas, growing deserts, and more frequent droughts all look set to affect the developing world more than rich countries, they add. The report is the second chapter of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment -- the most comprehensive summary yet of research into the causes and effects of climate change. To read more, visit Effects of climate change tallied up.

Factors

Greenhouse Gases

The increase in greenhouse gases caused by human activity is often cited as one of the major causes of global warming. These greenhouse gases reabsorb heat reflected from the Earth's surface, thus trapping the heat in our atmosphere. This natural process is essential for life on Earth because it plays an important role in regulating the Earth's temperature. However, over the last several hundred years, humans have been artificially increasing the concentration of these gases, mainly carbon dioxide and methane in the Earth's atmosphere. These gases build up and prevent additional thermal radiation from leaving the Earth, thereby trapping excess heat.

Solar Variability & Global Warming

Some uncertainty remains about the role of natural variations in causing climate change. Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most. During the initial discovery period of global warming, the magnitude of the influence of increased activity on the Sun was not well determined.

Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues.

GLOBAL WARMING HAS TO STOP BEFORE WE ALL DIE.

HUMANS MADE THIS MESS AND HUMANS ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN CLEAN IT UP!

Answer 4

http://www.iceagenow.com you'll find masses of info there

Bob - temp is still going up ahead of CO2 by approx 800 yrs

Answer 5

I was just going for some hobbies-tic research on global warming and this is what I found:

Global warming is a natural phase of Earth, caused by some Solar Activities by Sun. We human don't have to bother about it. Some of the environmentalist says that this is because of the CO2 we are emitting into the environment, but the reality is that we are just contributing towards 1% to 10% of actual global warming.

If the actual cause of Global Warming is CO2 emitted by the humans then why Global Warming occures on other planets. Just Google for "Global Warming on other planets" and see the results, there are no humans on other planets.

Having too little CO2 in the environment will cause for the plants to die more early, more over it also cools down the temperature on earth.

Having too much CO2 (obiviously, not caused by humans. Mostly generated in the Sea/Oceans) will lead to Green House effect and will lead in increasing the temperature on Earth.

So, the best is to plant more trees so that there would be a balance for the consumption of CO2 on the planet.

I personally think that instead of thinking on this baseless issue try to think on what if Nuclear War broke out in the world, it will destroy Earth more rapidly.

So, next time whenever somebody says you about global warming, just ignore it.

Answer 6

Past "globalS warningS" (because it has often happens) can of course be explain by natural causes, but they took tens thousands of years to procede....

With our 'global warning', time scale is linked to human.

Answer 7

Yes. There is no empirical proof of AGW-only theory so far.

Answer 8

Maybe the solution is world wide nuclear war.  Wipe out 99% of the world population and let nature (evolution) take over.  Then maybe the next form of higher intelligence will not be so arrogant.

Answer 9

Global warming is normally natural, but this time is different.  Please see the wiki article I wrote linked below for an explanation of how we know this.

Answer 10

Of course it's natural-but that doesn't mean pollute the **** out of the earth!

Answer 11

Well, there was the medieval warming period. A lot of non-believers argue that what's happening now is just like then, but it's just about doubled what it was then. And only the TEMPERATURE was high, not the CO2 and Temperature.

Now it's both, and all started around the industrial revolution, and keeps rising.

I don't understand how people DON'T care about this issue. It doesn't matter what's called, can't you care about the next generation and stop being selfish?

Answer 12

The data clearly shows that the current warming is NOT a natural cycle.

One of the strong pieces of evidence is the relationship between temperature and CO2.

CO2 can be either a cause of warming (greenhouse effect) or a result (warm ocean waters release CO2).

In previous natural warmings temperature went up first, and CO2 followed HUNDREDS of years later, as oceans warmed.  The process simply can't happen fast.  The lag shows CO2 was mostly an effect.

This time CO2 and temperature are going up simultaneously which has NEVER happened before.  This shows that (mostly man made) CO2 is the main cause.

Forget what anyone (especially non-scientists) say.  The data speaks much louder:

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)

Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut