Global warming misconception?

Question

a colleague of mine and I were discussing about global warming this and global warming that, and we came to a section of it, we know that there was an ice age not too long ago, up by the greenland area somewhere there, and nobody survived. We wondered if this "global warming" effect is something on earth that is coming back to normal. For example, since there was this ice age some time back, how do we know that we are now returning back to normal temps as the earth should run, and not then? people believe that the temps. back in the day were the temps that we need for it to be in. What if this temp rise over the years isn't simply the earth returning to normal temps before the ice age, a thaw effect if you will in a very slow state of time?

Answer 1

The climate scientists have researched every possibility like others here say.  All the skeptic arguments have been given more time in research than some of them deserve, wasting money and time.  I'm referring to the lamer of the arguments.  The point is that the IPCC scientists have been very thorough in checking out all claims.

Yes there are skeptics, but their numbers among climate scientists are very small and the numbers are falling.  The evidence actually is getting stronger all the time.  

To say there is no evidence of CO2 from human emissions contributing to global warming is not very truthful.  When the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in the history of science says human emitted CO2 is contributing to warming, it is intellectually dishonest to say there is no evidence.  It would be more honest to say that the evidence is overwhelming.

Every time someone hands me what they assume is new proof against AGW, based on some meeting of skeptics or article in the popular press, it's the same old bunch, Linzer, Spencer, Singer, etc.   And it usually seems to be something hosted by the Heartland Institute a propaganda mill funded by ExxonMobil.

"The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by...

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)

Royal Society of Canada

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Academié des Sciences (France)

Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

Indian National Science Academy

Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

Science Council of Japan

Russian Academy of Sciences

Royal Society (United Kingdom)

National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

Australian Academy of Sciences

Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

Caribbean Academy of Sciences

Indonesian Academy of Sciences

Royal Irish Academy

Academy of Sciences Malaysia

Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

"In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:"

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)

American Geophysical Union (AGU)

American Institute of Physics (AIP)

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

American Meteorological Society (AMS)

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11...

"The big difference I have with the doubters is they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate, whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show the reports dramatically understate the impact."

"One of the most serious results of the overuse of the term "consensus" in the public discussion of global warming is that it creates a simple strategy for doubters to confuse the public, the press and politicians: Simply come up with as long a list as you can of scientists who dispute the theory. After all, such disagreement is prima facie proof that no consensus of opinion exists."

"So we end up with the absurd but pointless spectacle of the leading denier in the U.S. Senate, James Inhofe, R-Okla., who recently put out a list of more than 400 names of supposedly "prominent scientists" who supposedly "recently voiced significant objections

to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming."

"As it turned out, the list is both padded and

laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren't climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a number of people who actually believe in the consensus."

"But in any case, nothing could be more irrelevant to climate science than the opinion of people on the list such as Weather Channel founder John Coleman or famed inventor Ray Kurzweil (who actually does "think global warming is real"). Or, for that matter, my opinion -- even though I researched a Ph.D. thesis at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on physical

oceanography in the Greenland Sea."

"What matters is scientific findings -- data, not

opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed

scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0... The Cold Truth about Global Warming by Joseph Romm

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...

Great site showing overwhelming support for IPCC findings.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparin...

Comparison of IPCC projections and actual observations.

http://www.logicalscience.com/climate_ch...

A handful of "contrarian" scientists and public figures who are not scientists have challenged mainstream climatologists' conclusions that the warming of the last few decades has been extraordinary and that at least part of this warming has been anthropogenically induced. What must be emphasized here is that, despite the length of this section, there are truly only a handful of climatologist contrarians relative to the

number of mainstream climatologists out there."

"There's a better scientific consensus on this (climate change) than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics".

Dr. James Baker - NOAA

Answer 2

Nope.

This graph shows the situation clearly.  We stopped warming up from the Ice Age 10,000 years ago, and were cooling very slightly.  But not enough to cause problems.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

Until we messed things up.

"If the Earth came with an operating manual, the chapter on climate might begin with a caveat that the system has been adjusted at the factory for optimum comfort, so don't touch the dials."

Answer 3

let me get this straight.

you're thinking you know better than the guys with PhDs, that study climate for a living?

is that what you're saying?

1. it was not an ice age.  it's called a "mini ice age" because it was a period of cooling.  but it was nothing at all like a "real ice age".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_...

2. it really is warmer than it was.  if you look at the graph, it's really obvious that something is drastically different than has happened before.

3. it really doesn't make any difference, that in the last few million years, it's been warmer and colder than it is today.  today, something like 7% of all the humans who have ever lived on this earth, are alive, wanting to eat, have clothes, have a house, etc.  accommodating this unprecedented population explosion is difficult, to say the least.

when we get weather disruptions, we get things like Darfur, where 200,000 are now dead, because global warming caused drought, and drove them from their traditional lands.

btw, when you come up with a new idea, you might check it against these lists.  it's probably already been thought of, and disproved.

Answer 4

We aren't in the warmest part of this interglacial period.  It is normally much cooler and we have been in a very warm period for the last 10000 years.  There was a cool period that destroyed a civilization on Greenland that occurred after a particularly warm period.

Answer 5

Young108 said:

"The increase that the planet has seen in the last 50 years is not part of a natural cycle. Recent (in the last 50,000 years) global temperature increase is a slow process. This is evident in the ice record. There has been a spike that has not been seen in the last 4 ice ages...it's not a cyclical event, but rather one that's being influenced by human activity."

This is patently false--nothing about the recent warming is unprecedented. Similar warmings have happened a multitude of time in the past 800,000 years.

linlyons said:

"you're thinking you know better than the guys with PhDs, that study climate for a living?"

This is a ridiculous argument--do you know better than Freeman Dyson, John Christy, or Reid Bryson? I don't think so.

Bob gave the quote:

"'If the Earth came with an operating manual, the chapter on climate might begin with a caveat that the system has been adjusted at the factory for optimum comfort, so don't touch the dials.'"

This is odd--we couldn't expect the planet to stay at the same temperature for ever, could we? And how do we know that the current temperatures are optimum?

Crabby:

"We know the mechanism that is responsible for the current global warming--a rise in atmospheric CO2. And we know the source of the CO2--human burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. All other possibilities were checked.

Of course, to be fair,the skeptics don't know this--how could they? Its obvious none of them ever studied science."

This is quite an accusation, and I am sure I and quite a few others would take offense at that. The question should be, have you studied the science behind global warming? If you had, you would know that there is no empirical evidence that shows CO2 as the main driver of recent warming. The IPCC and "basic physics" (this is erroneous anyway) don't count--I need pure empirical evidence that shows CO2 as the main driver in recent warming.

Edit:

Frflyer said:

"To say there is no evidence of CO2 from human emissions contributing to global warming is not very truthful. When the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in the history of science says human emitted CO2 is contributing to warming, it is intellectually dishonest to say there is no evidence. It would be more honest to say that the evidence is overwhelming."

Again, that is not evidence. Conjecture, speculation, hypotheses, theories, models, and some circumstantial "evidence"? Yeah, but no real empirical evidence. Merely saying "the IPCC said it is 'very likely' that humans are the cause for most of the recent warming, so that is evidence in it of itself" is not only unscientific, but it is a cop out for not being able to find any real evidence. Sorry bub, but you still got nothing.

Then frflyer said:

"Yes there are skeptics, but their numbers among climate scientists are very small and the numbers are falling."

I would like a quality reference that says that the number of skeptics is falling. Got one?

Frflyer quotes gristmill in saying:

"The big difference I have with the doubters is they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate, whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show the reports dramatically understate the impact."

I would like some references on this. Rahmstorf 2007 came to the conclusion that sea levels were rising faster than projected. Measuring sea levels is a difficult process--uncertainty is huge, and being that oceans have slightly cooled since the 2003 (argo network) and the rate of melting of land based ice has not increased, the idea that sea levels have risen faster than projected is a curious one. Though there may be a serious error in Rahmstorf 2007: http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-et-al...

http://landshape.org/enm/rahmstorf-7-fin...

Nothing else seems to be happening faster (usually slower) than projected (except CO2 emissions).

Everything else frflyer mentions is irrelevant to the actual science.

Answer 6

You can't be sure. Not even the best scientist in the world can be sure. Apparently we came out of it and into normal temperatures 10000 or something years ago, but you never know. There are no records of temperatures before the ice age, and therefore no-one can be completely accurate whether we have ended the cycle of cooling and warming. The earth may never be stable in temperature but keep dwelling from hotter to colder every ten years or so, this might be normal behaviour. Such research would suggest so. With  1970's "ice age" then 2007's global warming, now another ice age. The only difference is people use to not go for such major assumptions such as the world ending. It seems like that's all the rage now :)...

But eh, I could be wrong too. I mean I haven't put THAT much effort into researching global warming, temperatures, and ice ages...and it's not like I know how to time travel...but i do have my own opinion.

Answer 7

That possibility is something that was checked and rechecked by (real) scientists years ago.  The factors that operate to cause natural global warming are not operating in the case of the current global warming.

The so-called "skeptics" seem to be under the impression that the scientists didn't have enough sense to check this obvious possibility.

We know the mechanism that is responsible for the current global warming--a rise in atmospheric CO2. And we know the source of the CO2--human burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.  All other possibilities were checked.

Of course, to be fair,the skeptics don't know this--how could they? Its obvious none of them ever studied science.

Answer 8

Good thinking. I have done a lot of research on global warming and I never came across that line of thought. Thank You.

Answer 9

We came out of the last interglacial period ~10000 years ago.

With at least that long again before the start of the next one.

"nobody survived" isn't correct, as humans didn't move into the area till the ice receded, even Neanderthals who were much tougher than us and had several adaption's to very cold climate didn't venture far into the ice, which at its worst covered most of Canada and most of northern Europe, sea level at the time was ~30m lower than present.

Answer 10

that is why the great Global Warming Hoax is now being exposed by more and more media and scientist.

Answer 11

very good point

Answer 12

The increase that the planet has seen in the last 50 years is not part of a natural cycle.  Recent (in the last 50,000 years) global temperature increase is a slow process.  This is evident in the ice record.  There has been a spike that has not been seen in the last 4 ice ages...it's not a cyclical event, but rather one that's being influenced by human activity.