Is there any evidence that there is an alternative cause of global warming?

Question

Or is the science irrefutable.

Is science ever wrong?

Answer 1

The 2007 IPCC report concluded it was "very likely" ie more than 90% probable that that most of the warming since the mid 20th century was attributable to humans.  Note, that's not "all" and it's not 100% certain.  That the scientific process.  Test, conclude and re-test.  The probabilty increased from 66% since 2001, mostly because scientists have been testing carefully in the meantime.

All the inconsistencies and counter arguments that are brought up here by ameteurs and oil company hacks are factored in.  There is evidence on either side -- but all things considered, it is now considered by those who look at it with real disciplin, very likely that we are causing most of the warming.

Answer 2

IT HAS BEEN PROVEN THAT MAN DID'NT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING BUT WE CAN DELETE IT,

Answer 3

check out these recent pictures of Greenland during global warming http://www.kuummiut.com/

Answer 4

It is called Nature... nothing more....

Answer 5

Science is neither right nor wrong, it's our understanding of the science that can be in error. Our scientific theories have been ludicrously wrong in the past, from Flat Earth to 'aether' in outer space, from non-belief that anything too small to be seen could harm us to thinking that travel at 40mph would cause your death. In his time, Einstein was disbelieved by the majority of scientists.

The main cause of all warming on Earth is solar input, some of that radiation is in fact reflected back by greenhouse gases, causing it to remain in the atmosphere and adds to warming. Blaming the warming on a gas which is essential to life on Earth, that isn't much above the suffocation level of plants, that amounts to only .04% of the atmosphere - that's too far-fetched. But controlling your CO2 emissions is great for political power-seekers like the UN, just as selling and trading carbon credits is great for clever businessmen like Al Gore. Of all the greenhouse gases, CO2 is the weakest, having a global warming potential of 1, the baseline. Some gases are dozens, hundreds, thousands of times as potent for warming, yet it's only CO2 they focus on.

There are many books about the history of science that will show how often the 'consensus' of science was wrong. It turned out that Aristotle was wrong and there are more than 5 elements on Earth, we find new ones all the time. The world isn't flat, there are no giant sea serpents or dragons, breaking the sound barrier won't have devastating consequences, microbes can kill, and on and on. Scientists are smarter than average but still susceptible to error, to the need for funding, to peer acceptance and political pressures of many types. But not indefinitely, I think in 100 years this will be a cautionary tale for not acting before thinking things through.

Answer 6

uh, comets perhaps?

I doubt humans can do anything similar the destructive forces of comets, we shoud fear comets if we're going to fear something.

Answer 7

well a shorter way 2 say it is that it has been occuring nonstop and it will continue if we do not do somin bout it. its pollution of gases,oil, and littering! so if u want people to die i recomend we try new inventions to replace those hurtful thoughts.

Answer 8

Sir:

What Global Warming???

According to an independent news paper in England the Planet has been cooling for the last eight years.  This is a position shared by many if not most REAL climatologists.  The only real supporters of this are people following the Internet inventor turned world renowned climatologist.  That would be Al Gore, you know  him, the cardboard cutout.

The Brits have been under this carbon footprint TAXING and they are starting to get pissed.  Don't be surprised if a bunch of Brits have themselves a London Charcoal Party that makes the Boston Tea Party look like two three year olds with a cupcake.

Answer 9

There is science and there is a theory.

The science:

Scientist think/or know that the burning of coal and the burning of other things are causing Global Warming. Some think that the Ozone layer is doing something to Earth.

The theory:

The theory is that Global Warming something natural that is supposed to happen. Cavemen or people who lived back 150,000 years ago were in a very hard time. They had climate changes occuring. So how can they have created temperatures to be different if they had no technology.

Answer 10

Threes still a lot of debate going on about it, but it's beginning to look like global  warming is more of a natural cycle the earths going through than actual man made global warming.

Answer 11

Evidence for Global Warming

by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.*

The global warming issue will not go away. Evidence continues to mount that some type of warming is occurring, maybe temporarily or of longer duration. But, is it caused by man and can anything be done about it? Environmental activism to reduce carbon dioxide emissions has reached a new intensity. The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to rule on a suit which demands that the Environmental Protection Agency regulate the release of carbon dioxide as part of its air pollution responsibility. The president is being heavily lobbied to subscribe to the Kyoto Protocol which would require the U.S. to emit less carbon dioxide than it released in 1990. A book and a movie with the titles, An Inconvenient Truth, which press the case for global warming were released during 2006 by Al Gore, former vice president of the United States.1,2 He makes the case that man's actions in burning fossil fuels are projected to increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to the highest levels in history. He insists that uncontrolled releases of carbon dioxide will eventually melt the polar caps completely, raising sea level and inundating many coastal communities like New York, Miami, New Orleans, and Los Angeles; and drastically changing agricultural patterns because of redistribution of temperature and precipitation. And finally, on February 2, 2007, the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report on global warming was released. Interestingly, the report reduced the alarmist rhetoric because climate modelers found that they had overestimated the rise in global temperature and observations did not support the predictions.

Measures of Global Warming

For many years I have been a skeptic of global warming because the climate record available to assess the effects of increased carbon dioxide emission has been too short to say with confidence that the effect is real. There is no question that the concentration of carbon dioxide shown in Figure 1 has been increasing exponentially for almost 50 years now. These data were collected by C. C. Keeling of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography at the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii.3

However, it is still unclear if the conclusions are valid that this increase in carbon dioxide is due to man's burning of fossil fuels and that it is causing the apparent recent warming trend which is melting the polar caps. Several questions continue to nag researchers in the climate community. Is the globe really warming? Are the polar caps really melting? How much of the increase in carbon dioxide is due to man's influence? If man were to attempt to reduce carbon dioxide emissions would it actually do any good? And finally, are there any other possible explanations for the apparent global warming? These are not simple questions and it will require a much longer period of record to be confident in any conclusions.

In order to answer the first two questions, massive amounts of global data must be averaged over a relatively long period of time. And because the effects of global warming are so small compared to the global average, great care must be taken to avoid bias in collection and analysis of the data. Many pitfalls in this process have already occurred which have produced a lack of confidence in the results.

I determined to take another look at the evidence and see if I could detect any recent trends in the atmosphere, ocean, and cryosphere which would seem to support the concept of global warming, choosing to select several small data sets. The data sets I used are limited in spatial and temporal scope making them relatively easy to analyze without bias. However, the results need to be qualified because they don't necessarily reflect long-term, global trends.

The three data sets I analyzed were (1) the sea-surface temperature in the Gulf of Alaska,4 (2) the frequency of hurricanes in the southeastern Atlantic and Caribbean,5 and (3) the polar extent of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.6

Analysis

If global warming is occurring then sea-surface temperature should also be increasing, hurricane frequency should be on the rise, and polar sea ice should be melting. Figures 2-4 show that the trends for all three processes seem to be consistent for at least the short term. Sea-surface temperature in the Gulf of Alaska has increased about 3% over the past 30 years. Hurricane frequency in the western Atlantic appears to have increased about 3% over the past 150 years. And, the Arctic sea-ice extent has decreased about 5% over the past 25 years. Note, within the general trends, however, shorter period oscillations occur. Hurricane frequency is the most variable, with 30-40 year periods of lower and higher frequency. This has become particularly noticeable since about 1995 when a sudden increase in the frequency of hurricanes hitting the southeastern U.S. followed a 30-year period of lower hurricane frequency. These shorter period oscillations are normal in most geophysical phenomena and are evident in the sea-surface temperature and Arctic sea-ice extent as well, although with less fluctuation.

Based on these limited observations, it appears likely that global warming seems to be occurring over at least the past 30-50 years. I would be quick to add, however, that because of the limited spatial coverage and short time period of these data, it is still not possible to say if these trends will continue. There may be even longer-period fluctuations which we don't yet see in the data. When long-period records of data are plotted, oscillations for many periods are often seen.

These data do not address the question about man's part in causing the warming trend. It is true that increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would be expected to increase the greenhouse effect and possibly cause warming. It is unclear whether global warming is due to increased carbon dioxide concentration or if carbon dioxide concentration is the result of global warming. The oceans contain thousands of times more carbon dioxide than the atmosphere and can release significant quantities of carbon dioxide if they are warmed or the pH altered. If some, as yet, undiscovered process is warming the ocean, it could initiate the release of carbon dioxide from the ocean to the atmosphere which, in turn, is warmed even more by radiational heating.

One possible scenario may be found in a recent series of articles by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Marsh, cosmic ray specialists from Denmark, who have shown an indirect connection between galactic cosmic ray (GCR) intensity and global temperature.7,8,9 They are studying the influence of the Sun on the flow of GCR to Earth. The Sun's changing sunspot activity influences the magnetosphere surrounding the Earth permitting more GCR to strike the Earth during high periods of activity. When the Sun is active, the intensity of GCR striking the Earth is increased, causing more ionization in the atmosphere, creating more carbon-14, and possibly creating more cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). This increase in CCN, in turn, appears to create more low-level clouds which cool the Earth. When the Sun is quiet the GCR intensity striking the Earth is reduced, allowing the Earth to warm. Svensmark and Marsh have shown a striking statistical correlation between sunspot activity and global cooling and warming over the past 1000 years. The recent rise in global temperature may partially be due to current low solar activity supplemented by a recent increase in carbon dioxide concentration measured at Mauna Loa. The connection which still needs further study is the production of CCN and clouds by GCR.

Conclusions and Recommendations

So, what can we conclude? I believe it is safe to say that:

    *

      Global warming appears to have been occurring for the last 30-50 years.

    *

      This warming may only be a short-term fluctuation but could be a longer-term trend.

    *

      Evidence is still inconclusive whether man is causing the warming.

    *

      No "natural" causes for global warming have been confirmed.

    *

      One possible new theory is that galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) modulated by solar activity affects low-level cloud cover and is causing the warming.

Global warming may affect some parts of our society negatively but would likely benefit others. In fact, the current warming trend may be returning our global climate closer to that prevalent in the Garden of Eden. Compared to climate changes which have occurred in earth history, a temperature rise of a few degrees is a small fluctuation which will not lead to a complete melting of the polar caps or another ice age. Earth has a stable environmental system with many built-in feedback systems to maintain a uniform climate. It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God's intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times (II Peter 3:1-12).

References

   1.

      Gore, A. 2006. An inconvenient truth: The planetary emergence of global warming and what we can do about it. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press.

   2.

      Gore, A. 2006. An inconvenient truth. Paramount Vantage and United International Pictures, Theatrical Distributors.

   3.

      Keeling, C. D., et al. 2004. Carbon Dioxide Research Group, Scripps

      Institution of Oceanography (SIO), University of California, La Jolla, CA. http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/maunaloa-c...

   4.

      NOAA National Data Buoy Center 2006. Buoy #46001, Kodiak, AL.

      http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/BUOY/46001.html...

   5.

      Best Track data documentation tape from the National Hurricane Center 2006. http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atla...

   6.

      Nimbus-7 satellite SMMR  

Answer 12

is science ever wrong?

clearly it is.

is it wrong in this case?

very unlikely.

but i liked  <<Evidence for Global Warming by Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.>>  posted by the society for creationism.  some things are just too good to be true.

as to whether there is a question about the validity of the case for AGW, one might consider the following.

support for the science.  thanks Ken.

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2007/12...

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...

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

http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climat...

debunking deniers arguments.  thanks again, Ken.

http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2...

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

i like this, Dana posted it.

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

Answer 13

There are tons of studies suggesting alternative theories. The one theory with no scientific evidence is the theory that we are primarily responsible for the climate.

Some interesting facts.

1. During most of the past 2,000 years, the temp has been about the same or higher. Currently, we are barely over the average for the last 2,000 years.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index....

2. During the medieval warm period (820 – 1040 AD), Greenland supported farming. Those areas previously farmed are now covered in glaciers. Obviously the melting and reformation of glaciers is a cyclical occurrence.

3. The earth experienced a little ice age which ended around the late 1860's or so. This is about the time man started recording temperatures. This would be like measuring a lake depth after a severe drought, then worrying about it flooding as it rose to normal levels.

4. The earth has been warming for the last 10,000 years, since the last major glacier time period. Also, for most of the last 1 billion years, the earth had NO glaciers or ice coverage.

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/i...

5. The AGW theory states that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature. They arrived at this idea because they did not know of anything else which could cause it. But during the 70's and during the current decade, temperatures dropped while CO2 continued to rise. This means that natural occurrences are driving temp, not CO2.

6. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and sun spots provides a much better correlation to earths' temperature than CO2 levels ever have.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/200...

7. Polar Bears are experiencing a population boom. Coke sales in the arctics are through the roof. Polar Bears have been around for thousands of years, and remember, we are only at the average for the last 2,000 years. They lived through all the previously warmer climates.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/...

8. The glaciers have been melting now for over 10,000 years. the current rate of melting is similar to previous melting.

9. There is no consensus on AGW. This was a lie that has been propagated by the media.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt...

10. Yes we emit CO2 into the atmosphere and it is a greenhouse gas, but, we only contribute about .28% of all the greenhouse effect. Water vapor makes up about 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 and other trace gases round out the greenhouse gases at about 5% for all of them. Of that 5%, only 3% is CO2, and most of that is natural. Again, our contribution to the greenhouse effect is a paltry .28%

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenh...

11. The spread of disease is not attributed mainly to temperature. If this were the case, Florida would be a giant festering disease ridden cesspool. Economic standing is the primary determining factor in the spread of disease. Poor cultures can not fight the disease or eradicate the pests like more successful nations.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12077886...

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.h...

12. Natural climate disasters (hurricanes, cyclones, etc) have never been scientifically linked to global warming (whether natural or man made).

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa...

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?i...

Answer 14

Sure scientific theories have been wrong, but rarely when the evidence supporting them is so strong.

There is very little evidence taht anything other than human greenhouse gas emissions is causing the current global warming.  The usual effects - the Earth's orbital cycles and changes in solar output - are not to blame this time.  There's a theory that galactic cosmic rays could be causing some warming, but the theory has many fundamental flaws.

For further details, see the link below.

Answer 15

I was just reading another question about global warming and the guy chosen best answer tried to say it was humans fault and it was NOT debatable. THAT goes to show just how much of a lamb he is. The first website below is a PBS site that talks of a time way before humans, when their was no ice at all why did it happen then. But I guess since they really cant come up with anything to counter that argument they have to start saying you don't know what your talking about, it never has warmed so much so fast. So i had to look into that argument, and what do you know, it was wrong to. It shows the earth warming greatly in 100,000 year intervals. at almost the same speed in each. So they can boo hoo all they want and tell me I don't know squat. But I can read and figure things out for myself, and not have the TV teach me everything I know. And both websites show times THE SAME THING has happened in the past. Was the dinosaurs driving around in SUV's we haven't found yet? Fact is it has happened in the earths past and will continue to happen, the speed of warming and all. Even the second website tries to act like its mans fault, but its own information shows its wrong. it shows 4 different times when temps rise and fall from 400,000 years ago until now and each rose just as fast. The internal combustible engine wasn't built until the mid 1800's. It had to be something else back then.