Is “Global Warming” caused by man or is it the natural cycle of the Earth and man can’t change the effects?

Question

I have seen natural process argument…ie.. Ice Age, Platontics and

I have also seen that man is making a profit off of it by putting fear into others to buy Green products.

I am very curious in others conclusions because I am confussed what to believe.

Answer 1

You don't consider Wikipedia a reliable source so you ask the question on Yahoo Answers?

That's weird!!

If you want the answer to your question look up the difference between Global Warming (GW) and Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

Answer 2

It has a little to do with both the natural cycle of Earth and unnatural warming caused by humans.

The reason I know that Global warming is a real threat is because just in the past couple centuries, and even more so now....after the beginning of the industrial revolution....we have seen significant changes in climate pattern, severity of droughts, floods, and other natural disasters, severe pollution, acid rain, desertification/salinization, and the melting of glacial ice.

There are now almost as many environmental refugees as political asylum seekers, which is very disconcerting.

Things that have happened recently that significantly increased the changes we see:

-Intensively farmed animals--factory farms and pollution from the massive amounts of animals.  Also land degradation and the cutting down of forests to provide crops that will be fed to animals.

-Transportation, namely cars and airplanes, but other modes as well

-Synthetic chemicals--such as pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides.  All these cause soil erosion, meaning no plants, meaning less nitrogen and oxygen to keep things balanced.

-Buildings--the amount of pollution that come from buildings is the most significant factor with up to 1/3 of all pollution coming from buildings.

Answer 3

The overwhelming evidence that has been put forward by credible scientists in credible journals says that this warming period has been accelerated greatly by human beings. The fact that most natural process take from 20,000 to 100,000 years to change the temperature of the atmosphere as much as we have in 100 years would be an obvious indicator that it is not natural. The fact that there is evidence that the sun's solar variation is not a big enough factor would show that it isn't natural variation. If you understand the science or listen to actual scientists you would realize that this is not natural variation. There are other drivers of atmospheric change but Milankovitch cycles and solar variation are some of the more prevalent arguments by pseudoscientists.  

If you can tell me what natural cycle is at work currently please tell me which one it is please.  We are in a warming period but it is warming at a much faster rate than it should be.

Also, why would you need to be scared into buying 'Green' products.  The real question is why are you being fooled into buying inefficient products.

Larry,

Here is what the TCS daily is, "TCSDaily was published by DCI Group, a lobbying and PR firm based in Washington, DC, until September 19, 2006 when it was sold to its editor, Nick Schultz. Before the sale it was hosted by James K. Glassman, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and syndicated columnist for Scripps Howard News Service. He also writes a monthly financial column for Kiplinger's Personal Finance. TCS was primarily funded by sponsors that currently or previously have included AT&T, The Coca-Cola Company, ExxonMobil, General Motors Corporation, McDonalds, Merck, Microsoft, Nasdaq, and PhRMA. However, according to the website, the sale of the journal in 2006 rendered all previous sponsorships expired."

My citation was about solar sun variation was published in Nature, one of the most credible scientific journals in the world.  Your link is to a web site is a PR web site for companies like Exxon Mobil, General Motors, etc etc.  I wonder which one is more credible.

Answer 4

Scientists have ruled out natural cycles as causing the current warming.  The only plausible explanation is that it's due to an increased greenhouse effect due to human CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.  See the link below for an explanation of how we know this.

Answer 5

1. Ice ages, and inter-glacial periods, are triggered by small changes in Earth's orbit called "Milankovitch cycles" by astronomers, or "orbital forcing" by climatologists. Since Earth's orbit can be computed for thousands of years into the past and future, we know that orbital forcing peaked 6000 years ago, during the Holocene Maximum, and is actually cooling the planet right now.

Here's the science:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...

2. If the Sun is causing the current warmth, then we're getting more energy, and the whole atmosphere should be getting warmer. If it's greenhouse, then we're getting the same amount of energy, but it's being distributed differently: more heat is trapped at the surface, and less heat is escaping to the stratosphere. So if it's the Sun, the stratosphere should be warming, but if it's greenhouse, the stratosphere should be cooling.

In fact, the stratosphere has been on a long-term cooling trend ever since we've been keeping radiosonde balloon records in the 1950's. Here's the data:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images...

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/hadat2...

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/sterin...

3. If it's the Sun, we're getting more energy during the day, and daytime temperatures should be rising fastest. But if it's greenhouse, we're losing less heat at night, and nighttime temperatures should be rising fastest. So if it's the sun, the difference between day and night temperatures should be increasing, but if it's greenhouse, the day-night difference should be decreasing.

In fact, the daily temperature range has been decreasing throughout the 20th century. Here's the science:

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?requ...

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?requ...

http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff...

4. Total solar irradiance has been measured by satellite since 1978, and during that time it has shown the normal 11-year cycle, but no long-term trend. Here's the data:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solar...

5. Scientists have looked closely at the solar hypothesis and have strongly refuted it. Here's the peer-reviewed science:

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro...

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publi...

6. CO2 levels in the air were stable for 10,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, at about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Since 1800, CO2 levels have risen 38%, to 385 ppmv, with no end in sight. Here's the modern data...

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends...

... and the ice core data ...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/a...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/a...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/a...

... and a graph showing how it fits together:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3006/2615...

7. We know that the excess CO2 in the air is caused by burning of fossil fuels, for two reasons. First, because the sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 started exactly when humans began burning coal in large quantities (see the graph linked above); and second, because when we do isotopic analysis of the CO2 we find increasing amounts of "old" carbon combined with "young" oxygen. Here are the peer-reviewed papers:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984JGR......

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mk...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...

So what's left to prove?

Answer 6

There isn't any debate--and I'm sorry you are confused.  Given the amount of false information--including the pseudo-scientific "natural cycle" BS--its not surprising you and a lot of other people are confused.

Here's what the situation is.  First--are there natural cycles. Of course there are. But those take thousands or tens of thousands of years.  This global warming we face has NON of the characteristics of a natural cycle (except temperature increas, of course).  First--its happening in decades, not millenia-at least 100 times faster than a natural trend.  Second, we know and understand the mechanism--namely a combination of burning fossil fuels and, to a lesser degree, deforestation, that is causing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to rise.  That is, there is proof--overwhelming proof--that this is a man-made phenomenon.

Look--I answer these questions for the sake of people like you.  Not because there is any "debate." There isn't--jsut some special interests who are trying to protect their profits at your expense.  I suggest you check out these two sites---both have excellent information sections geard to non-scientists:

ipcc.ch (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)

nasa.gov (NASA actually does much of the cutting edge work on global warming and climate change)

And a hint--you should stick to internet sites with extensions OTHER than .com and .org.  Some of these sites are great--but some are propaganda mills paid for by the special interests.  Still others are basically  nut cases--"skeptics" and conspiracy theorists and other such nonsense.  But it can be hard to tell the sheep from the goats.  Stick to educational sites (anything with a .edu extension) goovernment sites (.gov) or links you find through .gov and .edu sites.  Taht way you'll know the information is real, not faked.

Answer 7

The green house gas is not there. The plants have done a great job in recycling CO2 . The plants give us oxygen but keeps the C and they will deteriorate into oil & gas. It is a complete recycle and we loose nothing. They say CO2 is up to 300 ppm. In our air system  oxygen is 20.9% convert the CO2 into percent it is .000300% which is nothing.

Methane is just not there go measure it. The envirementalist are very bad when it comes to calculating the value they want Methane to be....

Answer 8

When Dana says scientist, I always translate it as socialist (or socialist scientists) so that IT is closer to the truth.  Scientists say anything and everything.  It is a meaningless statement and doesn't reflect truth.  I wonder if alarmists have read Larry's link.  He is a climate scientist who looks at the subject objectively.  Clearly CO2 has not driven in the climate in the past.  The desperate attempt to blame CO2 on driving any current or future climate change has more to do with wanting to blame humans than an objective review of the facts in my opinion.  That is why those that support global warming are overwhelmingly leftists or moderates.  It is why global warming is a political issue.

Answer 9

I believe this scientist has the right idea:

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

Brian B, who cares who the messenger is? It's the scientist's research that matters to me. There are many other scientists who have come to a similar conclusion. I just believe Dr. Patterson has given a good presentation on the subject.

Here's some links:

http://www.john-daly.com/guests.htm

Answer 10

nature does cause some of it but it is unproven man has done anything wrong. they can only make theories about that