if human global warming is a load of rubbish, what would be the natural future climate?

Question

Presumably we are just going through a warming phase (albeit at an unprecedented fast rate) but how warm do you think the planet will go?

And can human induced global warming really affect how hot the planet will go, or is it just affecting the rate/ how quickly we are going to this new warm phase?

Answer 1

We are in fact still coming out of the last ice age, therefore the earth is warming naturally. However, the increase of CO2 we have been emitting since the industrial revolution is not at all natural, nor in amounts that the earth can compensate for.
It is a proven fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which effects the global temperature. We are effecting the rate of our naturally occurring warming phase. (very short version of answer)

Answer 2

Our planet naturally goes through phases. Some of it generated internally by shifting plates and volcanic eruptions but also because of the sun. However i think it naive for some people to presume that mankind has had little or 'no discernible' effect on the earth. What some people here fail to realise is that although what we have currently measured shows no large changes, the predicted changes in our climate are more drastic.

To say that humans don't cause much of the damage to the environment is egotistical, selfish, arrogant and ignorant. Sure we have forest fires that occur naturally and a few beavers that chop a couple trees down, but only the humans decimated the Amazon (amongst others). Only humans produce prodigious quantites of Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide as well as many other detrimental gases.

I think it is safe to say that without humans, the earth would be a much better place.

Still, on the other hand, we do have the technology, knowledge and compassion to reduce our negative impact. It's just unfortunate that mankind in general is ruled by monetary wealth and not environmental and ecological co-existence.

Answer 3

Unprecedented rate ? 3/4 of 1 degree in 100 years. That is not fast.

On the matter of Earth's recent climate history, it is implausible that despite variance in solar irradiance Earth has had a stable temperature for the last 1,000-2,000 years. History instructs us this is not so, literature tells us this is not so, and a large spectrum of paleotemperature reconstructions tell us this is not so. USA Today and the hokey "Hockey Stick" representations are obviously wrong, regardless of how politically correct their concept of human culpability might be.

Increased solar activity? Absolutely and at least half of Earth's estimated mean temperature increment since the Nineteenth Century can be attributed to increased solar irradiance, probably more than four-fifths is from that source although we are still trying to sort out climate and forcings, something which will likely require decades yet. Nonetheless, the best available thermometric temperature records list Earth's global mean temperature as variance from a commencing benchmark average, usually 1951-1980 or 1961-90, and show -0.3 °C c1880 or 1870, with 0.0 °C variance from this average occurring c1940 and with 2000 listed as +0.3 °C. In other words, Earth warmed 0.3 °C from origin of record to benchmark average by 1940, then warmed another 0.3 °C subsequently. Since the vast majority of the carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere occurred following the Second World War and this is concurrent with only half the apparent temperature increase, the assumption is that this increase was driven by some other cause, in this case the increase in solar irradiance. There is no reason to believe all other temperature varying forces ceased to exist when carbon dioxide began accumulating, hence the "at least half" attribution above.

Are we looking at a looming disaster from carbon dioxide emissions? There is absolutely zero indication of that. Although human emission of carbon dioxide has likely had some measurable effect on planetary temperature the effect from continued emission is rapidly diminishing as radiative windows in which carbon dioxide is active approach saturation. Before long carbon dioxide emission will have exactly no discernable effect on global temperature.

Can we have significant effect on global temperature trend by limiting future carbon dioxide emission? No -- no equivocation and no argument entertained, allusion to "control" of the planetary thermostat by tweaking minor parameters is a nonsense.

Do we face a planetary emergency precipitated by carbon dioxide emissions? No, there is zero evidence that such a scenario might be true.

Answer 4

Where is the evidence of an "unprecedented fast rate"? We only have good climate records for the last hundred years. The earlier data is all based on ice core samples, tree rings etc... rather subjective data. So when you are comparing previous trends with historical trends the resolution of the data is different. I know the ice core data certainly has some peaks at least as big as the current peak. There is simply no evidence to back up this assertion.

Answer 5

The exact answer to your question is outline in a scientific American article which can be found at www.sciam.com. The answer is complicated. In reality, the world would be in a cooling time at this point but human activity has warmed it up. Some global warming is good but too much is a disaster. We have simply gone too far sine 1970. before then, it was not so bad.

Answer 6

I have no expertise in this subject but read that the sun is contributing to our present increase in global temperature. When the telescope was invented one point of interest was sunspots and these were recorded. In the 1600's the earth went through a very cold spell when little sun spot activity was recorded. Today we are getting a lot of sun spot activity and consequently hotter temperatures. What we do not know is where we are in the sun spot cycle / pattern since we do not have enough data / time. 64 dollar question is when sun spot activity will peak?

Answer 7

I sometimes wonder what happened to global warming when world war 2 was going on, all the explosions and the industrial output of smoke etc for war goods and the smoke from coal fires and industry, there must have been one hell of a hole in the ozone then but did we know and did we care

Answer 8

There is no good way to tell. The earth's temperature has been fluctuating during its entire existence; remember the Ice Ages? The evidence is persuasive that the earth is getting warmer; the evidence is NOT persuasive (at least to me) that CO2 emissions or other human activity have anything to do with it.

Answer 9

Global warming is a fact and not fiction. It would take a few pages to write all about the subject so, please take it seriously because the
scientists are working hard to avoid disaster. Google "Al Gore"
and "Blair and Swarzenegger" are to tackle Global warming and
you will see it all.

Answer 10

Did humans cause the last ice age? Hell no.
It's all natural occurrence.