Is there still any reason to believe that global warming isn't caused by human activity?

Question

If 2,500 scientists recently said that it's 'very likely' (a probability of 90 to 99 %) that human activity is the cause of global warming, aren't people running away from what scares them, as well as from their own responsibility, by calling it 'pseudoscience'?

Answer 1

“CapNemo” likes to go to all the global warming questions and paste in a statement pooh-poohing the threat. His statement is misleading and incorrect.

He says it’s only increased by 1 degree (F) in 125 years. This is a misleading number, because it is a global average: land and sea. We don’t live in the middle of the ocean and that’s not where the polar ice caps are melting. The temperature change over land surfaces has been twice that, and most of it in the last 40 years.

He says, “The average temperature in Antarctica is 109 degrees below zero.” If you go to his source, it says, “Temperatures reach a minimum of between -80 °C and -90 °C (-112 °F and -130 °F) in the interior in winter and reach a maximum of between +5 °C and +15 °C (41 °F and 59 °F) near the coast in summer.” OK, now the observation that the caps are melting makes more sense. It melts at the coast, in the summer, DUH! (Note by the way that his average number (-109) is only 3 degrees lower than one of the minimum numbers. I wonder, what kind of math did he learn?)

Then he says, “Back in the '70s all the hype was about global COOLING”. All what hype? I was around then. I don’t remember any hype. And if you go to his source, it says, “This theory gained temporary popular attention due to press reporting … The theory never had strong scientific support”. He tries to mislead us, by implying that a temporary flurry pf press reporting is comparable to what we are seeing now and that some hype without scientific basis is somehow similar to a consensus within the scientific community about global warming.

The truth is that those 2 degrees are HUGE in the scale of average weather change. But the real problem is the speed of change and that it's accelerating. Scientists are predicting a temp 4 to 8 degree (F) increase over the next 75 years. “This may not sound like a great deal, but just a fraction of a degree can have huge implications on the climate, with very noticeable consequences." (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/U/ukweather2080/5_predicting.html ). Yes, scientists predict, that's their job. They've gone to school years more than we have and spent their lives studying this stuff. This representrs humanity’s BEST GUESS at where this is all going. Of course, you can believe it snows in hell, or any other stupid thing you want. No one can stop you from believing what you'd rather hear, than what is the most probable outcome.

The link between CO2 and global warming is undisputed at this time. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 50% over the last 115 years (250 to 381 ppm, http://awesomenature.tribe.net/thread/fcc70c8b-be7e-489b-85f7-6c6c08031c65 ). In the last 30 years, it increased at a rate 30 times faster than at any period during the last 800,000 years. In other words, this change is totally unprecedented. (http://awesomenature.tribe.net/thread/fcc70c8b-be7e-489b-85f7-6c6c08031c65 ). What else is totally unprecedented about the last 115 years? Industrialization and the population explosion. Duh. This is not rocket science; it is simple arithmetic!

"If Bert Drake is right, the good news is that, within the foreseeable future, Maine residents will be able to stop banking their foundations and to store their down parkas and snow blowers in the barn permanently. The bad news is that a lot of those barns will be underwater" (http://awesomenature.tribe.net/thread/fcc70c8b-be7e-489b-85f7-6c6c08031c65 ). Yes, this is opinion. Who is Bert Drake? He's an SERC researcher who's been studying this for 17 years. If we aren’t going to believe our scientists, who then shall we believe??? Oh, I know. Let's believe CapNemo!!!

If global warming wasn't a real threat, why have 178 nations ratified the Kyoto Protocol to limit CO2 emissions? Why are the US and Australia the only two holdouts among the industrialized nations? (http://environment.about.com/od/kyotoprotocol/i/kyotoprotocol_2.htm )

CapNemo’s statement reminds me about the frog in the pot on the stove that doesn’t move as the water gradually gets hotter and hotter. From this seemingly insignificant 2 degree change, we’ve already seen enormous consequences. (http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Impacts/) How much hotter does it have to get for some people to wake up and face the music? And in the meantime, while you’re pondering all of this, be sure to check the dates on people’s references. Things are changing so rapidly that older information is no longer useful.

Average Northern Hemisphere Temperatures for last 1000 years:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Template/0_CO2ScienceB2C/images/subject/other/figures/mannetal_nh1000.jpg

Answer 2

I wish life were so simple that we could just count the number of scientists who say something, and act accordingly.

In 1900 you could find 2, 500 scientists who said nothing is left to be discovered.

In 1920 you could find 2,500 scientists to tell you that rockets cannot operate in space. (none would say that today)

In 1945 you could find 2, 500 scientists to say that we should give the atomic bomb to Stalin so that there would be peace in the world. (they changed their minds by 1958, at which time they moved the Doomsday Clock to 2 minutes to midnight)

In 1970 you could find 2,500 scientists to say we would run out of oil by the year 2000. If you want to read a hundred ridiculous things scientists said that year, read Future Shock where some even predicted many of us would have gills by now since we would run out of land and have to live in the ocean.

In 1980 you could find 2,500 scientists predicting President Reagan would start a nuclear war, either directly or by trying to shield us from one. (he started no major conflict)

In any given year, thousands of scientists will sign a petition swearing to the most preposterous nonsense. Many of them have a narrow education, an out of control ego, and a political agenda that makes them think they know everything about everything when all they know is their very small area of study. How many of your 2,500 have simultaneous degrees in geology, chemistry, and climatology that is needed at a minium to grasp the issues? Let's not take billions of people on a hay ride just because some self annointed experts who will change their minds in a decade or two have the fanciful notion that humans are the key cause of this round of global warming. They don't have the tools, the facts or the proof to put the complex puzzle together.

Answer 3

Actually the temperature of the earth has increased less than 7/10 of 1 degree (C) from 1880 to 2005. That is an increase of about 1 degree (F) in 125 years. You may choose to believe that is global warming or you may not. Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig1.gif There are numerous charts all over the internet showing the same. Some say that 1 degree is enough to impact the global climate, others say it's not. Most proponents of global warming think the earth's temperature has risen much more than that and don't even know that it has only risen by 1 degree. But the charts do not lie as do the proponents on both sides of this issue. The average temperature in the Antarctica is 109 degrees below zero. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica#Climate It seems to me 108 below (one degree warmer) is still pretty cold and not enough to melt anything. But there are those that say it will.

Back in the '70s all the hype was about global COOLING and another ice age was coming. I remember that they blamed pollution for that too. They said that all the pollution was darkening the skies and not as much sun was coming through so the earth was cooling off. It took many years to discover that they were mistaken and it was all just hype. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling So when someone says, "the sky is falling" don't believe everything you hear on either side of the issue. There are Spin Doctors galore out there.

Most of the time people will form an opinion and not really be informed about the subject with which they become so opinionated about. So it's best that you not form your opinions from other's opinions, (as in this forum) but on the facts presented. (Many do not provide any proof or links to prove their point, just their opinion.) With that said we do have a responsibility to do our part by doing whatever is within your power to keep our planet alive and well.

I hope that helps...

Answer 4

It is very unlikely that human activity is the only cause.

The climate is not constant, and has been warming for over 100 years now. The warming in the first part of the last century can be accounted for in models without recourse to humna activity.

It is very unlikely that human activity is not a cause.

The climate change in the last 60 or so years has been much faster, and can only be accounted for in almost all climate models by including the effect of human greenhouse gas emissions (which include carbon dioxode and a host of other gases).

So it is certainly not pseudoscience, but it is certainly not totally understood. However, what is certain is that human activity has increased the amount of carbon dioxide at least in the atmosphere by around 50% in the last 100 years - because this can be directly measured - and this is not, despite what others here say, a small change.

The real issue facing the world is that there is no will to do much about it. This is particularly true of Americans, who would have to drastically reduce energy consumption (by around 80%) to come into line - it is very hard to see even the most climate friendly American agreeing to the sacrifices in lifestyle this would entail.

Answer 5

Has anyone said partly yet? It's like people asking what's the best form of renewable energy- there is no one best form. With nearly 100 billion tons of CO2 being added to the atmosphere every year I believe humans have at least some responsibility for changing weather patterns. The planet was certainly starting to warm by itself anyway since there aren't mountains of ice on NYC now, but we have accelerated the warming by altering the atmosphere and land surfaces in the past couple hundred years beyond what nature would have done alone.

Answer 6

The data supporting anthropogenic green house gases as the primary cause of the current warming trend is inconclusive at best. Go get the data and look at it then answer these questions:

1) What is the cause of prehistoric changes in green house gas levels and global temperatures, which have been much greater than the current warming trend?

2) Since man made green house gases have cause the atmospheric CO2 levels to rise above prehistoric highs, why is the average global temperature still 3 degrees below prehistoric highs?

3) Since the increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere caused by human activity has been monotonic since 1800 C.E., Why has the average global temperature not also shown a monotonic increase over the same period? Instead it has shown period of increase, decrease and stability all lasting for several years?

4) Since the increase in CO2 levels due to human activity began in 1800, why did the current warming trend only start in 1900?

I have not seen a good answer to these questions from anyone including the scientific community.

Well, I see at least two people have decided to give my answer a negative rating without attempting to answer the questions I have raised. This is typical of ideologues, but has not place in science.

Answer 7

About a million years ago, or so, there were tropical forests at the South Pole. People weren't around to cause it, yet the Earth was much warmer then than it is now.

A single volcano can put more soot, CO2, and particulate mater into the upper atmosphere than 100 years of human activity.

30 years ago scientists thought its was "very probable" that the Earth was headed for a new Ice Age and the possibility of plagues and massive extinctions due to diseases brought about by the cold.

The climate of the Earth has always been cyclical, and our science has just now begun to be able to track those changes. We have no idea about the underlying mechanisms that cause Ice Ages and other large -scale climate changes.

(By the way--you don't get government research grants, or get your research papers published in prestigious journals by disagreeing with the "accepted" thinking about climate change. Many of the 2500 scientists you mention are psychologists, MD's, and others with NO specialized knowledge about meteorology.)

Answer 8

Most scientists will agree that global warming as caused "in part" by human activity. Scientists also know that global warming can be caused by natural phenomenon so the question is now, "How much of global warming is caused by humans."

Even though there is no doubt in the scientific community of human causes Herr Bush uses that technicality as an excuse to ignore the problem.

I wonder how his constituency would feel if he said that he wasn't going to say God exists until the experts all agree 100%

Answer 9

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Answer 10

No, there's really no reason at all. It's ridiculous for people to demand 100% proof before accepting the theory. Nothing ever has or ever will be proved 100%.
As of right now, there is no valid scientific reason to not accept the theory of anthropogenic global warming.