Is this sufficient to disprove man caused global warming?

Question

1. We had to have natural global warming thousands of years ago (long before cars and CO2) to get out of the many ice ages we had.

2. Weathermen cannot predict accurate weather more than 14 days out and usually cannot get it right within those 14 days. How then can any predictions be even considered for years in advance?

3. We have a few hundred years of recorded temperature data when the planet has existed for hundreds of million of years. The sample is too small to statistically conclude anything. The margin of error would be too big.

4. How is it that when the tsunami hit in Indonesia that a city was found underwater that they did not know existed? What caused the water levels to rise so high? This had to happen long before man had cars.

Answer 1

These are just a few points in the long case against man-made global warming.

Earth's climate was in a cool period from A.D. 1400 to about A.D. 1860, dubbed the "Little Ice Age." This period was characterized by harsh winters, shorter growing seasons, and a drier climate. The decline in global temperatures was a modest 1/2° C, but the effects of this global cooling cycle were more pronounced in the higher latitudes. The Little Ice Age has been blamed for a host of human suffering including crop failures like the "Irish Potato Famine" and the demise of the medieval Viking colonies in Greenland.

Today we enjoy global temperatures which have warmed back to levels of the so called "Medieval Warm Period," which existed from approximately A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1350.

Global warming alarmists maintain that global temperatures have increased since about A.D. 1860 to the present as the result of the so-called "Industrial Revolution,"-- caused by releases of large amounts of greenhouse gases (principally carbon dioxide) from manmade sources into the atmosphere causing a runaway "Greenhouse Effect."

Was man really responsible for pulling the Earth out of the Little Ice Age with his industrial pollution? If so, this may be one of the greatest unheralded achievements of the Industrial Age!
we tend to overestimate our actual impact on the planet. In this case the magnitude of the gas emissions involved, even by the most aggressive estimates of atmospheric warming by greenhouse gases, is inadequate to account for the magnitude of temperature increases. So what causes the up and down cycles of global climate change?

Climate change is controlled primarily by cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output.

"Greenhouse gases" in Earth's atmosphere also influence Earth's temperature, but in a much smaller way. Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role, contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% to Earth's greenhouse effect.

Some say we are "nearing the end of our minor interglacial period" , and may in fact be on the brink of another Ice Age. If this is true, the last thing we should be doing is limiting carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, just in case they may have a positive effect in sustaining present temperatures. The smart money, however, is betting that there is some momentum left in our present warming cycle. Environmental advocates agree: resulting in a shift of tactics from the "global cooling" scare of the 1970s to the "global warming" threat of the 1980s and 1990s.

Now, as we begin the 21st century the terminology is morphing toward"climate change," whereby no matter the direction of temperature trends-- up or down-- the headlines can universally blame humans while avoiding the necessity of switching buzz-words with the periodicity of solar cycles. Such tactics may, however, backfire as peoples' common sensibilities are at last pushed over the brink.

Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon. We currently enjoy a warm Earth. Can we count on a warm Earth forever? The answer is most likely... no.

Since the climate has always been changing and will likely continue of it's own accord to change in the future, instead of crippling the U.S. economy in order to achieve small reductions in global warming effects due to manmade additions to atmospheric carbon dioxide, our resources may be better spent making preparations to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and precipitation that accompany climatic change.

The bottom line is that climatic change is a given. It is inescapable, it happens. There is no reason to be very concerned about it or spend bazillions of dollars to try and even things out.

-Despite what you may have been told, it has NOT been proven that human-caused global warming is occurring, and in fact there is substantial reason to reject such claims.
-The best explanation for the evidence is that whatever global warming trend exists is mostly the result of natural influences like variations in the climate system and variations in solar radiation.
-The suggestions that human activities will cause significant changes in global temperature and sea level in the next century are flawed predictions which haven't been confirmed by observations.
-The solutions to this apparently non-existent problem proposed by environmentalists would not have a significant effect on climate, but they would cause a significant amount of human suffering.
-Based on what we know now, in the next 100 years a rise in sea level of 0.1 meters (4 inches) would not be surprising; those predicting changes of 0.5-2 meters (1.5-7 feet) are using flawed models.
-If all the icecaps in the world were to melt, sea level would rise about 60-75 meters (200-250 feet). This could not result from modern human activities, and from any realistic cause would take thousands of years to occur.
-Grounded ice is ice resting on the ground rather than floating. The melting of floating ice will not change sea level: the mass of this ice is equal to that of the water it displaces (watch the water level in a cup of floating ice cubes as they melt). For comparison, globally ice (both grounded and floating) represents about 2% of the world's water, with about 1,350,000,000 km3 of water in the oceans.

Today the Earth has 148 million sq km of land area, of which 16 million sq km is covered by glaciers. A sea level rise of 66 meters would flood about 13 million sq km of land outside Antarctica. Without polar ice, Antarctica and Greenland would be ice free, although about half of Antarctica would be under water. Thus, ice-free land would be 128 million sq km compared to 132 million sq km today.

As a result, in terms of total habitable land area, the Earth might have more than today. The coastal areas reclaimed by the sea would be mostly offset by now habitable areas of Greenland and Antarctica. Remember that such climate change would take thousands of years. Over such time scales vegetation would be restored to newly ice-free regions even without human activity. Also, vast areas which are now desert and tundra would become more fit for human habitation and agriculture.

Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore's gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush's obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."

That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.

The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know."

So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.

They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.

The case for a "greenhouse problem" is made by environmentalists, news anchormen , and special interests who make inaccurate and misleading statements about global warming and climate change. Even though people may be skeptical of such rhetoric initially, after awhile people start believing it must be true because we hear it so often.

Putting things in perspective, geologists tell us our present warm climate is a mere blip in the history of an otherwise cold Earth. Frigid Ice Age temperatures have been the rule, not the exception, for the last couple of million years. This kind of world is not totally inhospitable, but not a very fun place to live, unless you are a polar bear.

FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE!

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.



If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!

Answer 2

No weather man can predict beyond yesterday! Yes, we have had global warming before in the history of the world, we even know that England was a tropical island thousands of years ago but you are missing the point.
Thousands of years ago, there were no people or at least not in the numbers that now inhabit the world. Thats the big point! Part of this may just be nature but a large part of it is attributed to mankind. We have & use things today that were unheard of even a hundred years ago. All of these things are for creature comfort & they cause increased global warming!
The problem that we face in this global warming, either by man or nature, is that with the large cities with big populations will be under water! New York, London, all cities on the shore lines, will be under water. Where will the populations go? Inland? We are also faceing a shortage of fresh water throughout the world. Did you know that G.E. is working on building plants to desalinate water from the oceans? So even if we could support inland migration, how would we feed & water those people? Or do you not mind that millions would die?
We have a limited amount of time to try & turn things around, 25 years is the max. This may not stop nature but it could stop what man has done & lessen the severity of Global Warming. I see no great sacrfices that man would have to endure, just a little common sense. Do the things that we know will lessen carbon emissions. No one will suffer all that much, just a few little changes in everyone's life would do it. It can't hurt to try, it can hurt a lot not to try!

Answer 3

The explanations of the greenhouse effect and the main premise were extremely flawed. I have heard similar misrepresentations from alarmists but never seen them actually written down before. First off, if it acted like a reflector the air wouldn't warm. Since it is absorbed to extinction in such a short distance there would essentially be no difference as CO2 concentration increased if that were the mechanism. It makes me think they got their science facts from an alarmist site that was written to make it easier to understand but not actually stating what is going on. The vibration of the molecule is what happens when the molecule warms up. That is what heat is. If the CO2 molecule emitted the heat, that isn't greenhouse warming because the atmosphere wouldn't warm. Since CO2 is very low in concentration, it is transferred to adjacent molecules and the air mass emits black body radiation or heat in a wide spectrum, not just the spectrum of CO2 absorption. CO2 absorbs in narrow bands that correspond to the energy states of the Carbon oxygen bond bending or stretching. That energy is transferred as heat when it collides with other molecules. The heat radiated back is from the atmosphere warming. The frequency of CO2 absorption bands leaving the atmosphere into space is irrelevant. It is the total amount of long wavelength radiation leaving relative to the amount coming in that determines if warming has occurred. It is simple total energy balance. If the ocean is warmer, it will of course emit more heat to space since the IR spectrum isn't block in all frequencies even from the surface. That is, I suppose a negative feedback but it happens after the planet warms so it isn't proof of anything having to do with the absorption of IR by CO2. The only place you get emission from IR in the bands that CO2 absorbs is very high in the atmosphere where the bands aren't absorbed to extinction. At the surface, it is something like 50% in ten meters, 99% in a hundred meters and 99.9% at a thousand meters. That is why you have to go very high to where the atmosphere is thin enough that any significant amount of the radiation from the bands it absorbs is allowed to escape. There isn't much of the original heat from ground left because it only absorbs 8 percent of the frequency. The rest is radiated to space in exactly the same way if the concentration were higher. Since it absorbs such a small percentage of the frequency, there is not a significant amount reabsorbed. The only significant difference is that you get a compression in the area that it is absorbed to extinction so the heat is concentrated in a smaller area. That is countered by convection and Beer's law so increasing the concentration doesn't have that much actual effect.

Answer 4

No... it's not...

it's all really in your own No. 3... we simply don't have enough data to know FOR SURE about anything... to either disprove or prove global warming...

now... those things may put it in doubt... granted... but not disprove it...

there are also quite a few scientific studies that have some interesting findings though... now... it's almost impossible to prove how accurate or inaccurate they are though due to the lack of comparable evidence over a long period of time...

it may be 100s of years before we can prove or disprove it... the real question is... what if we are the cause... can we afford to wait that long, to prove it, before we do something about it?

Answer 5

I don't think anyone has disputed that global warming can be caused by natural occurances. This happened before the last ice age. What they are saying is we are basically speeding up the process. We are making it worse.

But, I don't understand these types of questions. There is evidence of man made environmental problems. Take the rain forest for example. You cut down 1000s of acres, you end up with a wasteland. The other thing I don't understand is people who say they don't believe in it, is it because they want to keep polluting? They want an excuse to drive their big cars and litter and cut down all the trees and continue with nasty landfills? I mean, even if you don't believe in it, why is caring about our planet a partisan view? Shouldn't we all care about keeping our planet healthy? I guess not.

Answer 6

1) CO2 has always been around, it was generated by volcanic eruptions and fires. Also, mankind not only has made more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, but reduced the flora and fauna that would normally deal with those types. Two methods of increasing the concentration; by adding more, and by removing the negative factors.

2) They are predicting cloud patterns, which are changed by fluctuations in wind direction and velocity. These are affected by temperature variations.

3) Yes, we do have a short period of time in which to measure against. However, I have not heard of an ozone hole ever being discovered in the geologic reside.

4) I have never heard about this city.

Global warming is a nice, short phrase to put: We need to stop using fossil fuels because one day they will run out and we will face the consequences. I see few issues with turning to more 'Green' energy; reusable fuel sources, independence from other nations, and cleaner air. Going out on a hot summer day in Los Angeles can show you that mankind can affect Mother Nature.

Answer 7

No;
1. Natural global warming has happened, but since scientists have the timeline of earth's temperatures (determined by ice cores), they can see that the temperature in this warming is WAY higher than any point in the past.
2. It is not weathermen who predict climate change. Scientists have been studying this for years and years, and even a long time ago they predicted this global warming. Also, the warming trend data we have experienced has been happening for many years now, not just days.
3. I believe the temp data we have accurately reflects Earth's patterns of warming and ice ages, since their pattern appears very consistent and within a certain range of dips and peaks in temperature.
4. Maybe this city was just built in a time when the earth was a little cooler and the sea levels lower.

Answer 8

1) they can date back in the ice at the pole thousands of years and tell temps and carbon levels of the atmosphere.

2) how can u figure that releasing carbon trapped by millions of years of decaying animal and plant matter in less than a century cannot have a profound effect on the environment ...

3) the ice holds record of temp and carbon that shows natuarl fluctuations and ages of cold and heat ... but the data from the last 50 years goes off of those charts.

4) no legitamate scientist will disagree that global warming is a threat to the existance of life and ecosystems.

5) the danger does exist to use environmentalism as an excuse to control populations more and make new taxes ... but it doesnt negate that global warmingis a threat.

Answer 9

Your argument is of the order of "my grandfather smoked 3 packs a day and lived to be 85, so how can smoking be bad for you?"

To address your specific points:

1. The current rate of warming is in parallel with the projected rate derived experimentally. This proves nothing, but strongly suggests a link...

2. "Weather" is a very localized phenomenom which often cannot be predicted in the very short term. Does that gt mean I cannot predict that summer will be warmer than winter? Of course it doesn't!

3. You don't understand basic math, or the available data. Ice cores from the poles provide data that extend back thousands of years.

4. Ditto the grandfather argument.

Answer 10

Who cares?? The point is not really that we cause or don't cause global warming.

The reality is that we cause pollution. There's really no denying that reality.

So what is wrong with us focusing on how to reduce pollution?? Reducing pollution benefits us all.

Answer 11

those living in far Northern climates can see global warming taking place, me i think that mother nature is paying the population back for ignoring her laws,