Is Global Warming a Natural Phenomenon?

Question

The was a programme on in the UK on Channel 4 in which most of the scientists and geology experts were all saying the same thing, global warming is a mostly natural phenomenon and only a tiny percentage is actually created and caused by humans, but they are forced to shut up because the politicians get more mileage out of saying we are all to blame and we should return to the stone age to save the planet. I believe that it is mostly natural and that we are all being conned and forced to stop doing things we enjoy doing in case it's harming the environment. What does everybody else think?

Answer 1

The only thing that matters is that global warming is going to happen no matter what we do. It is a natural process and we can not change that.

Even if we do have an effect on it, we can't change that now. Would you and everyone else give up the past 100 years that we have grown to change the small fraction that we humans have contributed to global warming? Cars, factories, power, the computer you are using? The alternative would be much worse than global warming, if you were to take away everything we have become to attempt to slow global warming then the world would be in chaos.

Global warming is going to happen and we will survive it, humans survived the last ice age, we are more than capable of doing it again.

Answer 2

The earth constantly goes through cycles of Warming and Cooling. That is why there were ice ages and not just an ice age. A theroy about the earth when dinosaurs existed says that earth was hot and the air was filled with greenhouse gases. So global warming is natural and so is global cooling. The big question is whether or not humans are accelerating this process or if it is a natural cycle. If you believe that the earth has been around for more than 4.5 billion years then the couple of hundred of years that we actually have weather data for is so small that there is no way to know if this follows a pattern or if its an unnatural spike. However, since this is the only planet known to be able to support life we should treat the current global warming cycle as unnatural and try to limit the amount of greenhouse gasses and try to correct this problem before we are unable to anything about it.

Answer 3

Well our kids are gonna find out. All these right wingers will have made their money and died by the time the planet goes into a meltdown. Now you know this is a tiny little rock floating in space and its the only one we have. You know when you put chemicals into the water the fish start to die. You put chemicals into the ground and the plants start to die. Well you put chemicals into the air what do you think is going to happen? Our atmosphere is very thin. There are so many pollutants its almost unimaginable. The worst mass extinction our planet has faced was the Pre-Cambrian mass extinction, which was caused by the same green house gasses we are releasing in the atmosphere today. 95% of all the animals of that time died.
I work for an environmental cleanup company, I only do the drafting for the projects but I do get to see what is going into the ground. Did you know EVERY gas station's tanks leak? There is benzene, tolulene, tri-butal methyl ether, TPH's, MTBE and a long long list of toxic waste entering the ground at EVERY single gas station on the planet. Benzene is cancer causing, and it will eventually get into the ground water. That's why my job is necessary, so when the dirt gets too dirty they remediate, which is digging up every bit of contaminated soil and replacing with clean dirt. That's why once a gas station always a gas station, you simply cannot put another business there without risks. This is just one tiny part of the industry. Not to mention airports, bus fueling stations, train wrecks, abandoned warehouses that never cleaned up their mess. The evidence is over freaking whelming!
You know Exxon really wants you to believe that the planet and we will be ok, but they don't want you to know that they are currently buying up land around the northern ice cap so when it melts they can get thier tankers through there. I tell you if they don't believe in global warming then why are they putting their money on it?
It is simply nieve to think we are having little or no impact. Believe what you will, time will tell.

Answer 4

There are natural cycles in the weather and global temperature, that's fact. The Ice Ages have happened more than once, and will happen again.

HOWEVER.... and this is a big however....

When those climate changes occured, they were almost entirely natural. Humankind hadn't really evolved to the point where we were having any significant effects on our environment. That absolutely is no longer the case, and that's something we do have to take responsibility for.

The natural cycles of weather change have been altered by the way we use our world, made more extreme and less predictable. If we alter the ways that we use our world, we stand a chance of altering those patterns of weather for the better. However, I don't think that weather cycles can be classified as "natural" anymore, due to the interaction between humans and our environment.

Answer 5

It sounds like that TV program was really skewed toward the negative viewpoint. The fact is that the great majority of climate scientists believe that global warming is happening and that man's activities are a MAJOR contributor.

Keep in mind that there are VERY powerful groups that want you to believe that Global Warming is a myth. The fossil fuel industry, car manufacturers, public utilities, to name a few, are pumping millions of dollars into PR for the purpose of confusing the public. The fossil fuel industry has huge investments tied up in long-term leases of oil and coal fields and are addicted to obscene levels of profit from those holdings.

Also, it's a myth that we're going to have to "go back to the stone age" to start correcting the problem. We have viable alternative energy technologies that, if we start using them, can make a big difference. But guess who doesn't want us using solar, wind or other green technology. Yep, the fossil fuel people are at it again. Apparently it doesn't matter to them that our children's lives could turn into a living hell!

Answer 6

I saw the programme too. It had a few valid points, but also several dubious and partisan assertions (e.g. global warming was popularised by Maggie Thatcher... er, really?). Remember pretty much all "scientific fact" is debatable, and that today's orthodoxy is tomorrow's heresy (and vice versa).

As to your main question, there may be hysteria on climate change, but the programme avoided issues like greenhouse gas build up at surface level, receding broad leaf foilage, and ozone layer depletion - just three of many factors not present in previous periods of global warming in human history. Also, where human contribution may be relatively small, it does not follow it this is insignificant in the cumulative impact.

'Green' issues are like any other political debate - all sides use 'facts' to buttress their respective viewpoints, but the level of debate on this is, I think, pretty poor. For my part I think climate change is real, that our actions are accelerating it and there is action worth taking, though not necessarily all of what is presently advocated. Methane from the industrial farming of cattle, for example, may well do more harm than air travel. Taxing air travel may be easier than taking on the global food industry, however, or convincing the West to cut almost all meat from its diet, but consider some of the following:
Oil Change - Reserves are dwindling. Even best estimates including new finds show we have passed 'peak' oil. Will governments force conservation and invest in alternatives?
Energy efficiency - New light bulbs are fine but 65% of electricity is lost in transmission through the grid. Will governments take on power companies to enable communities to generate power locally?
Wrap Up - Gratuitous packaging and its thoughtless disposal will exhaust our landfill capacity (and add to methane output). Will retailers persuade us not to reduce, recycle and re-use?
12 billion's a Crowd - By 2020 there will be more than 12 billion human beings on the planet - more than the rest of history put together. They'll all be competing for food, power and shelter. Still think you can sustain your lifestyle?

I suspect it's less a question of you being "forced to stop doing things you enjoy" and more that the ecological & environmental damage, rapacious consumption of resources, and global economic consequences cannot continue without an intolerable burden being placed on our children and future generations.

And if you think the Green lobby now influences politicians, scientists and public opinion unduly, then ask yourself this:
What exactly do you think those nice global corporations have being doing for decades?

Answer 7

The great climate change swindle made some good points. Some it didn't make were ;
1)that CO2 is removed within 100 years. That means that the level is dependent on our rate of use not total used. It is likely therefore that CO2 will never get higher than 500ppm, theoretically enough to raise the temperature by 1.5 degrees, based on a total of 30 degrees of greenhouse warming.
2) There isn't enough recoverable coal left to have the effects predicted.
3) Natural systems, and by that I include man made systems like farms, are able to maintain atmospheric gas levels and temperature levels within a tolerable range. Algae in the oceans are very sensitive to CO2 levels. Terrestrial systems are more limited my availability of water.
4) The common belief that planting trees will reduce global warming is wrong. Trees use water for cooling at a rate of 10 000 tonnes per 1 tonne of CO2 sequestered. Even though it takes 100 years for CO2 to be washed out of the atmosphere and less than a week for water vapour; The water vapour has a greater greenhouse effect than the CO2.
In addittion the Forests are darker than the grasslands they replace and absorb more light from the sun as heat.
5) global dimming doesn't get a mention but clearly reduces the energy reaching the earth, global dimming may be a direct and indirect result of burning coal.
In a recent court case the (Queensland) EPA was forced to admit under oath that there was no proof that the coal Xtrata was going to mine would contribute to either global warming or climate change. The court rejected the action by the Queensland Conservation Council.
Just because "everyone" now believes some thing doesn't make it true, just good politics.
My concern is the affect on the rate of youth suicides. They had peaked in 1998 and fallen untill 2004 when this latest campaign by the doomsday crowd started to gain momentum.
Could Gore et al be convicted of contributing to the deaths of these thousands of young people who niavely believe this propaganda and act on it?
It will not hurt to become prudent in our use of energy and other resources, that is the correct use of the precautionary principle. It is not sensible to use this hype to reduce mans access to natural resources that he needs to live a comfortable life. Nor is it worth the life of one child from starvation related disease or suicide in the developed world.

Answer 8

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110009693

Let’s pull a line out of this piece in The Opinion Journal

The IPCC does not explain why from 1940 to 1975, while carbon dioxide emissions were rising, global temperatures were falling…

That is a *very* interesting statement. One wonders why. One also wonders why the IPCC report omitted analysis of this period and altered their data to make their graphs look better. I’ll take Revisionist History for $200, Alex.

And if a scale of several decades is too small (one has to wonder how the climate models are tested and verified!), how about several centuries?

The Medieval Warming Period from about 900ad to 1300ad is also interesting. The Vikings were indeed able to farm and ranch in Greenland for centuries. They quit when the world cooled and ice and snow overran their villages. We don’t know why the warming started and we don’t know why it stopped. Current climate models are unable to account for either fact.

In light of these weaknesses, why should we change our behavior in response to flawed models? Clearly our current understanding is incomplete.

I’m not saying we should ignore the environment and pollute away - far from it. As humanity’s population and potential environmental impact grows it behooves us to ensure that impact is as slight as possible. We are the first species on Earth able to respond to future predictions and so one is hopeful we can avoid the binge-and-purge population lessons of the past. But climate-change alarmism should never be confused with intelligent impact management.

The Earth has been far warmer and far colder than it is right now. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have risen and fallen. Shorelines have moved in & out. Clearly change is the only constant.

The one thing we know for sure about the Earth’s climate in a century? It will be different.

Answer 9

international Warming isn't stoppable because of the prefer of power and the income it produces. international Warming is via the greed and sin that efficient countries have concentration on and their desires of SELF and not others. image if gas replaced into modern in quite a few parts of Africa! Washington, Moscow, Peking, Tokyo, London, Berlin, and Paris could be kissing ft and butt to get the main out of those countries. Mexico has gasoline! Why do not we build them a refinery for the Southwestern States? The Arabs and the Muslims do not supply a damn concerning to the less than priviledged nor the the remainder of the international. yet are purely as obese approximately wealth and power as Americas and Europeans. The question you ask will in basic terms supply somebody extra factors. you could pray all you prefer. Jesus remains coming and the situation of the international won't count besides.

Answer 10

No.

That programme has been shown to be wrong.

The man who produced it distorted scientists' viewpoints in another show, so much so that Channel 4 had to publicly apologize.

Here's just a few of the websites that have debunked the show.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

"Pure Propaganda"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director)

Global warming is not natural, a vast amount of scientific data shows it.

Volcanoes emit less than 10% of what man does, and because of dust emitted, contribute less than nothing to global warming.

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoe...

Nature does produce and capture a lot of CO2. But it's a delicate balance that we're upsetting by digging up carbon the cycle buried over many thousands of years and burning it real fast. This data shows what's happening. The little teeth are the carbon cycle doing it's thing (plants are more active in summer, less in winter), the huge surge up is us burning fossil fuels.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mlo_record.html

And increased solar radiation is also rejected as a major cause by hard data.

http://www.ipcc.ch/spm2feb07.pdf

Page 4.

People can talk, but massive amounts of hard data shows global warming is NOT natural. Which is why:

"the question of global warming was settled years ago for all but a few holdouts in the scientific community"

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/16620307.htm