Global Warming Skeptics Question #3: If the current warming is not caused by humans ...?

Question

... why is the temperature rising five to ten times faster than any known natural warming? The fastest known natural warming occurs when the Earth comes out of an Ice Age, when the planet typically warms by 4° to 7° C over 5000 years or so, a rate of 0.14° C per century or less. In the past century the planet has warmed by 0.7° C. Is it just an amazing coincidence that this is occurring at exactly the same geological moment as the large-scale burning of fossil fuels?

(And over the last 20 years, the temperature has been rising at an astounding rate of 2° per century. And it's still accelerating.)

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_FAQs.pdf
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Jim z: The cooling that took place between the 1940's and 1970's was due to an increase in sulfate aerosols combined with a moderation of the solar activity that drove about half of the pre-1940's increase. All this is perfectly well accounted for in current climate models.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-8.htm

baillieston boy: While there was a Medieval Warm Period, it was not as warm then as it is now.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch06.pdf
(page 468)

Mc: Temperatures have Not been on a downward trend since 1998. From NASA's GISS dataset, the regression slope for temperatures between 1998 and 2006 is strongly positive: +1.95° C per century, as stated above. I realize global warming deniers don't know how to do math, but maybe you could ask one of your friends to do it for you.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

truthwillnotbesilenced: It never ceases to amaze me how, time after time, you make the wildest assertions unsupported by a single fact.

Answer 1

Clearly this is not something global warming skeptics can explain. The best they can do is repeat misinformation (like Mc) which has been repeatedly debunked on this very website, misinterpret the data (again, like Mc), or pull random numbers out of their butts (like truthwillnotbesilenced) to try and prove some bogus point like soda pop is responsible for global warming.

The number of times the same people have repeated things like the MWP was hotter than now and been proven wrong or asked why it was cooler in 1970 and been told exactly why or come up with completely bizarre "explanations" for global warming which are easily debunked and far less logical than the real explanation that humans are the primary cause of global warming - it just blows my mind and proves that there's simply no way to convince them otherwise.

Now we've got a guy saying there's a clear cooling trend from 1998-2007 when 2005 was the hottest recorded year in history, hotter even than 1998. Not to mention the fact that the winter of 2006-2007 was the hottest in recorded history, which I only know because I looked it up when someone claimed it was the coldest! What's next? Nuclear wars between Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are the cause of global warming? Wake up and be reasonable, skeptics!

Answer 2

I am big on everything environmental. I am majoring in Environmental Studies in university.

If you're going to read any answer, please read this one.

The problem with Global Warming is that people take it too far: they take it to the level so that it is almost treated as a religion. They stand too firmly by their belief, and do not want to hear anything that counteracts it. The discussions become too heated, and people get angry. It would be as if a non-Christian questions a Christian regarding Adam and Eve versus evolution; it's the same type of thing (this is why I usually refrain from asking questions in this category; you always have those who are too hardcore on the theory, and then you have the skeptics).

Here's the thing with the critics of Global Warming:

Even though you have your evidence, there are also many facts and figures that support that global warming is occurring.


So, after this statement, let me just tell you one thing:

Please do not dismiss it as a possibilty. Do not totally deny it, even if you don't believe it's true. Just consider it. The reason why I am so concerned is that I am worried that if people are too critical about global warming, then they will not make any effort to try and support the environment. Do not drive more often because you don't think that global warming is occurring (even if you don't, car exhaust isn't good to breathe in anyway). Do not idle your cars. Do not trash items that are recyclable. Even if you don't believe in this cause, please, do not continue destructive practises.


And those of you who stand too firmly by global warming:

Do not totally dismiss that it may not be the case. Even though the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in February that they were 90% sure that it was occurring, do not let small facts like this discourage you from researching the opposing side (those who like to argue against global warming may state that the panel is not made up of qualified persons). Although I myself also believe it is occurring, I do not think that we should get hostile and totally ignore other information regarding climate change. The best way to be certain about something is to have all the facts; so listen to them all.

Thank you all, have fun with your arguments.

Answer 3

I know the question isn't addressed to me, but what I've seen in the debate that seems troublesome is "it isn't conclusive that...." The implication is that since one can not see a rise in the temperature every time a car engine turns over, then the car engine does not have an effect. I can not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt IN ADVANCE that staying out all night naked in a blizzard will result in my death, but I do not intend to test my ability to stand the local climate variations without a good coat, just in case. It's a problem of both perspective and measurement. IF the effect is delayed it is more difficult to "prove" the relationship, but not always impossible. Sometimes the proof is simply DELAYED. The problem here is that people who feel threatened somehow become recalcitrant. Whether the perceived "threat" is because of a lifestyle they feel is under fire, the politicization of the debate with Al Gore's very public efforts to promote awareness, actual financial interests in the status quo or simply an "us vs. them" mentality is impossible for me to decipher. The argument becomes so shrill that reason gets tossed. From my view, what difference does it make if AGW turns out to be wrong? How is reducing, reusing, and recycling going to hurt me? How will it hurt my neighbors? How will reducing the dependence on foreign oil and the funding to foreign powers, both friendly and unfriendly, going to hurt me or my community? How will stopping the flow of funds to unfriendlies hurt the nation? I just don't get the rancor.

Answer 4

Badly worded, at least in part.

By asking "is it an amazing coincidence..." you're implying that that is a real possibility. But independent evidence shows that there is no significant possibility that it is just coincidence.

If there was such a possibility the scientific consensus would be much weaker. There isn't and it's not.

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Answer 5

The IPCC report on temperature variations is based on accurate readings over the past 157 years. All other figures are guesses. And the guesses are global averages. No one can provide accurate, within the same measurement error, the surface temperature of a specific location on Earth over the past one million years. Think about how and where surface temperature are taken. In the 1800's temperatures were taken in un-industrial urban areas. Now temperatures are taken at asphalt covered airports. What would you think the thermeter would read in 1860 New York or in 2007 JFK Airport if the air temperatures were equally 80 deg F? Did the Earth get hotter, No, only the thermeter got hotter.

Earth's long term surface temperatures averages are always changing, but not due to human influence. The big red thing in the sky is the greatest cause of temperature flucuations. Soon, in a few tens of millions of years, the sun will go dark. Let's enjoy its warmth now.

Answer 6

A number of scientists see evidence of a warming trend on the Earth's surface and attribute it to a rise in the concentration of "greenhouse gases." Global warming theory states that an increase of the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century can be attributed to humans and increased emissions of carbon dioxide. According to the theory, temperatures will increase further if emissions of these greenhouse gases continue.

Answer 7

Using the data you provided it is clear that the temperatures have been on a steady downward trend since 1998. Also why did the temperatures drop dramatically between 1940 and 1970 when human produced CO2 was rising in concentration the fastest?

Answer 8

It is not amazing at all

Why cant they accept that we humans have caused devastating destruction all over the planet .

And not just for the last 50 years ,the Sahara used to be forrests (,but you cant deforrest on the equator because you cant replant under that hot a sun.It is now growing 7 miles per year burning the edges .

The building of Spanish Armada made Spain a dessert country as the Phoenicians deforested Lebanon for their trading fleet.

Ghengas Kahn burned everything(cities ,agriculture,forrests ) and filled all the wells with sand ,turning vast teritories into desserts.

Today large parts of the world are turned into deserts because of irresponsible farming,overpumping carbon Aquifers ,over grazing ,deforestation,all causing desertification.

I have been in the jungles of Oaxaca and discussed with the Natives the mountain before us ,Mostly deforrested ,scarred by landslides and dotted with madly steep corn patches (which only produced for 3 years ),and devoid of clouds.

They all agreed that the days were hotter ,there was less rain ,And the river was dry part of the year.

When they were boys ,the river was bigger and ran all year around,the mountain was always covered in clouds with daily rains .And the days were more bearable .

Their actions in the desperate plight to feed their enormous families of avarage 12 kids per family ,often much more ,had destroyed their home ground with indisputable climate changes.

In Africa I have seen lush wooded lands change into dessert within a few years by large invading comunities ,who devoured the trees for building and firewood ending up in a dessert with out water
and with a hot sun under which no new plantation was possible.

Granted the climatic changes are local ,but effects neighboring areas ,there is less rainfall, rivers dry up ,

BUT these things are happening ALL over the world and nobody can convince me that COLLECTIVELY this does NOT effect the Global climate
Global precipitation,Global temperatures,Global water supplies ,Global everything.

Millions of hectares are lost because of the roads systems ,expanding population and the resulting settlements.

Mexico looses half a million hectares per year in the quest for Ethanol and this is happening in Africa ,Borneo,Malasia,etc and will become much much more ,when America passes a new bill about the production of Ethanol ,

Replacing indigenous forrests wiping out all the wild life and bio diversity and replacing it with monoculture plantations grown with fertilizers that will only have plagues of insects as inhabitants,which will be combatted with Pesticides .The natural soil balance will be destroyed and contiued growth will only be possible with chemicals .

Is there no limit to the waste of money and natural resources in this insane attempt to suposedly save te Environment .

Humans ARE contaminating ,the Air,the Soil and Waters.This evidence is for all to see all over the world ,
And cannot be whitewashed with claims that humanity is inocent .

Overpopulation puts pressures on all Natural resources and increases all the bad side effects of Humanity such as deminishing the overall bio mass and wide spread polution

Too many changes in too many places
and something gotta give

Answer 9

It's not.

1.1 degree F in 120 years has happened before.

And it's cooled faster than that.

I OWN STUFF THAT WAS AROUND when it cooled faster than that.

Keith we've been through the MWP before, I have posted links, you just choose to ignore them. Worldwide, warm and temperate weather species thrived where it is too cold for them to thrive today, and water and land travel routes were used that are now ice-bound. You cannot explain one single solitary example.

It was warmer during the MWP.

It was almost as warm during Roman times.

It was warmer during the Holocene Maximum.

The rate of warming over the last 120 years is NOT out of line with the rate of warming leading up to the MWP.

The rate of warming over the last 20 years, we can't make that comparison on that small a scale using proxy models that don't pick up the last 20 years' warming. Over 120 years we can because we know what grew when and where.

We also know that the descent into the LIA over a similar 100-120 year time frame was 2-3 degrees C - a faster change than the warming we're seeing now.

The present climate is NOT unprecedented nor is the rate of change.

Dana no, it's not pulling random numbers out of our butts, it's pulling archeological evidence out of the ground. Supposedly 'unprecedented' glacial retreat is revealing artefacts left by travelers 1000 years ago. It's not difficult to interpret what that means. It means it was warmer then than now.

Answer 10

Hmmm? this question relies upon assumptions...hyotheses that the earth is over 5000 years old may times over. Considering that this is not fact...there are no witnesses...much less proof of human history older than 6-7000 years old...I would imagine this would present a problem for your statement phrased as a question. If you are truly asking a question.
Did you know other planets in our solar system are heating up too? The sun is believed to have cycles itself...which would explain why we are not the only planet heating up...and logically it follows we are not the cause of this warming. This certainly does not mean we should live our lives recklessly on the great gift of our planet.

While I am sure the numbers and facts you listed may be true...i caution that many may interpret them differently.