Are you sure it's man made and not a natural cycle?

Question

How hot was it in the Jurasic Period?

Think about it, logically, for just a moment. Dinosaurs are nothing more than giant reptiles. Now, with that in mind, we know reptiles are cold blooded animals and cannot survive in cold, or even cool climates. Dino bones have been found all over the globe, to include places that reptiles would have a small chance of survival. Espically large ones, which I would think, need more heat than say your common lizard.
I highly doubt that man, with his cave fires, was causing global warming then on such a scale to keep dinos alive. And look at how long that period of earth's history lasted.
The earth has had, who knows, how many cycles from ice age to heat wave. The big difference is, we're paying more attention to it than every before.

Answer 1

Of course it is man-made. It is made in computers, and in the minds and conclaves of politicians and multi-national businesses, and in the murky depths of the IPCC!

As to the dinosaurs argument, sorry to have to defuse it, but you also, if you check, will find that the earth's rotational poles flipped at the end of the dinosaur age, from being in the warm seas with loads of circulation, to being where they are now, semi-landlocked, and at a different angle to the sun. Might have been from the very large asteroid hit many postulate for wiping out the dinosaurs.

This change resulted in the growth of ice and glaciers and the present long cycles of high glaciation and short periods of good to great climate for a few thousand years before descending again to full glaciation.

And the larger dinosaurs might have had it better, since they may have had a smaller surface to bulk ratio. So many shapes to deal with though.

I think a good question however is how man and animals managed to live through the many many cycles of deep-freeze from the 90,000 year freeze cycles.

And I agree...man's campfires probably did not make much difference...unless one lit off a whole African savanna, into a grassfire consuming hundreds of thousands of acres. But that would be speculation. Also leave a lot of toasted dinosaurs!!

I was just looking at some of the materials being used to rebut natural warming, and there was still the "hockey stick" fabrication to make Global Warming Due To Man come out right. It was obvious that the temperature changes of the MWP and the LIA, both historically validated, do not appear...wiped out statistically.

Can we trust "scientists" who wipe out known history to prove their points? Is the conclusion likely to be valid if known history does not support it?

Similarly, "ham" radio operators are very aware of the sunspots and their effects in adding energy to the atmosphere, for one thing. Enough to ionize air layers close to the earth. Whether or not the sunspot cycles show in the global warming charts depend on the smoothing factors used. So by choosing the right statistical manipulations, you can take out the natural effect of sunspots. Man-made figures, man made warming.

And the big question, should we take precipitous action based on computer simulations where known history has to be disregarded to get the desired results?

And should we blindly follow leaders who use this data that is not consistent with known history to demand us to make drastic and in general costly changes?

Should we also blindly follow "scientists" and the politicians and the multinational corporations who are making big money by razing the rain forests, displacing their inhabitants, and planting trees that do not sequester the CO2 as well as the rain forest did, so effectively driving the CO2 levels up and up?

Yes, this part is man-made... deceptive CO2 pollution for profit! Is this just greedy corporations answerable to no government taking advantage of a loophole to make money, or is it done with malice of forethought to enrich some politicians and maybe scientists and definitely lawyers, on the backs of the rest of us? Anybody wish to exonerate the folks involved?

I also notice that there seems to be no plan to spread mankind effectively to the new lands that would be opened if we let the projected warming proceed. Would it be wrong, with the population still growing, to have new lands to feed and support more people? Or beneficial? Or is this omission man-made to increase the apparent severity?

Instead, the push is to prevent new land from appearing, and new developments in shallow seas, and new ways to water the deserts so the shall "bloom like the rose". And come up with expensive transportation to prevent people for moving very far or very fast. Man-made crowding!!

Is it my imagination, or is there a concerted effort to prevent the highly-efficient and fuel-non-critical gas turbine for being developed as an automobile engine, in its own right, or in a hybrid application? Why are we sticking to the lower efficiency engines, just fiddling with lower-energy fuels, etc??
Political pressure from those who hold oil stocks? A way to keep CO2 rising?

I have not seen much on the gas turbines since NASCAR effectively banned them for being too efficient and removing the competitiveness of the reciprocating gasoline engine. Politics stamping out an improvement in energy consumption, clear back in the middle of the last century!!

Yes, we are hearing it drummed into us all the time. We do not hear of the political deals made tho, and the scientists hurried or suppressed in their work. I am sure that not every scientist who finds problems with the blame on man for global warming works for the big tobacco and oil companies!
But smear works! So does censorship. And so does repetition even to the children in the schools. That is man-made, definitely!

Answer 2

Contrary to what the President and Al Gore say, there is not absolute proof that global warming is man caused. The earth's temperature has remained constant since 2001, after a slight rise the previous decade. Wonder why the last Ice Age ended! Obama and the Democrats are using this as an excuse to pass the most intrusive legislation into your life. Cap & Trade is a farce, otherwise Pelosi wouldn't have pushed it through the House without a proper review nor would a 300 page amendments been added at 3am! Expect energy prices to double or triple if this legislation becomes law. Ask the global warming crowd why the last Ice Age ended? Couldn't have been man caused! Why were some scientists predicting another ice age in the early 1970s? Why does the federal tax code reward large families with huge tax breaks? Large families aren't "green" and do put a much larger demand on the world's resources.

Answer 3

You're right about the dinosaurs, you're right that the Earth has been warmer in the past and you're right that there have been ice age cycles.

But it's important to look at the time scales that have been involved. An ice age comes and goes approx once every 125 millioin years, during the hot inbetween times temps can be 20°C higher than they are now, in the thick of an ice age they can be a few degrees less than thay are now.

The range is up to 30°C over a period of apporx 60 million years, on this scale it's a 1°C change every 2 million years.

These are very long term trends and within these trends are shorter warming and cooling trends where temperatures can change much more rapidly. We saw this for example 18,000 years ago when the last glacial advance was halted and the glaciers began retreating. As natural cycles go this was an extremely rapid chnage in temperatures and has seen the planet warm by nearly 9°C in 18,000 years - 1°C every 2000 years.

In recent years temps have been rising an average of 0.0177°C per year - that's 1°C every 56.5 years. Looking at it another way it's 35.4 times as fast as the temps have naturally risen since the commencement of the last glacial retreat (the time is often referred to as the end of the last ice age).

When we compare the current rises in temperature with the most extreme natural changes we find temps are rising 17 times as fast as any previous known natural event.

Not only do we know that temps are rising so much faster than any natural cycle (or combination of) could allow for but we know how and why they're rising.

Answer 4

Dinosaurs are a little more than giant reptiles. Birds are believed to have descended from dinosaurs (raptor family) and they are warm-blooded. It is believed that most of the larger predators were warm-blooded.

But that's not the point, is it? Earth has always operated via natural cycles, and there is no substantial proof that man is overriding natural cycles today. At best, we can slightly alter some climactic conditions. Even their most die-hard scientific supporter in the US, NASA's James Hansen, says that the Greenhouse effects of anthropogenic CO2 are already offset by anthropogenic cooling from sulfates and other atmospheric particulates.

And how many times will we see this graph:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

It doesn't account for 1940s cooling. It doesn't consider the forcing by the thermohaline conveyor. It's wiki junk science.

Answer 5

Yes, 80-90% man made, 10-20% natural. Forget the political stuff and the "logical" arguments. Just look at the numbers and the science.

Yes, there have been natural climate changes before, mostly due to the Sun. But the data clearly shows that, starting about 40 years ago, man's contribution overwhelmed the natural forces that caused climate before.

This is a nice picture, includes the effect of the Sun, and there are many more scientific studies showing the same thing.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

None of the other explanations works nearly as well. The scientific equations don't work for them. The numbers come out wrong. Most questions are answered here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Good general information on global warming. with data and pictures:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

Answer 6

A factor not yet considered, much less advanced by anyone, yet should be obvious, is that total animal population is higher now than ever before. While our use of fossil fuels plays a part in the story, the green house gases that all all creatures with a digestive tract produce should also be considered. All creatures need to stop passing gas, that should help out with the problem. While we are at it, we need to shut down all of our current, and past land fills that are producing green house gases as well.

Answer 7

You claim reptiles can't survive in cold climates....we have frogs, toads and snakes that weather over the winter months in the North East portion of the states.
Dinosaur bones have NOT been found 'all over the world'. Ice ages are pure speculation, scientists can only somewhat prove ONE ice age, the rest is theory.

Answer 8

The big difference is that there is destruction happening at a alarming never before rate. This is not as in the days of the dinosaur a type of species of animals going extinct because unable to adapt to changes which is natural selection. The demise of the dinasours was also supposedly the most popular held scientific belief the sun being blocked long enough for vegetation etc to diminish greatly and a drastic temp change-COLD-by the crash to the earth of a giant meteorite. The changes occurring now are destruction of the earth itself where ALL species of wild animals are disappearing into extinction due to loss of their ability to survive,the changes to the earh are global-weather upheavals ,basic terrain structures changing-continents aar changing from cold to warm,warm to cold etc where eventually even the survival of man is threatened. The dinasours beame extinct but other animals,life forms,vegetations etc werea able to adapt and live,survive and the earth continued. The changes occurring now are so final and destructive that all life is threatened-even the suvival of the planet itself is /will be at risk if global warming is not Checked.

Answer 9

Scientists are not sure if it will rain tomorrow or not. Scientists hyped the next Ice Age in the 1970s.

Global Warming is a scheme which scientists with no morals or honesty lie in order to obtain grant money from governments who are too clueless to know that they shouldn't fund this crap in the first place.

Do you think Al Gore or George Bush or John McCain or Ted Kennedy have any qualifications to discuss, let alone fund science? Heck Ted Kennedy spends more time fighting wind farms in Martha's Vineyard than he has ever done studying or reading about science.

Anyone who thinks man has anything to do with the worldwide temperture is smoking some serious weed. Speaking of weed, I present George Carlin.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IET1uKHPqc8

Answer 10

I agree to an extent. I am a creationist so I believe in the flood and that it wiped out the majority of the animals. I also think man and their desire to conquer finished them out. There is evidence man was around the mammoths and they have hack marks in mass graves...so we don't like animals being bigger than us. Still continues with all the black market killings in Africa and India. Any-who...I think we have technology available to us and it is showing that slowly we are coming out of the last cooling trend. I do think that we have gone overboard with our modernization and are hurting ourselves and the environment. I believe that our trend is beyond saving the glaciers now. Yet, if people don't see how they are hurting themselves inside their four walls, how are they going to be able to save what's outside?