Of course it's possible, and yes, there is a certain 'arrogance' in thinking that we are in the driver's seat as far as the environment goes, though there's some on the other extreme, in thinking that we can just use, abuse & destroy whatever we feel like.
2007-07-12 09:06:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by B.Kevorkian 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
**While it is undoubtably true that there are some cycles and natural variations in global climate, anyone who wishes to insist that the current warming is purely or even just mostly natural has two challenges. Firstly, they need to identify just what this alledged natural mechanism is because absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. So natural or otherwise we should be able to find this mysterious cause. Secondly, a "natural cause" proponent needs to come up with some explanation for how a 30% increase in the second most important Greenhouse Gas does not itself affect the global temperature.
In other words, there is a well developed, internally consistent theory that predicts the effects we are observing, so where is the sceptic model, or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature and where is the evidence of some other natural forcing?
There is a fine historical example of a very dramatic and very regular climate cycle that can be read in the ice core records taken both in Greenland and in the Antarctic. A naive reading of this cycle indicates we should be experiencing a cooling trend now, and indeed we were very gradually cooling over the length of the preindustrial Holocene, something around .5C averaged over 8000 years. It is informative to compare those fluctuations to today's changes. Leaving aside the descents into glaciation, which were much more gradual, the very sudden (geologically speaking) jumps up in temperature every ~100Kyrs actually represent a rate of change roughly ten times slower than the rate we are currently witnessing.
So could the current change be natural? Well, there is no identified natural cause (and they have been looked for), there is no theory of climate where CO2 does not drive the temperature and the natural cycle precedents do not show the same extreme reaction we are now witnessing.
(That would be a "No")**
**source cited below
2007-07-11 21:55:29
·
answer #2
·
answered by Lindsey G 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Of course this could be. However would you not agree that at some point we need to stop polluting the planet and start looking for some alternatives to fossil fuel? Fossil fuel is not endless. I will never forget the first time I went to Los Angeles
on some days they have brown air. I am talking brown as in you can't see more then a couple of hundred feet before it turns brown.
So it is not folly to start taking a little more care in how we treat our nest.
2007-07-11 21:49:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by JF 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
If you're referring to climate change, it's getting increasingly unlikely that it is a natural cycle - changes are happening way faster than any previous cycle, other than due to catastrophic events such as metoer strike. There is more and more evidence linking it with carbon emissions, and they are linked very strongly with human activity. It's hard to travel the world and not realise that we can change the climate. Look at almost any city in China and the pollution etc is so bad you can't see across the street most of the time.
Re:
Snow in Africa is hardly unique - Killimanjaro is usually snow capped. The problem there is that it is disappearing. An I find it hard to reconcile a god that laughs at you with the loving god of the bible
re: below
All the serious models take into account sun activity. and which other planets are heating up??????
2007-07-11 21:46:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jane w 2
·
3⤊
2⤋
EXACTLY RIGHT !! Round and round the earth goes , where she stops noboby knows ; ICE AGE , Gorebal warming , Ice Age , Gorebal warming , Ice Age , Gorebal warming , Ice Age , Gorebal warming.....Rather than play spin the earth with the Liberal Lemmings`running to the Cliffs of Hysteria , I`ll go with the logical , God will handle it !!
2007-07-12 00:24:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
it is not only possible it is very likely
none of the global warming models take into account sun activity or precipitation which are the 2 most common effects on temp. Also other planets as yet untouched by man are experiencing the same warming right now at a much higher rate then we are.
When you build a computer sim based on incomplete facts and garbage data how can you seriously be surprised when you get a less then accurate result out of it
2007-07-11 21:46:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by tgatecrasher2003 3
·
0⤊
3⤋
It isn't folly to think we can influence the climate. We're already doing it. The question is weather we will influence it in a positive way or a negative way. Right now it is negative but we can turn that around.
2007-07-11 21:44:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by frugernity 6
·
3⤊
2⤋
Why is m b wasting energy using his plastic made computer warming up the earth when he could be living in a cave eating dirt and drinking rain water to save the planet. All you global warming morons should live in mud huts and ride donkeys and eat only natural grown food with no power tools used to harvest them. Go bury your head in the ground you hypocrites. I have to go drive my 4x4 truck down to the marina and go out in my gas wasting boat before I go on my trip tomorrow in a gas wasting jet to help our auto manufactures build more gas wasting cars to warm up the planet.
2007-07-11 21:45:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by hawk_barry 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
It could be... I don't think so, but lets pretend for your point that it is. If it is then it's like a burning house so why would you throw more fuel on it? Isn't it just logical to try to reduce the damage rather than aggravate the case?
2007-07-11 21:43:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by Don W 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
In looking back over the documented history of the earth there have always been cycles and fluctuations which are natural, I am sure we add to it to some extent but can we change it, I doubt it.......
2007-07-11 21:53:47
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋