Is it true that global warming is not cause by people but nature alone?

Answer 1

That is an argument that a lot of people make, and until recently it's been hard to differentiate the rate of climate change over the last 10,000 years or so to say that people hurt nature more or less than nature does.
Geologist Richard Alley studied the ice in Greenland, where the ice sheets are nearly 2 miles think and provide a good timeline for global temperatures and atmospheric make-up. He was able to determine that climate change has always happened (obviously it had to in order to move from a climate where Dinosaurs reigned to an ice age and into a climate that we now live). He also determined that that the rate of climate change has accelerated greatly since the discovery of fossil fuel as an energy source.
So you answer is, global warming is a natural cycle, but humans are getting much better at creating climate change than nature.

Nature changes climate, people change climates but it is pretty clear that what is happening now is mostly people driven.

Answer 2

The world is not digital - nature certainly has an effect, but the activities of people across the world also have an effect on global warming. There is no 'single' cause of global warming. The recent trends in sea temperatures have a component linked to the increase in greenhouse gasses, which people and nature produce, as well as the orbital cycle of the planet - as the earth 'nutates' around it's axis, the polar regions tilt more or less towards the sun, affecting the energy deposition in the polar regions, which affects global warming... there are several cycles of these effects, as well as the solar energy 'rate' - solar flare cycles, etc. All of those have an effect on global warming or cooling - ethically it makes sense to me to minimize our environmental footprint as a species, until we understand how we might change things - as an example, if the earth's orbital mechanics are such that we should be moving into an ice age, then perhaps more greenhouse gas is not all that bad, and may be preventing glaciers from heading towards the equator, but until we really understand that, we should practice 'as low as reasonably achievable' in environmental matters.

Answer 3

This is a matter of debate among scientists. Among the scientists that I know personally, there is much variation. Obviously, there is no one right answer.

Much of the science is based not on traditional science but on modeling. Modeling is a new phenomena which is mostly distrusted (they are only as good as the algorithms and are not used to formulate theory)in the fields of physics, math, and astronomy but has become an important part of the softer sciences. Modeling has taken off with the use of the personal computer.

There is a scientist who questions the validity of the algorithms used in Climate models:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

Here's what he had to say -

XXXX

Are you saying the 15th century was warmer than the present?

No, we are saying that the hockey stick graph used by IPCC provides no statistically significant information about how the current climate compares to that of the 15th century (and earlier). And notwithstanding that, to the extent readers consider the results informative, if a correct PC method and the unedited version of the Gaspé series are used, the graph used by the IPCC to measure the average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere shows values in the 15th century exceed those at the end of the 20th century.

Does your work disprove global warming?

We have not made such a claim. There is considerable evidence that in many locations the late 20th century was generally warmer than the mid-19th century. However, there is also considerable evidence that in parts of the Northern Hemisphere, the mid-19th century was exceptionally cold. We think that a more interesting issue is whether the late 20th century was warmer than periods of similar length in the 11th century. We ourselves do not opine on this matter, other than to say that the MBH results relied upon so heavily by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2001 report are invalid.

Who paid for your research?

We have neither sought nor received funding for this work. For McKitrick, undertaking the project has required considerable time away from his own economics research. For McIntyre, undertaking this project has required an unpaid leave of absence from his career in mineral exploration financing, at the cost of over a yearâ€â„¢s foregone earnings so far.

XXXX

If you notice, they don't claim they know the answer. They are not denying GW but they are not advocating it either. This is just like the data, it can be interpreted either way.

Answer 4

"Global Warming" is natural. The globe warms and cools in natural cycles. The ice caps come and go every 5000-10000 years and have been for millions of years.

The problem is that many good scientists believe this cycle of warming is increasing faster and may go higher than in past cycles, and it is due to excess CO2 added to the air from burning fossil fuels.

Other good scientists do not agree with this theory. Some question the data and modeling used. Some question the assumptions used to make the projections. It is just like the different theories of how the world was born went on for many years, and they finally settled on the "Big Bang Theory", although that is still just a theory.

My understanding is that the globe is warming at about 1 degree avg. temperature every 100 years. It has been on a warming trend for hundreds of years. The question is, how high will it go this time? It will have little effect on us, but what we do can effect future generations lives, so we need to really understand this.

Answer 5

The answer to this question is still being debated by scientists. No one knows for sure what is causing global warming. We only know that it is happening.

Some people suspect that humans alone are the source of the problem. Us emitting so much pollutants into the atmosphere is creating a more intense than normal greenhouse effect for the planet's atmosphere.

Other people say that the earth naturally goes through periods of hot and cold (like how the Ice Age came and went).

Other people think its a combination of the two.

Answer 6

Check your history books, Internet and alternative news magazines like Nexus. Man has not made any significant impact on climate change since we first learnt how to make fire. Did you know that the Thames river in England has frozen ( possibly in the 1800's) over not that long back? There is reports of 'Frost Fairs' and Ice skating held on it. The Viking explores gave Greenland it's name because they were able to settle and produce agriculture on it, and yet now it is frozen. In the time of the kings Henry the 7th & 8th, there was a ship building yard 10 miles inland from the ocean, where they built huge wooden ships. The english archeolagical show Time Team has proven this. The latest information that the United nations have been given, has information that showed that climate change is a natural occurance has been removed.

But, having said all this. It would not hurt to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. We should be driving vehicles that reach 113mpg instead of an 2004 EPA average of 21mpg ( which is worse than when Henry Ford brought out his 1908 Model T Ford with 25mpg). The technology is there, but Opec & the Oil companys will not release it.

Answer 7

Well, that's what is still being discussed, how much is man-made, how much is produced by nature, and what if anything humans can do about it. Human activity has changed the surface and the atmosphere of the planet extremely and we certainly do feel the effects of these changes both locally and globally. So, NOPE, people most certainly have had something to do with the global warming of the planet.

All I can say is,"If something major can be done to stop global warming, and we don't do it, we're going to look like we have a real lack of intelligence when our world goes down the tubes, and we could have done something about it.

I just offered an answer to another Y! answers question about something big industry is doing to counterract global warming. Here is the link:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070731124125AApokzb&r=w#QsYvCzboUDdEpGVYIxsSETOd0V4ZxYnLQ5vROur5PirmPoS3Gb8K

Answer 8

Earth is cyclic. Everything runs on a cycle here on this planet. Who knows if this crazy weather and melting ice caps didn't happen 50 million years ago... no one was taking records back then.

To be politically correct, you must adhere to the global warming-greenhouse effect theory. You will get crucified if you don't.

My thoughts on this tends to lean toward the idea that this is just another cycle in this unpredictable planet of ours. Let's not jump on the bandwagon of global warming because (yikes!) we've been wrong before.

Answer 9

Yes this is true. There is no such thing as a static climate. The climate is always changing, either warming or cooling.

The climate is a very complex subject with very little understanding on how it works. Not every variable is known at this time.

There is an equal chance that in 50 years the Earth will be warming or cooling. No one can predict what the future will be.

Answer 10

You will not find the answer to this here because of how loaded this question is. Scientists from all fields and experts in the matter are fighting over this daily. However, over 95% papers and scientific reports on that matter state that it is not nature alone. Of course nature has an effect, but people are causing natural processes to go haywire. I would not expect to find a consistent response *anywhere*. Do some research, read some papers, and read both arguments and decide for yourself. That's really the only way you'll be confident in this answer.