What do the proponents of global warming consider normal climate change?

Question

The climate has gone up and down for billions of years.
It's been much hotter and much colder.
The temperature has gone up and down slower and faster.
There has been much more and much less CO2 in the atmosphere.
Other planets in the solar system are changing at the same rate as earth.

Why is it any different now?
Is it because humans exsist?

It seems that the so called environ"MENTAL" crowd would be behind global warming if it's going to be as bad as they say. All of the catastrophy that they claim will happen will only result in a reduction of population, a key component in there argument to stop global warming.

And if the debate is over, do the proponents of global warming understand they have lost?

Answer 1

Yes, we don't have to go back too far to find warmer times:

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N50/C1.jsp

A large body of data makes it pretty clear that the greatest extent of the Larsen ice shelf during the current interglacial likely occurred only a few hundred years ago, and that the portions of it that recently disintegrated (Larsen-A and Larsen-B) were probably created about that same time. In addition, it would appear that some 2000 years ago the Larsen-A and B ice shelves likely were altogether absent, and that temperatures of that time were likely as warm as, or even warmer than, they have been recently. Furthermore, there was approximately 100 ppm less CO2 in the air of that time than there is in the air of today; and this fact suggests that something other than anthropogenic CO2 emissions was the cause of the earlier "balmy" conditions of northeast Antarctica, which implies that that same something else, or something different yet, could well be responsible for the current warmth of the region.

This contradicts just how warm it got during the last 1000 years as well as how cold it got. Alarmists love to downplay the Medieval Warming Period as well as the Little Ice Age, claiming that these were relatively local phenomena, limited primarily to Europe or the Northern Hemisphere. This study suggests that not only was it warmer prior to the LIA, but that LIA was significant in the Southern Hemisphere, apparently colder than at any time during the last 6000 years.

And folks wonder why many think Mann's hockeystick is rubbish...

Answer 2

Don't worry about it. If you wait 10 minutes give or take a decade, these exact same people will be warning us about global cooling like they did 30 years ago.

One question you forgot to ask is what is the normal temperature of the earth? Until someone can prove what that is, how do we know the earth is warming? Maybe we are just going back to the normal temperature.

Answer 3

You =don't= freaking say. The climate has changed before in the =past=? =Thank you= for this =new= and =exciting= information. I was previously =unaware= that the climate had ever been any different than it is =now=. Why, that just blows the whole theory into the water, doesn't it? How can humans possibly affect the climate if it can change =without= us? Why, that logic seems laughably =obvious= now that I know the truth. I think you better contact NASA with this discovery, because I bet all those thousands of climate scientists studying anthropogenic climate change didn't know this either. /sarcasm.

Answer 4

While your points are both interesting and correct, you are confusing a factual argument based on science (yours) with a political argument (the proponents of human induced global warming). The two arguments are incapable.

If you are going to debate with these individuals, understand that it is a loosing proposition (for you) since they don't use facts and are dealing only with wishes and feelings that change by the hour. Paul Urlich is an excellent example in that none of his predictions (for over 40 years have ever been correct. Being wrong in their predictions has no impact on their position and ludite followers, the reason is that they don't care about climate and only using that issue to gain political control through misuse of governmental power.

Like the changing climate itself, these flatlander proponents change with the shisp of the wind.

Answer 5

Your question is long on your personal opinion and short on facts. Whys should anyone believe your opinion, instead of real facts?

"The climate has gone up and down for billions of years. It's been much hotter and much colder."

Sure, but the scientific data proves the present warming is not natural, but is 80-90% due to man made greenhouse gases.

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

Other theories simply don't work. The numbers come out wrong, and don't match the observed data. Yes there have been natural changes before. But the scientific data clearly proves this particular change is not natural. Which is why the vast majority of scientists agree on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The consequences of not doing anything are serious:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL052735320070407
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf

But there is an affordable and practical plan to reduce it and avoid the most serious effects:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,481085,00.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf

"There has been much more and much less CO2 in the atmosphere."

And coastlines have been very different. The cost of the coast moving even a mile farther inland is hundreds of billions of dollars. We're not primitive people who can just pick up and move their tent, and hunt in a different location.

"Other planets in the solar system are changing at the same rate as earth."

Some, not all. And for different reasons. Proof:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html

You're going to have to tell most all the scientists in the world they've "lost". They don't think so:

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

The deniers are losing, fast.


Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 6

-the earth is very different today than 1.2 billion years ago, when animals didn't exist.

- and it's been much hotter due to orbital cycles which change the temperature slowly and the greenhouse effect, which increases temp rapidly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

- increased greenhouse effect has occurred before, during mass extinction events. Today there is no extreme volcanic activity, no spewing co2, no methane clathrate decomposition. Only one source is known with 100% certainty: Human Activity.

- false, they are not changing at the same rate, and not every planet is getting warmer, some are cooling, others are not changing at all, ruling out a solar connection. Changing at the same rate would be impossible anyway, since their atmospheres and orbitals are so much different.

for example warming on mars:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast16jul_1.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html

and of course, 30 years ago direct solar measurements began using satellites, and they indicate that solar activity has decreased very slightly:

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png

Answer 7

Your insults don't speak well for your arguments.
The difference between natural factors and man made is their origin. Natural forcing is pretty much down to solar cycles, orbital cycles, and volcanoes. These natural cycles in turn effect the environment. For instance, the temperature rise historically, has effected large deposits of CO2 which have acted as an amplifier to the original forcing.
Currently, humans emit green house gases, which heats the climate, without a prior rise in temperature, IE natural cycles.
We also reduce forests which absorb CO2.

So, natural cycles are those not induced by human activities. In prior times of massive global warming there has been mass extinctions. I am talking about 50% of all species. The current trend is estimated to make 20 - 30% of all species extince by 2100. This is why we should act now, not let some companies make profit while we all have to pay for it. It will be much more expensive to try to 'deal with the consequences' then preemptive methods are.

And to all the 'bright' skeptics that have posted here, you're arguments show a lack of understanding of scientific facts, and an absense of said facts. But what could one expect, since they all show you to be wrong. :)

Gaby -
Lol, another lying AGW skeptic. Here is the actual temperature changes in the US for the period 1977 - 2007. (30 years) from the U.S. National Climatic Data Center. On average,(1895 - 2007) the temperature increases with 0.1 degrees per decade in the U.S. During the last 30 years temperatures in the U.S. has increased by 0.77 F per decade, or 2.31 F in total.
http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/hr-display3.pl

Answer 8

See CO2 science.org. Isn't it strange that the average temperature in the US has not increased in over 30 years??

Also see http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051607.htmAlso see

Answer 9

no, the debate isn't over for sevral reasons:

they don't need ALL the facts, just the ones that work for them.

you'll never win. because they are "smarter" and "care more" than you.

some people are just suckers and will fall for anything w/o searching for themselves.

other people just want to believe the worst, doom and gloom.

and yet to others, this is their religion. it CAN'T be wrong. and what ever it takes to promote it, they use.

in reality, just like global cooling, global warming will never occur either.

Answer 10

If it wasn't warming, they would be complaining about man made global cooling, manufacturing facts to support their cause.

Now that Y2K is over, alarmist need to panic over something.