Looking for credible science that supports global warming is a natural phenomenom?

Answer 1

How predictable. Half a dozen answers, including two by diehard skeptics, and NOT ONE citation of a peer-reviewed paper. Not one.

Harry the Hat, bless his soul, cites two news articles about papers that have not passed peer-review, one discussion group with anonymous contributors (how's that for credibility?), a NASA webpage that's 10 years old, and a political site (more credibility just oozing to get out).

By way of contrast, the most recent IPCC report cites over 4600 peer-reviewed papers. Those on the skeptical side are looking more and more like flat-earthers and creationists.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Answer 2

That's a very reasonable question. We can use science to show what role nature plays in global warming. We can illustrate how the world has warmed and cooled in the past as a result of natural events.

We can also use science to show that the world is currently in a natural warming phase but when we do that it shows a marked difference between the warming we're actually experiencing and the warming that is occuring naturally. It's this difference which is manmade (or anthropogenic) global warming.

The primary natural factors are the cycles that the Earth and Sun go through. There's several of them and they're somewhat complicated. Put your astrodynamicists hat on and do a search for 'Milankovitch Cycles', 'Orbital Inclination' and 'Solar Variation'.

Here's some pages from Wikipedia as a starting point...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_%28astronomy%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_forcing

Answer 3

The problem with the theories that this is a natural cycle is they don't work. The numbers don't come out right.

Theories that say 80-90% of the problem is man made greenhouse gases do work. Here's one example, from the Source below:

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

The inability of natural theories to match the observed data is the reason why the vast majority of scientists think global warming is mostly man made. The key word in this quote is "quantitative" (numerically correct):

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

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 4

Well if you want scientific peer reviewed papers, they can be found in University libraries. I know a physicist who is collecting these with the intention of putting them up on the web. Until that time, you can check out these sites:

a physics site

http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html

a physics discussion group

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=45839

NASA page

http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

the science daily

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010615071248.htm

a political site (sorry but right now this is where much information is coming out from right now)

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/3299

There is no money for showing global warming to be anything but man made. So much of what you see on the web is from political groups (who really don't understand the science and inadvertently discredit the scientific debate)or the voluntary work of scientists. More scientists are coming out and volunteering to do the work for free because of concern that there is no debate in GW. So there may be more information on the internet at some point.

Answer 5

you wont find one..... let me explain something about Milankovitch Cycles....

These are what dictates what climate will be doing. Milankovitch cycles are essentially changes in earth's tilt, changes in the shape of the orbit, and wobbles on the axis which effect climate accordingly....these cycles are seen throughout history with surprising accuracy on 20,000..40k, 100k, 200k, and 400k. Each one can be pinpointed to a climatic shift. What is scary is that we are going through one of these now...we are ending a 20,000 WARM cycle which was interglacial (melting polar ice caps). We SHOULD BE COOLING RIGHT NOW, but we are warming. it doesnt matter if its warming a lot or a little we are still doing the opposite of these natural cycles....

there ARE natural cycles, its true, but right now we are so far from that its scary. Milankovitch cycles are the natural climate processes what we are doing isnt natural and we are going to pay for it someday

Answer 6

Good luck, there isn't any:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_SPM-v2.pdf

Or more accurately, global warming is a natural phenomenon, but the current global warming is not. It's 80-90% caused by humans. Here's a graph showing that global warming has happened in the past without human intervention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

But notice that we're in the middle of a warm period right now, so global warming shouldn't be accelerating like it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Answer 7

New York used to buried under a mile of ice. Why did it melt? You got it.....Global warming. It happens.

Answer 8

Use a camcorder to capture an ice cube melting in a cup of water that's been sitting outside for 3 days. That's like global warming dude. Don't let the man tell you anthing else.

Answer 9

It's not that natural warming needs to be proved, it's the lengths of the fraud of those who say "global warming" is man made that should trigger one to be skeptical of any claims.

From Mann's "peer reviewed" phony hockey stick, to Algores enhanced computer graphics of climate change, to Dr. Hawkins claims that Earth will soon be 450Deg and raining sulfur, from Dr. James Hansen taking money to endorse John Kerry's presidential campaign, one needs to question science and hold it accountable.

No one questions the speed of light, because almost anyone can show that the calculations are correct. No one can predict if global warming is real or not. For all anyone knows, it could be 15 deg cooler in 5 years.

We need to hold climatologist accountable, and keep their feet to the fire. I'm sure this is uncomfortable for them, and they would rather we just accept anything they say.

Next we should take the money out of the equasion and see if these scientist come to the same conclusions.

Answer 10

I haven't seen any. There are contributors but nothing that solely can explain the seen results.

Lol, Mr Jello,

I knew you, or some other skeptic, would desperately refuse to provide evidence that support what you say, or even claim that you don't have to be able to back up your claims. You not only lack proof but also refuse to listen to when it's provided to you. You don't listen, you refuse to learn, and continually ignore them when they are presented to you. You post distortions of the truth and you come and try to lay the burden of proof solely on those opposing your views? You can never have participated in a debate course.