how are we so sure another variable isn't at work?

Question

in the 1970's, many scientists were under the impression that the weather would take a deep plunge, possibly casting us into yet another ice age. the exact opposite happened, because at the time they were not fully aware of how the climate worked. 30 years is not such a long time, how can we be so sure we're right this time?

p.s. i'm not saying we should assume global warming isn't real -- rather, i'm stating we have been wrong in the past. and even with "irrefutable evidence" or evidence that implies the current global warming trend is "very likely" caused by anthropogenic activities, we can't be certain there are unknown factors at work.

p.p.s. this is "DeusExMachina". i changed my name.

Answer 1

Right. I wish they could get a couple of predictions correct first, and show everyone how they came up with their answers.

The only proof they offer is that scientist say it's true so it must be.

For all anyone knows the Earth will be cooler 4 years from now.

Science should be more predictable than a flip of a coin.

Answer 2

One thing we can be sure of, the UN is known for lying, cheating stealing and blatant corruption. The hockey stick is not just fabricated based on temperature, it is also with CO2 as well.

http://www.wlym.com/~montreal/en/GoreCO2.html

Just like the diciples of the IPCC such as Bob, will lie about the past. This deception could possibly be out of arrogant ignorance, but I would rather be a denier than a liar.

Quote from the link below.

"
Dr. Stephen H. Schneider from
the National Center for Atmospheric
Research in Boulder, Colorado, claimed
that this pollution would soon reduce the
global temperature by 3.5°C.1 His
remarks were followed by more official
statements from the National Science
Board of the U.S. National Science
Foundation, ”. . .[T]he the present time of
high temperatures should be drawing to
an end . . . leading into the next glacial
age.” In 1974, the board observed,
“During the last 20 to 30 years, world
temperature has fallen, irregularly at first
but more sharply over the last decade.”2
"
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter2003-4/global_warming.pdf

Answer 3

First--scientists in the 1970s did not have the tools we have now--and DID NOT predict "that we were headed for another Ice Age." That particular bit of nonsense--promoted by the oil companies, refers to a number o fpopular science articles published in magazines like Newsweek. They were speculative articles and talked about the possibility that Earths climate could change in the future,jsut as it had in the past. Its only the so-called "skeptics" who can't tell the difference between a speculative pop science article and actual science.

As for how we know there's no othervariable at work--that comes from the kind of tools and instruments available now--and didn't exist in the 1970's, BTW. In simple terms--therre is a net, measurable amoount of enrgy (heat) added to the Earth's atmosphere, oceans, etc. as a result of global warming. and we can also measure how much energy is trappped by CO2 increases. The figures match--closely enough that any other factors are minor.

Yu really should try reading legitimate science, instead of listening to the fake stuff put out by special interests. And ifyou DON'T think the "skeptic" BS is jsut propaganda--check out this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273692,00.html

Answer 4

"Many" other scientists didn't think the climate would take a plunge. It was just a few guys, with no good data, and no backing from any major scientific organization. They were, in fact, very much like the "skeptics" of today. More details about that:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

EDIT Here's the real story about what the National Science Foundation said at the time:

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html

END EDIT

This time is completely different. Most all scientists agree, there is tons of data, and every major scientific organization also agrees. There is simply no comparison.

Of course there could be other variables at work. But, since, greenhouse gases explain the observed data, why would you say "It's some mysterious other reason" with no data instead?

Good scientists don't do that, it's very much like saying the Earth is 6000 years old and fossils were created by a higher power "to test our faith". There's no possible refutation of that argument (if any evidence can be created, any evidence can be created), but it surely isn't science.

Unless you are VERY motivated to deny the reality of man made global warming. Very few people are. But "it's a mysterious unknown factor" is an argument they'd use. And that's just like "fossils were created to test our faith", ie not arguable scientifically.

Answer 5

i am told by numerous sources (as in more the 12 individuals and media sources) that the only scientists that are skeptics of the Global Warning (formerly known as warming) are in the United States, and are big supporters of the oil industry or are having their research funded by the oil companies. i am also told that ALL OTHER non US scientists uniformly agree that we are the main cause of what is going on with the climate.

to prove that another variable is NOT at work take a look at Charles David Keeling's work with CO2 emissions.
there has been ice core drilling done where measurements have been taken.
the interesting thing about the ice cores is that the CO2 emissions stayed around 275 ppm ("parts per million") (that's about 3%) for the entire span of 860,000 years. at the start of the HUMAN industrial revolution however emissions rose to 384 ppm and are still on the rise.

Answer 6

For starters, you're incorrect about the 1970s. That's simply a myth. Most scientists in fact did not make long-term predictions based on the short-term cooling:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/23/18534/222

Our understanding of climate change has improved leaps and bounds since then too. Now we've got the ability to model the global climate on computers pretty accurately, and these models show that human greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for 80-90% of the warming over the past 40 years:

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

We can be pretty sure there's not another variable at work because we know what the variables are. If we didn't, the computer models wouldn't fit the temperature measurements so accurately. If there were another significant variable that we weren't accounting for, the models would not be able to replicate anything close to the actual global climate changes. In fact, we know exactly why there was a cooling period from 1940-1970. It was due primarily to increased volcanic and human aerosol emissions, as you can see in the plot linked above.

Because there are so many variables already, it's remarkable that the fit is as good as it is.

Answer 7

Simple answer - we aren't sure and we can never be. We like to think we can explain everything but there is always that chance. Hardly anything is for certain, even in science. Even things like evolution are not certain. We can be 99.9999% sure, but then that fraction of a chance comes along and turns everything upside down. I could go on a philosophical rant right now, but I'll spare you.

Answer 8

That's what science is it starts out the best guess so far we have 2 best guesses cycles and co2 take your pick . Me myself cant help but feel there's more to it then what we are being told or that we know for now.

Answer 9

We are not sure if we are right this time. Research is happening right now on stuff like that. Real or not real, i hope this nonsense will end with the right answer. Too many believing it and opposing it.

Answer 10

How dare you doubt the irrefutable word of the Church of Global Warming! Such speech should be silenced immediately for the good of mankind so that we can spend trillions of dollars a year on the global warming issue when people are starving in Africa.