How can you argue that the current global warming is part of a natural cycle?

Question

The most frequent alternative explanation people offer for the current warming goes like this:

'The planet has warmed before. There were no humans or SUVs around then. Therefore, the current warming is just a natural cycle'.

Ignoring the logical fallacies with this argument, let's just look at the data. Here is a graph showing the natural (Milankovitch) cycles of the Earth:

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

Notice that these cycles occur over thousands of years, not rapid changes over a few decades or centuries. On top of that:

"An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that 'Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.'"

Considering this evidence, do you agree that the current warming is not due to natural cycles?

Brian - I'm still waiting for evidence that SCIENTISTS (not the media) warned of an impending ice age in the 1970s. Here's evidence they didn't:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/23/18534/222
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

As for the logical fallacies, check out Crabby's answer to this question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ai1HOU0iXKM5_iQhqhdFzrbsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071012113950AAbTf6b

captain - I have a Master's degree in physics. You probably should have read my profile before making such a stupid claim. Way to stick your foot in your mouth.

Alpha Male - I wish I had room to correct all the errors in your claims. I will point out that meteorology (the study of weather) is entirely different from climatology (the study of climate). In fact, meteorologists take zero climate science classes.

Answer 1

Global warming IS a natural cycle that continues over tens of thousands of years. Polar ice caps melt; weather patterns change. The issue is not that global warming is, or isn't, a natural process; the issue is that mankind has - in the past 150 years since the start of the Industrial Revolution - has changed the natural cycle of things, which means that humans, plants and animals can't adapt naturally to those changes over centuries. Instead, we are faced with serious 'immediate' changes that will impact on the very lives of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. There will not be sufficient clean water or air; the rain forests and mangrove forests will be all but depleted; and the oceans will become void. -RKO- 10/12/07

Answer 2

I'm certainly not an expert but I do try to keep up with new information on this issue. So here's my laymans term answer as I understand it:
According to this program I saw on the history channel, they had some evidence that PART of global warming is due to a natural cycle. However, they said on this program that humans can take part of the blame and certainly are contributing, but some of it has to do with the sun.

As you probably know, the sun rotates as it spins. Certain areas of the sun have more solar flares. The sun is rotating to the point where it is approaching the area where solar flares are really bad and this side of the sun is directly facing the earth. This section of the sun has not been exposed to the earth for over a hundred years. The last time this occured back in the late 1800s, you'll read about the hard winters, floods and droughts that made history.
These solar flares can actually reach into our atmosphere and cause warming of gases, or global warming which effects our weather.

Again, humans ARE NOT off the hook, but they are not totally to blame. Can they help by cutting back on emissions? Most certainly.
Great question!

Answer 3

I agree that the world is definitely warming and I agree that humans are if not solely responsible, then at least aggrivating the situation.

I do wonder, however, if any of this is part of a natural cycle. When the ice sheets receeded about 10,000 years ago or so, we have been in a gradual warming period called an "interglacial". But geologic processes will take 1000s of years before they are completed, so I agree with your conclusions that it couldn't happen this fast. Perhaps though, once the climate reaches a certain point, it will begin to "tip". Once the temperatures move past that 1 degree mark between ice and liquid, things would happen fast. If a slow period of warming was accelerated right near the point where tempertatures are close to the freezing level of water, it would make serious problems such as ice caps melting, cities flooding, etc. There is a theory in evolution called "Punctuated Equilibrium" where things remain the same for a long time, then change suddenly (in geologic time) through some external factors. Even still, it wouldn't happen this rapidly. Life is not like the movie "The Day After Tomorrow".

My favorite method of debunking the right wing/corporate propaganda that denies climate change is this simple question: Why would the progressive movement and the scientific community make up a hoax like climate change? What could they possibly have to gain by making people switch away from oil to fuel cars, aside from less smog and less interest in middle east affairs? It is sad how powerful people and corporations can twart the will of the global community.

It is quite clear that the deceit is coming from the right on this issue because they are trying to maintain the oil status quo and to keep US automakers afloat by selling more SUV's since few Americans buy US made sedans anymore. There are powerful people with a lot to lose if the status quo on energy is disrupted.

Answer 4

Yes, I too have seen both movies "An Inconvenient Truth" and "The Great Global Warming Swindle" I have them both on DVD in fact. Climate Change is part of a natural process, there is far too much evidence that exists now showing CO2 has little or no effect on climate - which means that climate change MUST be caused by something else. However, it seems that Global Warming believers continue to change their story, attack those with another scientific theory or continue to use the dis-proved "hokey stick graph" creating alarmist reactions in the community. I suspect someone is getting very rich from this climate change "scare campaign" because the science simply doesn't add up. The climate is constantly changing on it's own through solar activity, cloud cover and water vapour, CO2 doesn't even rate a mention. Human involvement in climate change is minimal (almost non existent) and I fear that any unproven knee-jerk changes to what little emissions we DO create could bring disastrous effects (worse than those in Al Gore's movie). Incidentally, the High Court in the UK has determined that before any screening of the Al Gore movie in schools there, a disclaimer must be issued. The movie was found to contain exaggerated claims, unreasonable scare tactics and incorrect data according to the IPCC.

Answer 5

You can't judge whether or not this warming is caused by humans based on only about 100 years of weather observation, most of it with primitive instruments. The earth has been in a warming trend since the age of the last Ice Age. As far as I know there were only a few scientists who thought that we were entering a cooling cycle, and the main scientist who thought that now believes that the earth is warming.

No one can prove that mankind has hastened the global warming trend, but it would be prudent to lower greenhouse emissions using methods that will not dampen economic growth. There are many easy ways to lower the production of greenhouse gasses. Save Energy Organization – http://www.energyhog.com

Answer 6

There will be no getting through to you with any answer given, since you're a self-proclaimed expert (physicist) and have already decided that the roughly 2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere that can be accurately attributed to anthropogenic sources is causing the warming.

Considering there is NO conclusive 'evidence' that the warming has anything at all to DO with CO2... and that this is sheer speculation as it is one of the POSSIBLE causes... and the fact that political figures are declaring the debate 'over' (of course, because they know they cannot win it with no evidence)...

I'd say there's a truth to 'where there's smoke, there's fire'

OK... so what is the motive for, say, Al Gore to say what he says?
Money.
Lots of it.
And a Nobel Peace Prize
And the prestige he lost when he lost the election.

Even the scientists he quoted in his film admit his depiction is greatly exaggerated, depending on warming to continue unchanged for millennia for water levels to rise that much.
PLEASE!
If there's one word that can describe the weather and ecosystem here on Earth, it's DYNAMIC.
Nothing stays the same that long.

Global Warming has become a religion and if you speak out against the 'accepted vilification of man as the culprit' you're a heretic.
After all... to suggest it's merely solar output being higher coupled with our position in our orbit... well, there's just no money to be made on that.
Can we sell 'Solar Offsets'?

And scientists go along with it often to avoid being fired or losing their funding.
Too bad so many are finally speaking out... otherwise those people would have been able to go on forever making money off human ignorance.

I'm amazed a Physicist is fooled by this crap.

Answer 7

What a sticky wicket this issue has become.
The "evidence" has been admittedly "enhanced" (Al Gore quote, to illustrate his belief in the immediacy of this alleged problem) - a lot of the "scientific surveys and poles" have involved people who are directly involved recipients of any funding for this research. These examples of the 'muddying' of this issue and the scientific, opposing views do not make it any easier to draw a firm conclusion - by anyone.
Best if this issue could remain in the scientific communities where it can be further analyzed and studied rather than in the political arena where the special interest groups and lobbyists run the show.
In my opinion, it seems rather naive to assume that we can spew millions of tons of CO, CO2 and other pollutants into the air annually and not have some kind of effect on the environment.

Answer 8

Considering the evidence that has been in the scientific and education community ALL MY LIFE, I agree that the current warming is not due to natural cycles. The people think the whole thing is just a publicity stunt thought up by Al Gore (mostly these people are Republican Americans and sadly, Conservative Canadians, who as Canadians just plain ought to know better, shame on you for ignoring your superior education) are living a life of blind luxury. Humans have caused major changes in weather patterns due to the emmision of hot toxic gasses. Not counting the poison position just yet the heat that rises from the smoke stacks actually causes a shift in the air streams which in turn causes a shift in natural weather patterns and POOF there are TORNADOS in NEW BRUNSWICK!!! Just a small example of clear fact.

As I have said in another answer...Jeese Louise People! How fricken hard is it to accept that toxic exhaust is a contributing factor to global warming? The pomposity of some humans to believe that they are masters not messers of the planet just blows me away.

If you place one drop of motor oil into your drinking water is it still safe to drink? If the room is full of fumes from your car is the air still safe for your child? If you answered no to either of those questions and yet don't believe that humans are responsible for pollution caused climate change then you never will. Your future is set so you better start storing up the oxygen tanks you'll need in a few years...or you can just wait til the rapture takes you bodily to the pearly gates.

Poor Mother Nature...if I was as infested with vermin as she is I'd be scratching and washing as many off me as possible too!

I suppose someone has to be "shot" for bringing the message so why not Gore ...it is clear that many people are convinced that he just made up this **** last year because he nothing else going on... Talk about your ill-informed freaks....

I hate that I lose faith in the overall intelligence of the species.

Answer 9

This is a subject with a lot of moving parts, though there's no doubt now that we're experianceing a major climate change...not just 'global warming'. The summers are getting longer and the winters shorter. The summers are getting slightly warmer and the winters 'less cold'. That may not amount to much if there were no people in the world, but there are billions of people that will be effected. To the degree that man-made pollutants and heat generation tips the balance it only makes sense to stop producing pollutants and stop generating so much heat. I believe that even the rabid anti-warming bunch is gradually coming around on this issue....of course having insight into a problem isn't the cure...only the 'cure' is the cure and that may be a long time coming...hopefully we'll have enough time..if not......bad news!

Answer 10

The study you cite is almost 30 years old, so it doesn't contain the most current data.

Also, the study begins with the phrase "ignoring antrhopogenic and other possible sources of variation".
Which sources did they choose to ignore?
What if those sources, if included, would lead to different conclusions, hm?

Consider the fact that one major volcanic eruption can change global temperatures by 2 degrees in the course of a year. All human activity changes averages temperatures much less than that, so we don't even have as much effect as one large volcano.

Finally, where are the climate models that show the planetary climate changes in a world that does not contain humans? If there is no "control" in your experiment, then your conclusions are not scientific.