Why is it "an eye roller" that humans are driving the current global warming?

Question

An oft-used AGW skeptic argument is that humans and SUVs weren't around hundreds of thousands of years ago to cause prior climate changes, therefore we can't be causing the current change.

Another skeptic recently commented that it's "an eye roller" to think that this is the first time climate change has been initiated by an "unnatural" cause (human GHG emissions).

The first argument is obviously illogical - the fact that humans have not caused climate change in the past does not mean we can't be causing it now.

The second argument puzzles me. The fact that our greenhouse gas emissions have been skyrocketing since the Inudstiral Revolution seems to me that they're a logical potential cause of the current climate change. The fact that according to natural cycles we should be in a cooling period right now, combined with the rapid acceleration in both human GHG emissions and global warming seems to make this an obvious candidate.

So why is this theory "an eye roller"?

Ron C - Milankovitch Cycles.

Answer 1

It's whatever you want it to be - as you pointed out already, the arguments advanced are illogical on their face. The whole thing's a bit "6 blind men and the elephant"-ish in that you can haggle over the details and accuracy of each part, but the entire structure sure looks like an elephant to me. Still, it's easier to do nothing if you can find a way to rationalize your inaction in some acceptable or even noble way.

Answer 2

>> The first argument is obviously illogical - the fact that humans have not caused climate change in the past does not mean we can't be causing it now. <<

So you believe the corelary is true? Since man has never caused climate change in the past, they must be causing it now? That is illogical.

>> The second argument puzzles me. The fact that our greenhouse gas emissions have been skyrocketing since the Inudstiral Revolution seems to me that they're a logical potential cause of the current climate change. <<

Potential? Yes, everything has "potential". Sky rocketed? I guess that's in the users opinion. Co2 has increased just 100 parts per million or just 0.001% That's like getting a $1/yr increase on your salary of $100,000/yr. I don't think anyone would say you got a sky rocketing raise.

Sigh - roll eyes!

Answer 3

What makes you say we should be in a cooling period right now?

Solar activity only started to decline recently and it is on an 11 cycle. Same with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and it is on a 30 to 40 year cycle. Natural climate variation has been on a warming trend until this year.

I predict 2007 will be end up being cooler than 2006, 2008 will be cooler than 2007 and 2009 will be cooler than 2008 (unless we have a strong El Nino).

I'm not saying CO2 is not playing any role at all. I just think it is getting way too much credit.

Answer 4

I don't know why I bother with you, perhaps it may be that your skull material maybe comprised of some substance that is harder than any known element on the periodic table and I enjoy a challenge.

The glaciers were growing during the little ice age, there are many documented examples of this. The world warmed and the glaciers began retreating again. There is no evidence that this retreat was triggered by humanities modification of the atmosphere. The very powerful Albedo change associated with natural warming has not been compensated for in climate models. In fact glaciers have been retreating for 10,000 years, and the world absorbs more solar energy everyday because of it, it is called positive feedback, as you know.

Is there really an understanding of Earths climate well enough to model it, and project it decades into the future, I don't believe so, and neither do many climatologists. When water evaporates from the surface and later condenses and precipitates in the mid troposphere, is that a heat transfer mechanism? Of course it is. Do we have any idea how much of earths energy budget is managed by such a process? no we don't. Do we know much of Earth's energy budget is managed by convection and conduction? No we do not.

Is there an understanding of the Earths ocean heat retention capabilities and an understanding of the time frame of it's regulation of our climate? no there is not. Has an objective study been carried out about the effects of the powerfull El-Nino's and their effect on surface temperatures over the last 50 years? If so has it been modeled and the biased removed from the surface temperature record to indicate the true nature of the surface temperature record? No it has not.

Those are the major things that cause my eyes to roll.

.
.

Answer 5

Shoot every time I get on GW is getting bigger and bigger it's rolling backward in time, causing earthquakes and volcanoes
no end of calamity.
Not to worry now though seems there is a phsycic scientist consensus on the end times, 2012. From Nostradamus to Edgar Cacey and the Mayans and the Hopi. Boy we are really screwed now GW is chump change.

Well said MRJS, damn well said give this fellow a star

Answer 6

Because there's too much political and economic agenda in the debate. It's more than reasonable to be skeptical.

We've been harped on about global warming for years. For a lot of people, proponents of GW are just simply trying to push their agenda. The politicians especially.

And businessmen who agree with it simply pay lip service to improve the image of their business.

It's "an eye roller" because many disasters predicted never came true, we hear about it all the time, and politicians and many others are just pushing an agenda.

Answer 7

Because, even if humans are the cause - we aren't powerful or knowledgeable enough to stop it. And, I, for one, am darned tired of being beaten over the head with all the theories that say we humans are bad for the earth, when as a group, we may be, but as individuals we aren't.
I would like somebody to prove to me that fire, volcanoes, and other natural events do not, pound for pound, emit more hydrocarbons than we or our machines do.

Answer 8

I'm willing to let the skeptics be.

There's always a contingent who refuse to believe something even after being hit over the head with it.

Some folks are horrified by the truth, so they choose to deny it.

Some folks think us humans are totally inconsequential and couldn't possibly effect this planet.

Some folks just choose whatever answer they want and stick with it without any basis whatsoever.

Some folks only see the square box that is their home. They don't see a sphere floating in space. They don't see molten magma 40 miles down. They don't see an incredibly thin atmosphere keeping us alive. That's understandable, especially since most of us live indoors.

Some folks automatically want to debunk anything they hear. Debunking is a natural reaction for some.

The good news is, we need these folks. If we didn't have them, scientists, politicians, and others could easily scare us into doing whatever they want.

Sooner or later, events and time make the truth surface and becomes universal to all. In this case, I don't think we're in a rush to prove the debunkers wrong.