The proponents of manmade global warming have consistently stated it's because of greenhouse gases.
To counter this claim skeptics have provided alternative explanations but they're forever changing. Recent explanations have included cosmic rays, the oceans, increased solar output, Pacific decadal oscillation, blackbody radiation etc. Could someone please let me know what the current explanation favoured by the skeptics is?
Each of the many explanations is, in it's own right, claimed to account for the recent warming and thus prove human activity isn't responsible. Assuming the skeptics are correct and they're not just coming up with anything that might sound plausible, shouldn't the planet be warming many times faster than it is?
2007-11-22
23:34:36
·
10 answers
·
asked by
Trevor
7
in
Environment
➔ Global Warming
RON C: Another good answer but again, key points are omitted. Your logic and reasoning are sound but it doesn't 'add up'. There are several skeptics who claim that all the current warming can be attributed to alternative factors and in many cases a single factor is cited as being the sole cause of the current warming. If these skeptics were correct then there would be many factors each responsible for the same level of warming that humans are supposed to be responsible for. It's true that doubling the forcings doesn't double the temperature rise but when equated, if the skeptics are correct with all their different explanations, then the world should be warming at least 7 times as fast as it is now (and possibly as much as 20 times as fast).
2007-11-29
04:37:03 ·
update #1
heeltap inadvertently quoted a similar question I asked yesterday. I asked how much of the recent warming has been due to human greenhouse gas emissions vs. other causes, and required that people provide evidence.
I received a total of 8 answers so far, only 1 of which (heeltap's) has provided any evidence. You're seeing the same result with your question - skeptics provide some nebulous theories like "natural causes" or "it's all of those things", but don't provide any numbers. Ron C links a couple of papers which we've already discussed before and which are far from convincing, but at least he tries.
The fact that the skeptics can't provide any hard numbers tells me that they're just doing what we called a 'core dump' when I was a teaching assistant. That's when you're taking a test and reach a question you don't really know the answer to. You see some key word in the question, and just dump out all the information you know which relates to that key word, hoping that somewhere in there you've got the right answer.
The skeptics are just dumping out every possible alternative theory they've heard, and hope that the answer to the current warming is in there. Climate scientists give us specific values and ranges of how much each forcing is responsible for. The quality of the arguments is incomparable. A 'core dump' doesn't get any points.
2007-11-23 03:38:44
·
answer #1
·
answered by Dana1981 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
The skeptics current explanation is a combination of natural climate variability and GHGs. Natural climate variability possibly includes all of the factors you have mentioned and maybe more. Climate is a result of a complex interaction of events. To look for just one driving factor is simplistic in the extreme.
Currently, the global warming alarmists use a back inferencing step in which any warming unexplained by the GCMs is attributed to GHGs. This is entirely bogus. It assumes a comprehensive knowledge of the climate which does not exist. The Schwartz study indicates the climate is not nearly as sensitive to CO2 as once thought.
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
You ask if the planet should not be warming many times faster and the answer is - not necessarily. Climate sensitivity is overestimated. And Roger Pielke has pointed out that the net feedbacks must be negative.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/03/19/climate-feedbacks-must-be-a-negative-effect-on-the-global-average-radiative-imbalance-if-the-ipcc-conclusion-of-anthropogenic-radiative-forcings-are-correct/
That leaves plenty of room for natural climate variability..
2007-11-23 10:45:00
·
answer #2
·
answered by Ron C 3
·
2⤊
4⤋
any current alternative explanation will not have anything like the body of evidence and peer-reviewed credibility that anthropogenic climate change has http://www.ipcc.ch
why can't people accept that we cannot live on a finite planet and continue to increase our consumption and pollution?
even if it is not climate change then peak oil, water shortage, soil errosion, deforestation ..... are enough reasons to shut up arguing and change our culture
http://www.greatturningtimes.org
2007-11-23 09:21:27
·
answer #3
·
answered by fred 6
·
5⤊
0⤋
Man-made global warming/climate change is proven fact. There is no "alternative explanation."
The delusions of some crackpots and/or propaganda from oil companies do not constitute an "alternative" to the facts.
2007-11-23 14:17:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
All the alternate guesses to what is causing global warming are actually the same: "natural causes". The data show that warming has happened before "Greenland" is not called "Glacierland". Don't discount the thousands of scientists that are now dubbed deniers. Read their arguments.
2007-11-23 09:21:02
·
answer #5
·
answered by jjprime 1
·
2⤊
4⤋
I think I've seen/heard most people say it's natural b/c we're coming out of an ice age.
2007-11-24 14:04:36
·
answer #6
·
answered by strpenta 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
There isn't one.
I don't see any evidence that global warming is cause entirely by nature.
2007-11-26 15:20:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by ♥ Pompey and The Red Devils! 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
you must ask bob, who is really an expert on this subject. hey where is BOB?
dont trust nasa-, dont trust hensen-did you go and see the ice samples drilled of 4,00,000 years? mind well they say what suits their ideas. the earth is a very very vast system. just take a walk across it and see how much time you take to complete the one round? 77% of earth is water. very little is occupied by human beings. co2 is just 0.02% in air.
2007-11-23 12:32:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋
with each rotation around the sun, the Earth moves closer to it, and it tilts a little more
2007-11-23 07:37:54
·
answer #9
·
answered by T Leeves 6
·
0⤊
5⤋
How much of the recent warming has been caused by humans?
I would like to see arguments regarding how much of the warming over the past 100, 50, and/or 30 years has been caused by humans, and how much has been caused by other factors.
Please provide evidence to support your argument. Answers which do not provide supporting evidence will not be answering my question, and thus will be violating the community guidelines and will be reported.
You are: heeltap Your Answer: Listen to Jim Hansen on the topic at http://www.tucradio.org/new.html...
Dr. James Hansen
THE THREAT TO THE PLANET
How can we avoid dangerous human-made climate change
Dr. James Hansen is one of the few scientists who have consistently warned that the impact that humans have on the climate is bringing about changes that are faster than we ever believed and may be irreversible if action is not taken now. Hansen is Director of the NASA Institute for Space Studies in New York City, and he teaches at Columbia. Since the late 1970s, he has worked on studies of the Earth's climate. He has run afoul of government censors since the 1980s. Repeatedly his testimony before Congress was suppressed or re-written.
Hansen says that the unprecedented and rising amounts of greenhouse gases added each year AND the speed at which we are altering the energy balance of the earth are completely out of the range of proven earth history of hundreds of thousands of years. Hansen fears that we may soon be reaching feedback mechanism or tipping points such as the melting of the ice sheets that has already begun on Greenland and West Antarctica.
In part one of this program Hansen gives a fascinating account of the earth's climate history, in part two he talks about solutions. Dr. Hansen's work - including the slide projections for this talk, can be found at < http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1>
For a broadcast quality mp3 version of Part ONE click HERE
For a broadcast quality mp3 version of Part TWO click HERE
For a PODCAST of Part ONE click HERE
For a PODCAST of Part TWO click HERE
Hansen will tell your the conclusions are based on the compositional and isotopic analysis of the tiny bubbles of gases from ancient atmospheres enclosed in ice core samples (columns or tubes of ice going back 400,000 yrs). The ice cores were obtained by drilling down through the ice of glaciers located in Greenland and Antarctica. The mountaintop glaciers have also been sampled ,like Kenya's Mount Kilimanjaro, and that data from those places backs up and confirms the data from Greenland and Antarctica.
The demagogues who claim GW evidence is fiction are for the most part people who quote as sources scientists paid by the industries who want to maintain the status quo as long as there is profit to be made selling fuels from fossil carbon fuels made from petroleum and coal. These energy sources are finite and eventually will run out. But as of right now, demand is beginning to outstrip existing reserves. That's why you see the incremental barrel of oil of 42 gallons priced at 100$/BBL. That price is telling us this: The reserves left to be found are marginal oil and coal fields and will not be brought to market fast enough to keep energy costs stable much less reduce them. The coal and oil industries know this but they, bottomline, only serve the interests of their investors(that the mantra of all megacorporations who rarely do more than pay lip service to social responsibilities we in as individual have. These corps do things only went given tax credits at taxpayer's expense. What's this to do with GW, you say? The changes that need to be made will not come fast enough from for-profit corporations making money selling and using coal and oil, and it must be the get, the people's government who compels them. and everyone else in the fossil fuel consumption chain including us "addicted-to-oil-&- cars" consumers, to do the right things to slow and reverse adverse global changes due to GW. Soon before we all turn this planet against us! I really wish people would listen to the experts who care about the truth and not personal profit.
Keep the faith ! Stay the course ! The scientific facts are against the amoral ne'er-do-wells disputing the reality of the GW problem, much as incompetent oil industry backer BUSH43 did for the last 7 years, posting misinformation in the environment categories.
(((This is not a personal attack on their person but on their positions and comments -and if reported and deleted will only let us know that YA is not committed to free speech and the concept of truth. I say this because I have seen Q's and A's on the subject of GW deleted when they should not have been. All who read this A should check back to verify its continued existence. And support by other A's agreeing with me would be appreciated.)))
It takes alot of effort to post these coherent and relevant A's to good Q's and I dislike, no hate ,seeing them censored by YAT deletion. Speaking truth to power matters more than the gaming features of the Q&A service provided by YAHOO who is supposed to be one of the good guys since they helped make the net better for individuals like me. I wonder if they still have that commitment? I know AOL doesn't and never did which is why they are dead to me. Yahoo does need to straighten up their act based on recent news articles. Or more people will be turning elsewhere.
Whoever said: "w/ each rotation(sic) around the sun, the Earth moves closer to it, & it tilts a little more", I know you meant to say "w/each revolution ". Would you or any anti-GW person espousing this as a factor to explain the recent increase in the last 10 yrs (I believe it's 0.8 degrees C) pls be more scientific and quantitative by telling us exactly by how many years or annual revolutions it would take to raise the the avg temp of the Earth 0.8 degrees Centigrade(1.4 degrees Fahrenheit). If the # of yrs is around 10, I would consider your explanation. I think you are right that the angular momentum of the Earth is decreasing and Earth's orbit is decreasing causing us to slowly move closer to the Sun causing some temperature increase but I need to know if that fact explains the magnitude of the temperature increase due to GW. Thanks!
Why do you think it was inadvertent, I thought your Q dovetailed with this Q nicely and wanted to link the Q's w/o getting deleted. FYI do you really think I act unconsciously when it comes to a life and d4eath issue like the green hous effect causing acute or chronic weather changes adverse for some and bad for others. The Darn Canadians and the Darn Russians can't wait to exploit the arctic ocean once the ice melts and the sea levels rise. Do you think either one really cares weather GW is manmade or not? (A totally rhetorical Q) Morality and cooperation stops at the door of selfish interests. Very Ayn Rand and ethically totally wrong and uncaring if you ask me!
2007-11-23 10:46:36
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋