Do you think the current global warming is simply a natural cycle?

Question

If so, do you have any evidence to support it?

Saying "the climate changed naturally in the past before there were humans and SUVs" is not proof that the current warming is also natural.

I would like a person who thinks the current global warming is part of a natural cycle to scientifically analyze the Earth's natural cycles and provide any evidence whatsoever that this is true. Tell us how frequently the natural cycle changes, what part of the cycle we're in, and how fast the temperature should be changing based on this or these natural cycle(s).

In other words, if there's a cycle which has a period of 1,000 years, then show me the cycle and what effect it should be having on our current global temperature.

Or if you believe the current warming is not part of a natural cycle, feel free to support that conclusion as well.

Either way, provide evidence to support your answer. The answer with the best scientific evidence wins 'best answer'.

Jello - in the future you might want to include data that supports your argument, not data that disproves it.

Jello - re-read the question. The second sentence in particular applies to you.

J.J. - I also refer you to the second sentence of the question. Saying that climate changed naturally in the past proves absolutely nothing.

Tomcat - I refer you to this discussion:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjGTDrbTibRPhksYMyImqw4jzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20071031092849AAVfD27

J.J. - yes fine, if you're completely ignorant about global warming, past climate changes tell you that there are other factors besides humans impacting the climate.

If you know anything whatsoever about the subject, this is not news, and therefore proves nothing.

Answer 1

One just has to look at the Vostok Ice core data to see that the Earth does indeed go through natural cycles, that we are at a top of the cycle now, and that co2 lags temps by some 800 years.

[Edit] Wow! First you ask if so called global warming is a cycle. I show you proof that the Earths climate does in fact change very naturally. From this you state that I don't prove my case, that the Earth does not have natural cycles.

Nothing like selective science, huh Dana?

Answer 2

Since we cannot use the past then I will just use the las 150 yrs. Well if you look at charts posted by NASA or the Danish space observatory. You will see a nice correlation between the sun and air temps from 1850 to 1980, now that is fact. So basically you know the sun played a major role in the earth's climate for those 130 years. That is undeniable. So your basically talking about from 1980 to present. Well you have the Lockwood/Frohlich paper that says the sun diminished around 1985 and cannot account for the warming from then until present. Then you have Nir Shaviv paper saying that the sun did lose some punch but is still playing a role due to cosmic ray influx theory. More sun activity equals less cloud cover. Which is a valid argument. Also the sun unusually high output over the 20th century creates a lag time of temperature. So even if the sun's output dies down the temperature will continue to rise before going back down. There is a two year lag between the sun's output and global temperatures. This lag time is due to the ocean cooling and heating at a much slower pace than landmasses. Which is a very good theory if you ask me. It is just as valid as the Co2 theory if not more. Either way they are both theories and not fact. So time will tell which is right. If the temps cool down within the next 20-30 yrs then we know who is right. Also who's temperature curve is right about the Medieval warming period, mann's or everybody elses. That's a good one. So the MWP was warmer than now or not. So in a sense it is really hard to say who is right when you have multiple amounts of data flying every which way.

Answer 3

Can you provide me with an equation that describes what the average temperature should be as a function of time? That is, for a time frame of at least 3 million years.

In that equation, can you prove that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary component/driver of climate change? Can you show the data used in the computation? What caused the Roman Warm period, The Dark Ages Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age? How is it that the climate changed while major oil production and use didn't even start until after the Civil War?

I'm not talking about a "Bob" time frame of 10,000 years, but something like an Earth time frame of 4 billion years. Do not give me Bob crap! I want science! No BS about how the current Admiral of The Hungarian Navy thinks global warming is "REAL".

You fail to realize that Earth's temperature has changed at least +5 to -10 degrees C from our current temperature in the last 1 million years, while claiming that the only component that can change Earth's temperature is anthropogenic CO2 . This is clearly an absurd result drawn from a series of flawed assumptions.

Answer 4

Jeepers mister, you're trying to be very specific. Why don't you be that specific with your sources.

Even NASA concedes that the "Earth is a complex, dynamic system not yet fully understood. The Earth system, like the human body, is comprised of diverse components that interact in complex ways. We need to understand the Earth's
atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, and biosphere as a single connected system."
http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/

Would we dare rule out that the earth doesn't go through cycles, that the sun doesn't play a significant role on the earth's climate, or think that we know enough to make decisions that have serious political and economic impacts?

Your question seems to rule out any cycles that may exist with the earth's temperature. How about you show me that the earth's climate was unchanging in the past.

Edit--Dana, of course past climate change proves something. It proves that there are other forces that can cause the climate to change besides people. Perhaps you didn't read the NASA quote. It's amazing to me that people will jump to conclusions about the climate when there is so much to learn.

Answer 5

Yes, the global warming and global cooling are both natural cycles. The last ice age ended approx. 10,000 years ago, and we have been in a warming period (interglacial) since then. Many, many factors contribute to global weather change and all of these things may be found in any book on climatology, whether a text book, or a young persons book in a local library. You need to read up on this subject. Every book I've read has stated very clearly the facts and reasons behind chimate changes throughout history.

Answer 6

Can you prove it is not. When ever a theory is proposed that claims a deviation from natural events, the burden of proof is on those who propose the theory. This should be clear if you understand the very basis of science and the scientific method. So, what is your proof that the current warming trend is not part of the natural cycle. Please be aware that legitimate proof must be quantitative in nature and must also involve rigorous statistical analysis. Anything else is just noise in a scientific discussion.

Answer 7

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) occurs in cycles of roughly 30 years. The Physics associated with the phenomena are not fully understood, so providing evidence is very difficult. Even a quick glance at globally average temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere clearly shows warming from 1917 to 1942 and cooling from 1942 to 1977 and warming from 1977 to current.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif

The warmest globally averaged temperature on record was 1998.I is an accepted scientific fact that the abnormally warm year of 1998 was because of El-Nino and not CO2. The warming and cooling trends observed over the last 130 years appear to be cycles driven by changes in ocean currents and not CO2. The rapid change of global temperatures occurring in 1976 cannot be explained by any anthropogenic activities.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/pacific-02n.html

The heat retention capabilities of Earths oceans are not understood. No one knows with any certainty the amount of solar energy the oceans absorb and release over a solar cycle, but it certainly is not an issue that has enough answers to rule out that the majority of the global warming experienced since 1976 was primarily associated with changes in ocean circulation.

EDIT:

The warming and cooling over the last 120 years is by no means constant and clearly shows a cyclical nature that cannot be explained by an atmospheric CO2 build up. If in the next thirty years the Earth cools substantially, what will you do? If people are starving because of shorter growing seasons, will you feel guilty about playing your part in misleading them?

.
.

Answer 8

I'm going to answer your question with a question. How can the supporters of man-made global warming prove that the recent increase in temperature is moving faster than previous warming cycles? That is the claim of the IPCC and they have no proof that this warming is in any way out of the natural cycle. Until there is absolute proof, NO ONE should jump to a conclusion. This should be a debate between scientists and have no influence from politicians, organizations, or companies.

Answer 9

Here is truth about global warming:

Global warming is one-half of the climatic cycle of warming and cooling.
The earth's mean temperature cycles around the freezing point of water.
This is a completely natural phenomenon which has been going on since there has been water on this planet. It is driven by the sun.
Our planet is currently emerging from a 'mini ice age', so is
becoming warmer and may return to the point at which Greenland is again usable as farmland (as it has been in recorded history).
As the polar ice caps decrease, the amount of fresh water mixing with oceanic water will slow and perhaps stop the thermohaline cycle (the oceanic heat 'conveyor' which, among other things, keeps the U.S. east coast warm).
When this cycle slows/stops, the planet will cool again and begin to enter another ice age.

It's been happening for millions of years.

The worrisome and brutal predictions of drastic climate effects are based on computer models, NOT CLIMATE HISTORY.
As you probably know, computer models are not the most reliable of sources, especially when used to 'predict' chaotic systems such as weather.

Global warming/cooling, AKA 'climate change':
Humans did not cause it.
Humans cannot stop it.

Answer 10

No science in this response but I have read plenty of other responses that did have scientific articles to support them.
Common sense should scream to all of the deniers and skeptics that the earth has not supported a large population before...we are at the highest we ever have been (population-wise) and considering how much 'energy' we use and the waste it provides, it shouldn't be so hard for you to understand. Then again, people like Jim Z say they're 'reasonably skeptical' but I think plenty know he's gone past the point of being 'reasonably skeptical' a while ago.