Do global warming skeptics think global warming "natural cycles" are magic?

Question

I recently asked a question about why those who believe the anthropogenic global warming theory are willing to bet that global warming will continue while skeptics are unwilling to put their money where their mouths are.

In response, several AGW skeptics claimed their cohorts are unwilling to bet because they're too smart to presume to know whether the planet will warm or cool.

This makes no sense to me. The reason AGW acknowledgers are willing to bet is because they're confident they understand what's happening with the Earth's climate. We know solar output is decreasing, we know we're in a cool orbital cycle, we know last year was a cool El Niño cycle, yet the planet continues to warm due to increased greenhouse gas emissions.

I don't understand why skeptics think we don't know enough about the Earth's cycles. My conclusion is that they either don't understand the cycles, or won't accept that they're clearly not responsible for the current warming.

What's the explanation?

Answer 1

Many of the people who throw out "natural cycles" as an explanation for global warming may not realize that the natural cycle itself must have an explanation.

The people that do bother to include an explanation may refer to variation in solar influence due to regular variations in earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles), but there are a number of issues with Milankovitch cycles being the culprit. Here's just one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Milankovitch cycles, 400K Year Problem

The 400,000 year problem is that the eccentricity variations have a strong 400,000 year cycle. That cycle is only clearly present in climate records older than the last million years. If the 100ky variations are having such a strong effect, the 400ky variations might also be expected to be apparent. This is also known as the stage 11 problem, after the interglacial in marine isotopic stage 11 which would be unexpected if the 400,000 year cycle has an impact on climate. The relative absence of this periodicity in the marine isotopic record may be due, at least in part, to the response times of the climate system components involved - in particular, the CARBON CYCLE.

Milankovitch cycles are pretty easy to check for, and some of the cases where Milankovitch cycles don't work are arguments supporting greenhouse gas theory.

So skeptics use eivdence that supports greenhouse gas warming theory to debunk greenhouse gas warming theory. Only magic could make that logic work.

Answer 2

"The reason AGW acknowledgers are willing to bet is because they're confident they understand what's happening with the Earth's climate."

That's the key: the "skeptics don't understand science. Look, Auurther C. Clarke pointed out that "Any sufficiently advanced technology would appear to be magic." Today, we have some very advanced technology and science--and those who are unfamilier with basic science do indeed view it as "magical" in the way they react to it.

If you look at the psts here, this is clear. Some of these people--who (sometimes) appear to be sincere--don't even understand causality, what the difference between a hypothesis and a theori is, and so on. It's a part of human knowledge that they simply do not understand--but they see the evidence all around them that somehow all those gadgets work--even though they have no idea how.

Answer 3

Both side made their point actually.
But if it is not real than it is a natural cycle. But what kind of natural cycle it is if it was boiling in the Earth. The toxic and greenhouse gases that we used are contributing to the AGW.
Then how do the skeptics explain about the raising of sea water? It is happening all over the world! In the South East Asia and so on. And it is getting warmer too.....
If not then why would the glacier melt....too fast...

I rather spend my money to do something about it and be grateful that i took part to save the world rather then being a skeptic that to selfish to listen and do their "homework". All this links that the skeptics give about global warming scam and so on.....it doesn't make sense at all.

People today only know how to argue but never make a decison to fight for the people. You can argue so much about this as you can argue about which religion is true, which football team is better.....but once the tragedy had happen, do you want to argue anymore?

Think about it.....don't argue...take action!

Answer 4

Look at the Vostok Ice core data and you may be less certain
http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
That link is just the first I found in a search. Do not look at anything shorter than the full 400,000 years; you will be misled.

CO2 levels were HIGHER 330,000 years ago than today. By the way, the Earth did NOT pass over some mystical 'tipping point' and become like Venus.

There is more than one Milankovich cycle, and they have different periods. Even if we are in a low on one of them, the others are still changing.

Just because AGW claimants are confident does not necessarily mean they are right.

Remember 'Limits to Growth' in the 70's ? When they claimed we'd be out of oil by now, and iron ore would cost far more than it actually does ?
The explanation is some of us recognize a scam when we see it.

Answer 5

The earths pole has shifted away from the Us towards Russia. Changing the climate pattern . An The poles on Mars are melting per NASA. All this caused by man ? I think not !

Answer 6

I know that you're pointing at me, because that is what I said. The skeptics of AGW, who aren't my "cohorts" or partners-in-crime, (I don't personally know any of them), ARE too smart to bet on the climate, when they know that we have a non-linear, chaotic system. In other words, it is EXTREMELY HARD to predict.
All of your questions seem to try to show how "stupid" the skeptics of global warming are. You seem to be stuck on ad hominem attacks of the scientists, rather than refuting their data.
I'm sorry I didn't really answer your question, but it seems sort of rhetorical because the answer is so obvious.

Answer 7

Actually, Scott Armstrong has proposed a bet of sorts to Al Gore, but Gore is unwilling to bet him. Others have offered to bet Phil Jones of the CRU, but the stipulation is that Jones has to make all of his data and methods available to make certain he is not cheating. This is something all scientists are supposed to do anyway, but Jones refuses. Jones has never accepted any bets offered.

Answer 8

Why not ,
most of them have been weaned on Fantasy and Fiction

Magic is traditionally Evil to them
Remember Salem

So Global Warming equates with Evil
perfectly understandable

Answer 9

The earth is flat... the earth is flat... Ok so it's not but it is the center of the universe..... what?..... The sky is falling... the sky is falling...... no? well how about the earth is warming?

Answer 10

Oh that's an easy question Dana. It's god flatulence. I figure that is about as scientifically proven as anything they have come up with.