Global warming, is it us or natural?

Question

I think it's a natural cycle of the earth. Based on studies of the earth.

But my co-worker (who is a bit of a greenie) thinks we humans have caused it, and that if something isn't done soon the earth won't be able to reverse the damage

So what do you think?

Answer 1

The earth can and will balance itself out. It was here before humanity with our automobiles and factories and it will be here long after they/we are gone. It will have changed, but such things are inevitable. However, it can be said that we have polluted the air to a degree. But, since we didn't pollute the earth overnight, we won't clean it up overnight. Try 20-30 years both ways. So we are looking now, at a mess that was made oh, gee around the beginning of the home computer.

Answer 2

Good question and some excellent answers. I have seen before where the number of studies created were not indicative of the correctness of the hypothesis, but rather the entrenched opinion of the old school. But, I am inclined to err on the side of caution when taking risks. Like it or not, we are already engaged in Terraforming, on our one and only planet. This does not strike me as wise.

Answer 3

Natural cycles exist, but the degree and rate of change of the current change is mostly us. The "natural cycle" (orbital cycles and solar irradiation variance) theory has serious issues as sole or primary cause of past, including the following:

Quantitative estimate of the Milankovitch-forced contribution to observed Quaternary climate change
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBC-4C5PTB0-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=779ca73f1c60c581aa664dd77c4d73e0
"The fraction of the record variance attributable to orbital changes never exceeds 20%. In no case, including a tuned core, do these forcing bands explain the overall behavior of the records." " Evidence cited to support the hypothesis that the 100 Ka glacial/interglacial cycles are controlled by the quasi-periodic insolation forcing is likely indistinguishable from chance..."

Cryothermodynamics: the chaotic dynamics of paleoclimate
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVK-46G4VVW-2C&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ccb1bd7d43f21bf9dc71ad50782cf644

Sea ice as the glacial cycles' climate switch:
Role of seasonal and orbital forcing
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2000/1999PA000461.shtml
"The dominant 100 kyr oscillation in land ice volume has the familiar sawtooth shape of climate proxy records, and to zeroth order, it does not depend on the seasonal and Milankovitch forcing."

SUCCESSIVE REFINEMENTS IN LONG-TERM INTEGRATIONS OF PLANETARY ORBITS
http://astrobiology.ucla.edu/OTHER/SSO/SolarSysInt.pdf
"The theory explains many features observed in the geological record of the past 2:5 Myr. Obliquity cycles, of about 40,000 years, for instance, can be detected in various ice and deep-sea drill core data. But the largest variations, with periods around 100,000 years, remain dificult to explain by orbital variations alone, as are large variations with periods as short as a few thousand years (Ghil & Childress 1987; Ghil 1994)."

If global warming wasn't happening or wasn't man-made, why hasn't a better model been proposed in the 31 years since its development in 1976 to explain the gaps in solar cycle theory, and to prevent reports such as the following which go into great detail about human-caused global warming?

http://co2conference.org/agenda.asp

"Continued emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will exacerbate the warming trend already observed during the past century, along with consequences of sea-level rise, glacial melting, ocean acidification, and ecosystem disturbance. The potential impact of these events, combined with the complication of realized and potential feedbacks, underscores the urgency of improving our understanding of the climate system, while simultaneously working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Rising sea levels, increased desertification, and changing availability of food, water and energy could trigger conflicts around the globe."

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap2-2/final-report/default.htm

"Furthermore, the consequences of increasing atmospheric
CO2 extend beyond climate change alone. The accumulation
of carbon in the oceans as a result of more than a century of
fossil-fuel use and deforestation has increased the acidity
of the surface waters, with serious consequences for corals
and other marine organisms that build their skeletons and
shells from calcium carbonate."

Why would ExxonMobil feel the need to use propaganda instead of science to counteract the science. This is no conspiracy theory. ExxonMobil announced their campaign and the money trail to places like JunkScience its well documented from public records. If the oil industry had contradictory science, Bush would have it, and we'd clearly be having a much different discussion now. Corporate and political power primarily aligns with the skeptical anti-GW view at the moment, but the combined investment of time and energy seems to be producing little results scientifically. That failure is not insignificant.

Why would anyone offer weather reports as if they were relevant to climate? Even the staunchest skeptics should be thoroughly embarrassed to look that silly, unless they have nothing better to rely on.

Any alternative theories should better explain the increased melting of Greenland ice sheet:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2007/2007121126008.html

and accelerating Arctic ice melt:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/071211-ap-arctic-melt.html

and coral reef bleaching:
http://co2conference.org/pdfs/feely.pdf

It's important to note that the scientific process values challenges to theories, and that process makes them stronger or replaces them with better ones. The genuine scientific papers which challenge and refine our understanding are critical. However, I have yet to see a coherent theory, backed by genuine scientific papers, which replaces the thorough expanation of carbon cycle (greenhouse gas) anthropogenic global warming.

The number of scientists researching all aspects of this is staggering. This is not (as some people would simplistically ask us to believe) analogous a group of primitive people acting on faith to believe that "the earth is flat." The sheer volume of research being conducted would lead to far more dissenting results (over the past 30+ years) if there were more meat behind the contrarian view.

Laymen skeptics seem to offer a "contrary argument of the week', while pinning their hopes on every new skeptical paper... THIS is finally going to be the one that disproves the AGW "farce!" Some of those papers are valuable to tune AGW theory. Many are junk. Meanwhile, you can look at any of the writeups here and see the dozens upon dozens of scientific papers referenced in support:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap2-2/final-report/default.htm

Many skeptics make the unsubstantiated claim that there's no science behind AGW (there are hundreds of papers for them to explain), while failing to meet their own success criteria by offering an alternative theory or any coherent collection of science. Exactly what do they offer beyond the same old favorites (e.g. solar cycles) which have more holes than swiss cheese?

I've outlined the Carbon Cycle report's chapters below. It has a 40 page list of scientific references, each page typically consisting of 20+ papers, each often by 6 or more authors. That's over 800 different papers referenced, involving thousands of scientists, even allowing for some duplication. Exactly what and where is the alternative theory?

Answer 4

Well in a way it is both.

The sun plays a big part, but not NEARLY as big as man's part.

Man created gas powered transportation. this is horrible for the O-ZONE layer. We also use unneaded factories and appliances that life would be just as full without, but maybe a little more of a challenge. This world is just a bunch of lazy, greedy humans that WANT all these unnecessities. All the things we burn and in all the ways we pollute, we are always thinning down the O-ZONE layer. Thus, letting in more and more direct sunlight. Before long, the glaciers, the North Pole, & Antarctica will be a huge heap of unwanted ocean, towering up just below the Statue of Liberty's torch.

This is what human's have done to the only planet with a stable atmosphere, according to our studies.

Life was better of for the Native Americans and Pilgrims.

Answer 5

Let me put it this way: The atmosphere's natural composition is 3% CO2.
OF THAT 3%, 0.0007% is man made.

No matter WHAT criteria you use, that number is insignficant.

We DO need to convert to renewable resources, but for economic freedom, not out of fear of Liberal lies.

Answer 6

If it was natural, we certainly sped it up by like twenty times. The forces of earth are much stronger than we can do, but we're definitely affecting it and the other species on it and mostly us. If we all became extinct, the Earth will still be able to recover those scars. Remember, the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, we've only been around for a couple thousand.

Answer 7

I don't know why people are so sure it's one or the other (natural cycle vs. human interference). It's just as likely a combination of the two things. While I'm not rabidly recycling or covering my house in solar panels, I don't think it's a bad idea to be mindful of the impact our choices have on the environment. It's a lot easier to do that than to try and fix the damage later!

Answer 8

Both, we just seem to be speeding up the cycle and are doing it faster all the time. The next 100 years will tell the story of whether or not the human race will survive or not. I'm voting not.

Answer 9

I think its us to a degree,I mean it can't be helping can it.

Answer 10

I think people need to stop focusing so d*mn much on this argument and band together to stop abusing the planet.