Global Warming Question #1: If global warming is the result of human greenhouse gas emission, how do...?
Answer:
Ice ages, and inter-glacial periods, are caused by small changes in earth's orbit. These changes, known as Milankovitch cycles, cause "orbital forcing", when small but long-term changes in the amount of insolation will cause glaciers to advance or retreat throughout the Northern Hemisphere.
These changes in earth's orbit are caused by gravity, and can be computed for thousands of years into the past and the future. For that reason, we know that orbital forcing peaked 6000 years ago, and has been slowly cooling the planet since then.
Therefore, the natural causes of the ice ages cannot be responsible for the current warmth.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...
why do you still ask this question
there are by now thousands of answers that explain this
go to the top answerers in Global warming under Environment and check what Bob ,Trevor,Envirodude ,Dana and many others have to say
they explain it very well
Global warming is partly a cycle ,but now man is accelerating it more than ever
especially the Ethanol production
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
For years and years and many generations, humans have been polluting the earth with many different things. Scientists have too, dumping toxic waste into lakes and oceans and trying to discover how to create nuclear weapons.
The reason for the Great Lakes thing is because people used it as big trash can and a place to put dead bodies and other toxic things like gas and algae- eating plants.
Today, it's sort of better but not really as well as it should be. We still dump some toxic waste into the Lakes illegally and we also pollute the streets and that garbage ends up in the Storm drains and that leads to the oceans and our Great Lakes.
I believe it is just the Earth going through a stage but I also think it's mostly Global Warming.
It is not so much as the responsibility of global warming but more-so a greater accelerator to the effect.
The answer to your question is in the very document you quote:
"Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next ice age will begin about 50,000 years from now, regardless of man-made global warming [5] (see Milankovitch cycles). However anthropogenic forcing from increased greenhouse gases should outweigh orbital forcing for as long as intensive use of fossil fuels continues (see global warming)."
There have been natural climate changes in the past of course.
Until about 40 years ago, natural forces controlled the climate. At that point the peer reviewed data clearly show that man's emissions of greenhouse gases overtook natural forces as the most important thing.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/ima...
The data is why (note especially the key word - quantitative, science is about numbers, not "logical" arguments):
"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."
Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA
Good websites for more info:
http://profend.com/global-warming/...
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...
Really, right now they don't. We got a current bogeyman that is there if you neglect a lot of inconvenient history. To divert attention.
Right now...point the finger at something they think is coming based on computers and some biased data slipped in to make it run smoother, and run everybody ragged trying to fit reality to the output of the computers. But think of the funding they get, and the sense of power!!
Because it is easier for politicians to make money and fame by running around spouting of dangers that must be curbed, and for biased scientists to exploit this craze by warping real data and manufacturing data with computers to support the politicians, than it is for honest scientists to get funding to study the boring details of how Nature works for those ups and down in the Global temperature history has shown us really do happen.
Far "sexier" to be able to finger folks who drive big fast cars, and fly around in big fast jets, and smoke-belching massive factories, than to support and then listen to a scientist who spends years analyzing sediments layer by microscopic layer and getting finally data from them as to what is a cause and what needs to be corrected, if anything.
These scientists go where the money is, where the popularity is, and tacitly say do not really worry about the past and its lessons if we can get lots of funding and write lots of papers and get lots and lots of accolades NOW by plugging something that the politicians, and governments, and some big businesses like.
And a populace that is by and large ignorant from their public schooling of science, and of scientific methods, and of politics and of how to analyze for truth and content. So can be led about anywhere by sensationalism.
Observe the evidence, such as the support for big companies to make biofuel by bulldozing the rain forests and planting Oil Palms, when the evidence is that this is counter-productive to reducing the CO2 levels and counterproductive to human life and values for the displaced and uncompensated former inhabitants.
But it is in accord with the politicians who have been wanting lots of trees planted, ANY trees!! And it is in accord with the big companies making boodles of money in politically invented "Carbon Credits." One could wonder if there is not some connection there?
Your question is very valid, and one that many many more people should be asking before they jump on the popular bandwagon that has the rock bands and apocalyptic preachers and a retinue of Name Scientists all marching behind in lockstep, and all.
Bob... you have been Reading too much stuff written by Al Gore.
First... man has been burning fossil fuel for over 1000 years, not 40 years.
In the 1960's there was a big issue about SMOG causing ACID RAIN. How did man cause that if man just started polluting 40 years ago.
Please go back to kindergarten and learn to do some basic research.
Quit believing all of the media hype and the political and profit motivated propaganda.
We have CLEANER air in most US cities than we had in the 1960's... We don't have the almost daily air quality warnings that were occurring.
Maybe getting rid of smog and reducing Ozone depletion were bad things... We had global cooling alarmists in the 1970's... with air you could SEE and a shrinking ozone layer.
Bring back smog and destroy the ozone layer and we'll cure global warming!
Have people completely lost the ability to think logically.
If people would look at a Co2 and temperature chart they would see temperature moves independently of Co2.
Why is Co2 instead of methane blamed for global warming when it also rises and falls with Co2?
(The second link shows CH4, methane. Scroll down 75% to see the chart.)
Because Co2 can be blamed more on man and our way of life, and methane would lead to population controls as the answer, which the public wouldn't support. With people believing the Co2 excuse, politicians now have the license to steal money from fossil fuel companies and the people.
Laziness. Total lack of imagination. The realization that you can't charge people to solve a naturally occurring problem.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: