Find solution
The global warming, how and why it began?

How can you argue that the current global warming is part of a natural cycle?

  • The most frequent alternative explanation people offer for the current warming goes like this: 'The planet has warmed before. There were no humans or SUVs around then. Therefore, the current warming is just a natural cycle'. Ignoring the logical fallacies with this argument, let's just look at the data. Here is a graph showing the natural (Milankovitch) cycles of the Earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Milankovitch_Variations.png Notice that these cycles occur over thousands of years, not rapid changes over a few decades or centuries. On top of that: "An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that 'Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.'" Considering this evidence, do you agree that the current warming is not due to natural cycles?

  • Answer:

    Global warming IS a natural cycle that continues over tens of thousands of years. Polar ice caps melt; weather patterns change. The issue is not that global warming is, or isn't, a natural process; the issue is that mankind has - in the past 150 years since the start of the Industrial Revolution - has changed the natural cycle of things, which means that humans, plants and animals can't adapt naturally to those changes over centuries. Instead, we are faced with serious 'immediate' changes that will impact on the very lives of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. There will not be sufficient clean water or air; the rain forests and mangrove forests will be all but depleted; and the oceans will become void. -RKO- 10/12/07

Dana1981 at Yahoo! Answers Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

Cow flatulence We are all doomed because of cow flatulence. Run for the hills!

Dead Marxist

the earth has been warmer and cooler before.fact. it will continue.fact.i would not use wikipedia for anything. poor source of info. not checked very well.

BRYAN H

did you know for 2 million years the earth was so hot the only surviving animal (most evolutionary experts say are our ancestors) had to go underground to live off deep root water because all the oceans dried up. Please tell us what the "normal" temperature is supposed to be.....spread out those oscilations and you will see bigger oscilations make them closer and you will see smaller oscilations.. this is what got your "hockey stick" graph in trouble. obviously you never studied classical mechanics.

CaptainObvious

Cons listen to pundits, not scientists. I challenge all cons on here to come up with a list of well established SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS engaged in climate, meteorologic, or geologic research. Then go to their OFFICIAL WEBSITES and see what they say about it. I have and the scientific consensus is overwhelmingly stating that man made global warming is real.

trovalta_stinks_2

The current claim is that the Earth has warmed by 0.7 degrees in 150 years. This is based on millions of accurate readings today compared against a few hundred inaccurate readings from 150 years ago. To say that this claim is valid is laughable. Talk to me in 1000 years when we have 1000 years worth of reliable data collected using modern and accurate instruments.

Aegis of Freedom

you could argue that cow farts are the cause. thats what most global warming skeptics tell me

tons'o'fun

What a sticky wicket this issue has become. The "evidence" has been admittedly "enhanced" (Al Gore quote, to illustrate his belief in the immediacy of this alleged problem) - a lot of the "scientific surveys and poles" have involved people who are directly involved recipients of any funding for this research. These examples of the 'muddying' of this issue and the scientific, opposing views do not make it any easier to draw a firm conclusion - by anyone. Best if this issue could remain in the scientific communities where it can be further analyzed and studied rather than in the political arena where the special interest groups and lobbyists run the show. In my opinion, it seems rather naive to assume that we can spew millions of tons of CO, CO2 and other pollutants into the air annually and not have some kind of effect on the environment.

LeAnne

The key word is 'model'. You can't prove these models are complete and accurate, so any results they give us are speculation. Modeling phenomena is an iterative process: you create the model, test it, and apply it. Only when it fails do you reanalyze it. Since these model's predictions have yet to come true or be falsified, we wind up right back where we start with them: we know nothing.

Pfo

as usual , libs believe opinions over facts. history repeats itself in nature

mission_viejo_california

Load more

Related Q & A:

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.