Couldnt Global Warming Just be a Cycle

[MajorMRunyon]

Global warming has been in the headlines lately and i have a question. Why is global warming being pinned on people and cars, power plants etc. When global warming trigures an ice age. If thats the case weve already had several ice ages. so couldnt global warming just be a cycle. Cus honestly unless a trex was driving around in a himmer wouldnt an ice age just be a earth cycle?

[Stranger]

The CO2 goes into the air and which then we are living in a green house. But people exaggerate too much. Don't worry about it because people say cut cars and carpool but no where or any how that is possible unless someone creates a non polluting car which hasn't been created yet.

[DorothyDBarry]

You make a very valid point. Go read this article I posted below and see if you still feel the same way. It talks a bit about the company, Shaklee, who is leading the way in the fight against global warming. But, it also gives some valid points to ponder.

<!-- e --><a href="mailto:r4yd@comcast.net">r4yd@comcast.net</a><!-- e -->

[Vigour]

What if instead of your speculation you tried to listen to real experts.

NOAA: Greenhouse Gases Likely Cause of Near-record U.S. Warmth Last Year

Greenhouse gases likely accounted for over half of the widespread warmth across the continental United States in 2006, according to a new study that will be published Sept. 5 in Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.

Last year's average temperature was the second highest since recordkeeping began in 1895. The team found that it was very unlikely that the 2006 El Nino played any role, though other natural factors likely contributed to the near-record warmth.

When average annual temperature in the United States broke records in 1998, a powerful El Niño (a warming of the surface of the east tropical Pacific Ocean) was affecting climate around the globe. Scientists widely attributed the unusual warmth in the United States to the influence of the ongoing El Niño.

The research team, led by Martin Hoerling at the National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Earth System Research Lab in Boulder, Colo., also found that greenhouse gas increases in Earth's atmosphere enhanced the probability of U.S. temperatures breaking a record in 2006 by approximately 15-fold compared to pre-industrial times. The authors also estimate that there is a 16 percent chance that 2007 will bring record-breaking warmth.

"We wanted to find out whether it was pure coincidence that the two warmest years on record both coincided with El Niño events," Hoerling said. "We decided to quantify the impact of El Niño and compare it to the human influence on temperatures through greenhouse gases."

Preliminary data available in January 2006 led NOAA to place that year as the warmest on record. In May 2007, NOAA revised the 2006 ranking to second warmest after updated statistics showed the year was .08 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than 1998. The annual average temperature in 2006 was 2.1 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th Century average and marked the ninth consecutive year of above-normal U.S. temperatures. Each of the contiguous 48 states reported above-normal annual temperatures, and for the majority of states, 2006 ranked among the 10 hottest years since 1895.

Using data from 10 past El Niño events observed since 1965, the authors examined the impact of El Niño on average annual U.S. surface temperatures. They found a slight cooling across the country. To overcome uncertainties inherent in the data analysis, the team also studied the El Nino influence using two atmospheric climate models. The scientists conducted two sets of 50-year simulations of U.S. climate, with and without the influence of El Niño sea-surface warming. They again found a slight cooling across the nation when El Niño was present.

To assess the role of greenhouse gases in the 2006 warmth, the researchers analyzed 42 simulations of Earth's climate from 18 climate models provided for the latest assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The models included greenhouse gas emissions and airborne particles in Earth's atmosphere since the late 19th century and computed their influence on average temperatures through 2006. The results of the analysis showed that greenhouse gases produced warmth over the entire United States in the model projections, much like the warming pattern that was observed last year across the country.

For a final check, the scientists compared the observed 2006 pattern of abnormal surface temperatures to the projected effects of greenhouse-gas warming and El Niño temperature responses. The U.S. temperature pattern of widespread warming was completely inconsistent with the pattern expected from El Niño, but it closely matched the expected effects of greenhouse warming.

"That attribution was not confirmed at the time," Hoerling said. "Now we have the capability, on the spatial scale of the United States, to better distinguish natural climate variations from climate changes caused by humans."

[AaronWBoyd]

Part of it may be a cycle. But don't worry, climatologists are well-aware of climate cycles.

The fundamental science behind global warming is not in dispute. Here's the logic, which is not refuted by anyone with any expertise:

(1) We are simply thickening the atmosphere by burning millions of years worth of fossil fuels in a span of about two centuries. By burning those fuels, we are transforming a solid (hydrocarbons) into a gas (CO2) by oxidizing hydrocarbons.

(2) The thickening of the atmosphere with CO2 causes planets to become warmer, much like a giant blanket. We have two examples in the solar system. Mars is too cold for Earth life because it has a very thin atmosphere, and Venus is too hot for Earth life because it has a very think atmosphere full of CO2.

Now, there's no doubt that other factors affect climate: proximity to the Sun, Earth's orbit, brightness of the Sun, etc. No one disputes that either, but skeptics latch on to these excuses to justify the status quo.

But the reality is that our increasing the amount of planetary CO2 by 40-50% (and there are a few other greenhouse gases to be concerned about, but CO2 is the one humans most influence) will cause the Earth to get warmer, on average. And this change is taking place much more rapidly than geologic cycles.

[WithoutEnemy]

that is what I have been saying. if we study a little history.
for people who dont like to read the history channel might help
yes it is a cycle and it will happen again and we can not stop it

[ConnieKScott]

Global warming is so debatable at this time that you wouldn't want to call it a theory leave alone a fact. What is true is that the polar ice caps are melting, specific animals, birds and fish are becoming extinct and weather is changing along with ocean currents. I for one think it is an earth cycle and I like it because where I live it is much cooler than the 3 digit temperatures we have had in the past. I don't like to see creatures go extinct and that is happening primarily because of the stupidity of mankind. Global warming is not to blame for that. So I go along with global warming to help save the animals.

[HardWorking]

It's about time we put the blame squarely on humanity which have caused this situation. The scientific evidence is very strong. CO2 is the major driver of our current climate change. The climate change is happening at an alarming rate. Immediate action is needed. We had successfully closed the ozone hole. Now we can solve the current crises which is much worse.

Join intelligent people from around the world tackling the problem of global warming through two important goals

1. Control of carbon emissions worldwide. The developed world should take the lead and limit the carbon emissions through taxation and carbon offsetting and lower the standard of living of the common people to a reasonable level that the developing world can easily reach within the next 20 years.

2. Reducing the population of the human race which if not controlled by a UN body will increase the burden of an already over burdened planet and stress our resources and our environment far beyond the breaking point. This will have to be done by the developing third world in however manner they deem appropriate. We must reduce our population from 6 billion to 2 billion by the year 2050 to have a sustainable future.

Together the world CAN SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. It is not out of our reach. We just need to know HOW WE ARE CAUSING AGW and every person should be given a realistic picture. All this fuzzy pink stuff in the media doesn't give you the facts or the solutions that people must know NOW. There is no use waiting to give out all the pertinent information.

Global warming is the single most important problem of mankind since the dawn of civilization. We are either going to come out of it wiser or we will all be extinct.

[OraWRauch]

Yes of course there are natural climate drivers, and there are natural cycles that cause ice ages. But the current warming (slow as it seems to be) is *much* faster than any past natural climate changes. The evidence that it is caused by humans burning fossil fuels is very secure.

[AureaADaniels]

One of the most important environment changes now in progress is a buildup of atmospheric CO2. Undoubtedly, the added CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from the burning of fossil fuels, the cutting down of forests and the wastage of soil humus. Moreover, other gases are now being added, with similar properties. The main outcome of the buildup is likely to be a change of climate, notably toward greater warmth.

[BarbaraJBlackman]

No--the global warming is not due to nattural causes.

The reason is simple: scientists examined all possible causes for the currentglobal warming. Carefully andver a period ofyears.

The showed that the natural factors that can cause global warming are not responsible for the current global warming--the various human activities you mentioned are.

In otherds--as scientists have said repeatedly--they ALREADY checked out your 'hypothesis"--and ruled it out.

Our current global warming is caused by human activity. Get over it, already.

[RickyJMontague]

titanic you may go down in history in worse shape than the ship. I have been working on just such an idea a car that uses pollution as fuel/oxidizer even if it puts out pollution it will be from the pollution that was already there, therefore, it doesn't make any pollution it's self (it's partially based on nature too).

[MaxineAMeyer]

Global warming is a natural cycle. Sure pollution sucks but it is not the reason for it. Even without the industrial age there would be another ice age. The bottled water industry will kill us all...

[MarieDLittle]

There is not the slightest chance that the Climatologists don't understand the role of the natural cycles. It's like suggesting NASA doesn't understand the role of gravity.

[CharlotteBMartinez]

In the past global warming and cooling has been caused by natural cycles.

One of the things that keeps our planet at a habitable temperature and one of the contributors to global warming in the past are the greenhouse gases. Many of these occur naturally but in the last 200 years our activities have resulted in the emission of far more of these gases than can be handled by natural cycles.

The result is that the excess gases have accumulated in the atmosphere. Natural greenhouse gases maintain a more or less steady temperature, the human ones add to the natural warming and lead to excessive warming - what we call global warming.

GW is being pinned on people, cars, power plants etc because these are sources of greenhouse gases. One of the main sources is the burning of fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas.

Global warming won't trigger an ice age for a very, very long time yet. Our position within the natural cycles that trigger ice ages puts us at abou 70 million years to go. Before the onset of another ice age there will be intense warming of the planet, by about another 20°C or so. Even if we did everything possible to cause global warming we wouldn't be able to cause this sort of temperature rise for thousands of years.

One possibility, that's all it is, is that global warming could trigger a change on the ocean current that transports warm water from the Caribbean to northwestern Europe, this current keeps parts of Europe warmer than they would be otherwise. If GW disrupts this particular current there will be cooling in some parts of Europe and a mini ice age will develop over the course of a few thousand years.

If you'd like anything explaining in more detail or require a technical explanation please add more details or email me.

[TheEdge]

No.

We have increased CO2 levels so much its now WAY out of the natural cycle. And to add that were chopping down trees and trees soak up CO2 and if we have less trees more CO2 gets stuck up in the atmosphere trapping more heat. Then the ice caps melt making the sea level raise and putting 100million people out of a home if it rose 20feet (it will raise 20 feet if western Antarctica or Greenland melts) Then overcrowding will occur putting even more stress on the Environment. And with the sea becoming warmer the algae and coral die because its too warm. Its a never ending cycle that we have made out of wack by a long shot.

[TheHighest]

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.


The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms. Since as we know warm water can not hold as much gas as cold water so it releases C02. And it takes along to warm up because the ocean is so large and water has a high heat capacity.


O and some food for thought:
Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.