1) "How can we possibly be certain we are the cause of the rise in global temperatures?"
This is an excellent series of videos that will help you to understand the lines of evidence that we are the cause of the current climate warming trend. There are 7 videos in the series. - http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoi...
"The warming and cooling trends of the past have been rather inconsistent, so is it impossible that the increase in temperature is not outside of the norm?"
You are basically asking the same question here. Our adding tons/day of CO2 into the atmosphere will warm the climate, or at least allow for less cooling, than would just be observed from the natural variations within the climate.
"Keep in mind, the world went from being a tropical zone to having a good portion of the planet covered in glaciers."
No one denies this, but what does this have to with an anthropogenic climate change?
"Around the year 1000, the global temperature increased enough so that farming was possible in Scandinavia... which was long before emissions from cars and coal plants were around."
Any farming in this region during that time had short growing seasons and with limited success. Again, this has nothing to do with what is occurring now.
2) "Even if we are contributing to this phenomenon, how much is it really going to affect the planet in the long run?"
No one has the definitive answer to this question. A lot of what will happen will be determined by how fast and how extreme the warming will be. The rate of climate change that is happening now has never happened in the past without mass extinctions being the result.
"I've only heard of a global average increase of 2 degrees Celsius over the next hundred years... the thing is, even if we woke up tomorrow and it was announced that we are now temperature-wise where we would've been in 1 million years had humans not been giving off all of these emissions, 1 million years is nothing, considering the Earth is 4.5 BILLION years old... does it really matter?"
You are making many assumptions here based solely on what you have heard. What is your source for only a 2C warming over the next 100 years?
3) "Considering a very large portion of the world was covered in glaciers (take for example, the Great Lakes, which formed by melting glaciers), if those glaciers were still there, think of how much land would be covered now had they not melted, the things that couldn't have happened in those areas."
What? Using that line of reasoning we should drain the oceans and use that land as well. Glaciers hold the vast amount of fresh water on the planet. Once the glaciers have melted then many millions of people will have lost their fresh water supplies that they have now from the annual melt seasons.
"Furthermore, who knows what lies beneath those glaciers? Is it not Science's duty to find out?"
Science can use imaging satellites and other equipment to see what is under the glaciers and this technology is improving at a rapid rate. Do you also want to pich up and move the world's mountain ranges to see what is under them as well?
"I'm mainly interested in the first question, as I'm not sure how much has been written on the theory that the current warming trend is part of a bigger climate cycle."
There are reams of paper that are the result of 1,000's of peer reviewed scientific studies concerning this very topic.
"I really want to know why this isn't a higher profile argument, as it seems very plausible."
Really? What is not plausible that we can add tons/day of CO2 into the atmosphere and for it not behave as a greenhouse gas. This would violate the Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Thermodynamics.
Some here do not seem to realise that natural warming can be very fast - much faster than now. Consider the period known as the Younger Dryas, for instance, 15°C in less than a decade. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/abrup...
The other problem is that the classical view as presented in the videos linked toby Some1 is not working. They clearly show that CO2 will force the temperature to mincrease. This has not happened for 16 years. Feynman on theories springs to mind:
"First you guess. Don't laugh, this is the most important step. Then you compute the consequences. Compare the consequences to experience. If it disagrees with experience, the guess is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it."
The other weak point is that temperatures are always plotted from after the end of the Little Ice Age. This was the lowest temperature point for several thousand years. Of course the plot will be upwards after that. Where part of that increase could not be due to man-made CO2 it is just dismissed as natural variation. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMi...
The main causative factor of the ever changing weather is the ever changing temperatures of the oceans. The Atlantic ocean is dependent for its temperatures on two main areas, the Caribbean, where the water from the Arctic gets heated by the vents under the path of the Gulf Stream, and also the heat from the volcano slowly building an island in the Caribbean, and the volcanic mountain range under the Arctic ice cap, which, while causing the ice cap to temporarily melt quicker, due to increased underwater volcanic action, also keeps the water from the Caribbean warmer, with the result warmer water arrives back at the U.K. and Europe, with moister air, causing the increases in rain and snow seen over the past few years.
The same happens in the Indian and Pacific oceans, all currents are subject to changing geothermal heating by subterranean volcanic vents, the most familiar effect of which are the El Nina and La Nina weather patterns. Carbon Dioxide has little or no effect on temperatures or weather anywhere on the planet.
The reason it is worse now, is because the Earths Orbit is continually changing, and tectonic activity has been increasing, meaning more volcanic action, due to recent gravitational pulls by the large plants, Saturn and Jupiter
Relying on computer models is ludicrous, they only spew our what the programmers put in, and being as they are paid by Left wing Governments and anti Capitalists, they just programme what those paying the money want to see!
MAN was'nt the cause. You got that from EX-President BUSH. The real cause of Global Warming was A ALIEN organism that my Global Teams found in 2008 and as of 2012 of my Triple output was implemented in July/ 4 months later Our satelites reported ICE accumulation. Meaning that we deleted Global Warming. All 4 seasons should be getting back to normal. Mike/ Global Command.
The current acceleration of GW is caused by human emissions, and not a part of any natural cycle. This warming has happened in a couple hundred years, whereas natural warming is measured in thousands of years.
As to temps, 2 degrees C can have a great deal of impact
The glaciers and other mountain ice melts in the spring and summer months. The nearby populace needs this water for drinking and for farming purposes. Once the glaciers are gone,so is the agriculture
Another ice will come around @ 20,000 years from now but I don't think I will be here
I don't think the first part of your question is important, does it matter why the climate changes, much more important is how it affects us, which I do not think has been well considered, it seems to me that there could be as much benefits as disadvantages, anyway man is so adaptable (we are able to live on any part of the planet we wish, ice, desert, tropics, oceans, something no other animal can).
The suggestion that temperatures will change too fast, is not born out by empirical evidence.
Well the reason not much emphasis is placed on past changes, is that it would hurt AGW theory, and that little emphasis is also placed on what would happen if our world was a few degrees warmer, would also damage AGW.
It is so much more of a political argument, than a science argument.
Time scales do matter.
Something happening in 200 years is not the same as something happening in a Million year.
A million years is 5 THOUSAND TIMES LONGER than 200 years!
If the doctor says, you have a dangerous disease which if not treated aggressively with drugs will kill you in a million minutes, that gives you two years to carry out the treatment.
If the doc says you will be killed by the disease in 200 minutes, you've got less than four hours to get those drugs into your system. You'd better hope there is a hospital nearby that has the drugs and someone who knows how to administer them in a hurry.
Scientists have been massively studying the possibility "that the current warming trend is part of a bigger climate cycle" for many decades." A huge book was written on this 12 years ago already:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-...
You need to be sure you are using sources based on SCIENCE, not on fossil fuel industry anti-science LIES.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_cha...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_o...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
http://www.newsweek.com/2007/08/13/the-t...
http://jcmooreonline.com/2013/01/31/engi...
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
Building an engine with wheels and tires under it that propels us faster from one point to another shouldn't be a detriment to our intelligence or our atmosphere. If they were built with natural resources that have already cycled through our atmosphere already, then that shouldn't be considered a detriment to the Planet or our intelligence either. Chalk it up to our enginuity (that's a joke in my spelling)!
Size does matter. The size of atmospheric CO2 has been much greater in the past and the Planet flourished with that extra CO2. Science says that CO2 is great for plants and it brings more biomass (bigger tomatoes, more beans, and in general more fruits and veggies. Our biosphere has expanded greatly since fossil fuels were introduced into our atmosphere (or should I say re-introduced?). The size of humans matters also. Our mass and volume is very small compared to land-based trees and ocean krill.
Temperatures have fluctuated for millions and billions of years and research shows this. Climate science seems to be trying to micro-measure the atmosphere on a time scale of less than 150 years with little regard for past temperature history and they do this with very modern computer genesis. I hope they find the patience to understand how big the world really is and that humans (and the extra, plant feeding CO2 in our atmosphere we bring) are having a wonderful impact and a very little negative effect on this great Planet called Earth.
Addition:
You would never hear that solution from an AGW proponent! Increase carbon uptake? Preposterous!
So if we've had at LEAST 5 well-documented ice ages on this planet. After each, it has warmed up. Technically, until the ice sheets from around Greenland and Antarctica are gone we are still in an ice age, as we transfer into an interglacial period. Most scientists will accept this. This leads to a few questions:
1) How can we possibly be certain we are the cause of the rise in global temperatures? The warming and cooling trends of the past have been rather inconsistent, so is it impossible that the increase in temperature is not outside of the norm? Keep in mind, the world went from being a tropical zone to having a good portion of the planet covered in glaciers. Around the year 1000, the global temperature increased enough so that farming was possible in Scandinavia... which was long before emissions from cars and coal plants were around.
2) Even if we are contributing to this phenomenon, how much is it really going to affect the planet in the long run? I've only heard of a global average increase of 2 degrees Celsius over the next hundred years... the thing is, even if we woke up tomorrow and it was announced that we are now temperature-wise where we would've been in 1 million years had humans not been giving off all of these emissions, 1 million years is nothing, considering the Earth is 4.5 BILLION years old... does it really matter?
3) Considering a very large portion of the world was covered in glaciers (take for example, the Great Lakes, which formed by melting glaciers), if those glaciers were still there, think of how much land would be covered now had they not melted, the things that couldn't have happened in those areas. By not allowing the ice caps to melt we will be denying future generations the use of that space. Furthermore, who knows what lies beneath those glaciers? Is it not Science's duty to find out?
I'm mainly interested in the first question, as I'm not sure how much has been written on the theory that the current warming trend is part of a bigger climate cycle. I really want to know why this isn't a higher profile argument, as it seems very plausible.
*Please do not mistake this for some political agenda or some other BS. I just want honest answers.*
