Global Warming: Is it All Caused by Natural Cycles?
83
Is our current climate change simply a result of natural cycles? Or is there something more going on?
The graph above is from information collected from the Vostok ice core.
This graph is the most detailed look we have of the past 600,00 years of global climate change. As you can see, temperature has risen sharply and then fallen several times during the past half million years. For much of this time the Earth has been much colder than it is now.
For a larger, more detailed image, click here. For an explanation of how temperature and CO2 data is collected from ice cores, click here.
There are several common assertions made by those who deny a human impact on climate. Since a pattern of rising and falling temperatures is evident from the Vostok ice core data, deniers claim that current temperature changes are simply part of the natural climate cycle.
But the data is not so simple.
Take a close look at the graph.
Moving from right to left (past to present), you see a series of very sharp increases in temprature followed by an almost immediate (in relative terms) sharp decline. Each of these temperature peaks has a very sharp and very defined point.
Now, look at the very left end of the graph, representing the last 10,000 years. After a sharp increase 14,000 years ago (the end of the last Ice Age), the temperature leveled out. We hit a peak and then stayed there - something unprecedented in the past half million years.
We should be well on our way into the next ice age by now but we are not.
Why is this?
Whatever the cause, this long term stability has been a boon to the human race. The first cities began to form around 10,000 years ago, and civilization has been on the rise ever since.
Now, humans obviously did not cause the temperature to stay stable, did they? So what did?
The cause of the regular cycle of ice ages in the past is tied to Milankovitch cycles - small variations in the Earth's tilt and orbit. As our planet wobbles in its orbit, it receives more or less sunlight, and the climate reacts accordingly.
But the Milankovitch cycles aren't severe enough to cause such radical fluctuations in climate as we see in the graph above. And while the climate matches the orbital changes pretty well, the timing is not exact.
There are other forces at play.
One of those forces is the greenhouse effect. Others are simply unknown.
And the fact is, we don't really know why the Earth's temperature warmed up rapidly after the last ice age and then suddenly leveled out.
In fact, based on our current position in the Milankovitch cycles, global climate should be cooling.
A larger version of the above image can be seen here.
Climate is not cut and dried.
But we are armed with certain facts about greenhouse gases and global warming. CO2 and Methane are both greenhouse gases. This is undisputed.
Look at the Vostok graph again. During the past 500,000 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have remained constant between roughly 180 parts per million and 280 parts per million (ppm). During all of the extreme swings of our climate over the past half a million years, CO2 has been pretty stable.
CO2 levels are currently at nearly 400 ppm and rising.
Methane levels have also increased dramatically in the past century.
This rise in CO2 is due to human activity.
Whatever the causes of our past climate change, only a fool, or someone with an agenda, would deny the importance of such a radical change in CO2 levels.
- Past Climate Cycles: Ice Age Speculations
History of research on ice age climate cycles - (PDF) Are We Now Living in the Anthropocene?
CommentsLoading...
William, I doubt there's too much that will be done about CO2 emissions in the immediate future. Those that care most about the Earth and it's inhabitants, are almost invariably those with the least influence over world events. The planet's major polluters have their own agenda. We, as individuals, can and must do what we can to live simply without impacting too greatly on our environment. The rest is largely out of our hands now.
from your temperature graph it looks like the world isnt warming, its just not cooling like it did before in the cycles. is that what it says? if so why they talking about global warming? maybe the graph isnt detailed enough for the last 200 years.as you say it didnt cool off like it has done and that cant be our fault way back then so mybe it is a larger cycle where the cool off slows down each cycle then speeds up in future cycles. hmm i'm going to go and get me a grant!
Songster - the Earth has been warming drastically over the past century. That warming doesn't show up on this graph because of the scale but I'll try and post a better graph sometime soon. Thanks for stopping by! And good luck getting that grant.... if you get it will you hire me?
Monique - thanks for stopping in. You are right, CO2 has many effects beyond climate. And even if global warming stops tomorrow, we still have many other environmental problems to deal with.
I'll have to check out that book.
Amanda - you are probably right. But I'll keep jousting windmills I guess. Thanks for reading and commenting!
definately. but we will have to communicate by phone and carrier pidgeon, not email!
Great hub! I think what we don't know is the scariest thing of all. The polar melt is really alarming. No one saw that coming so rapidly, not even the experts. It is disheartening that so much of this is framed in political terms now, extreme rhetoric. Your presentation of this information without any screaming is a breath of fresh air.
There's been a lot about the glacial melting in the Himalayas on TV here in the UK. Apparently there are huge lakes forming from the ice melt water, high above the Himalayan villages. It's a humanitarian disaster in the making, as these lakes are being shored up by the flimsiest of rock and shale barriers. It's only a matter of time before these lakes break through and start cascading down the mountains, devastating everything in their wake. Clearly it's too late to reverse the thaw, but there's still time to start reinforcing the natural barriers that are keeping the lakes in place.
http://www.grida.no/graphic.aspx?f=series/vg-climate2/large/6.jpg
that graph seems highly inconclusive, it may be warming but the warming line fits in with the other up and down lines going back 15 thousand years.
Hi William. While it is true that there may be more greenhouse gases, it seems that esteemed climatologist, Dr.Mike NcCracken (Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs with the Climate Institute in Washington DC) has suggested a simple way of modifying any increase in temperature, by using Sulphur dioxide, a natural coolant, over the ocean. There is now ample Sulphur Dioxide being generated by the developing countries anyway. BTW, Dr. McCracken's suggestion was dated 1/2009 and was amongst the "hacked emails."
Chief Justice Roberts, in his dissent to Massachusetts vs EPA, remarked that he didn't think "environmentalists were really sincere, because, if they were, they would build nuclear power plants." I might also add that going vegetarian would also reduce greenhouse gases much more than replacing every car on the road with hybrids.
Obviously, now that Climate-gate has occurred, the Public no longer trusts the "so-called scientists."
I know it's really fun to make statements about what was going on millions of years ago, but, as a scientist myself, I think it's laughable.
what do people think of micro-generation?
Very well researched and written hub. As I've pointed out elsewhere, climate change isn't an either/or issue--natural cycles OR anthropomorphic effects. Increasingly since the industrial revolution, climate has been a product both of pretty much unpredictable natural cycles AND predictable, measurable man-made effects.
Songster- regarding the graph here:
http://www.grida.no/graphic.aspx?f=series/vg-climate2/large/6.jpg
It is inconclusive, you are right. But you'll note that 1. the temperature of the last 10,000 years is below the peak of the last interglacials and 2. that the temperature has been relatively stable - no sharp decline followed by a sharp fall.
If the explanation were as simple as "natural cycles" then why doesn't this information follow the pattern? Maybe it's part of a longer term, larger pattern, or maybe climate processes have changed enough to create this sort of stability.
My point is, there is not enough proof that the current warming is entirely a natural cycle, as some have asserted. Not only is there a lack of conclusive evidence for natural causes, but we have also raised greenhouse gases by a huge amount - and strangely enough, following the increase in ghg's we've seen an increase in temperature.
Thank you William for a well researched article on the issue - I think common sense should dictate we are affecting weather and shouldn't wait until the house burns down to buy insurance.
Thank you Ralph - sadly, sometimes it seems like admitting the role of some natural forcings is seized upon by the skeptics as "proof" that humans haven't altered the climate. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Thank you Kartika - I agree. The consequences could be severe enough, even if it's totally natural, that we need to do what we can to mitigate it.
Vraj- thanks for dropping by. I'll have to spend some time on a reply to your comment - so I'm not ignoring you! :)
Good Hub - it is nice to find a moderate and reasoned view amongst the shouting from extremists.
@vrajavala: I am trying to find some good sources, but I am not sure that releasing vast quantities of sulphur dioxide over the ocean is a good idea - acidification of the ocean is not a good thing, especially as carbon dioxide already does that. Acid rain is pretty destructive terrestrially, too - I visited lakes in Sweden which were ecological 'dead zones' due to acid rain.
I had a look on google scholar and found nothing - if you have some good sources, I will certainly have a read :)
Vraj- I don't think I like the idea of using Sulfur dioxide to cool the oceans. It causes acid rain, which wreaks havoc with plant ecology and aquatic life.
Regarding Justice Roberts' statement about nuclear power - I'm surprised a trained lawyer would use such a logically flawed rhetorical device. Nuclear has plenty of its own problems.
Vegetarianism - I absolutely 100% agree that if we all go veg the environment would be much better off. But that would be marxist of me to suggest that people don't have a right to eat dead animals.
"Making statements about what was going on millions of years ago" - not sure what you're getting at here. I agree that what happened millions of years ago has very limited relevance to the climate and ecological conditions today. Even the rapid shifts in climate of the past several hundred thousand years were different because the earth wasn't carrying 6 billion humans.
william,
great job here, very impressive. thanks for laying this out for everyone to see. sometimes numbers just don't lie.
Thanks Blue Dog!
Your hypothesis, along with your display of facts is not only questionable, it lacks any speculative analogy. You sound like somebody with an agenda far from objective observation and discovery. As well, much of your “facts“ are still greatly in question and presently contested by over 11,000 professionals from over 50 countries.
First you say “relative terms” as if that explains away the fact that these rises and falls are no where near the “immediate” fluctuations you claim. The graph already easily confuses the general misinformed (or complacently ignorant) public, and you certainly offer no clarity on the issue.
As well, the graphs you present are incorrect. For the last 550 million years the fluctuations in temperature, while correct in magnitude on your graph, are errant according to proven empirical data which suggests that the time periods for rise and fall, with little exception, lasted nearly 5 million years. 2.5 million years to rise, and another 2.5 million years to return to the temperatures we see in our present climate. We actually are at the bottom of one of the cycles at this time, and not at the top as your graph suggests. Just how do you account for the fact that your data appears to insinuate we are now going to reach levels of thermal increase far above any this planet has ever experienced? Especially considering the fact that the real data proves that CO2 levels where nearly 20 times what they are today 550 million years ago, and have been falling, with various fluctuations, ever since. These CO2 levels also were many times in complete contrast to temperature fluctuations. As the atmospheric CO2 increased significantly, the temperature dropped drastically as well, and during the same time period.
Furthermore, you sound like a melodramatic idiot when you call people “deniers”. The term is “skeptic”, and if you do not engage it, then you have no right to make statements such as you contend. You sound more like a propagandist jerk off. And with the current king of spin and corporate whore, Al Gore (the hatchet man for Bill Clinton, who was used to cram NAFTA and GAT down the throat of a reluctant congress), pushing his carbon tax intended to subvert humanity and drive billions of people into poverty and squalor, I take great offense to your comments, my friend. Remember Ross Perot? The one who opposed Gore’s lying garbage about NAFTA? He warned (logically) that the industrial jobs it created by lowering wages in the U.S. and thus stealing them from nations such as Canada who had a 15% higher wage differential, would be lost to ones with significantly lower wage differentials, advice which could have lessened, or completely curtailed the impact of this nation’s current financial crisis…a crisis that will continue to worsen by design as sweeping climate change legislation decimates this nation’s manufacturing base. Can you say “bye bye national sovereignty?”…can you even spell it? Senator Blackburn made clear that Gore is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the New World Order proponents and traitors like Obama and Brown, and caught him lying several times about conflicts of interest, and the fact that he has huge vested interests in climate change legislation. It is, after all, Gore’s company which proposes to garnish all of the revenues.
You say “the end of the last ice age” like it is some kind of fact. Do you forget that in the 70’s these same deviants claimed we were all going to freeze to death. I am certain that first of all you do not know these statements to be fact. And second, it is rather obvious to me, you have engaged in a paltry amount of true research on the matter, and are merely parroting the pedantic and deceptive memes of antagonistic proponents of eugenics and world government.
It also appears rather strange that you ask many questions to which you propose no theories or answers. Yet, at the same time, chastise others for speculating and demanding proof before this planet’s elitist pigs implement destructive and tyrannical legislation meant to gain the full spectrum dominance they have been seeking for hundreds of years…and likely longer.
You may want to look further than your comfort zone and ask yourself why this solar system’s 8th planet, which orbit’s the Sun with its equatorial rotation - unlike Earth’s - spinning on an axis that is nearly 90 degrees offset to its orbit of the Sun, but its equator, which receives no direct sunlight, is still the warmest part of the planet.
On to the next bit of misinformation. Your contention of green house gases (as if it is some sort of fact) has already been debunked by a growing consensus of scientists who are realizing that it is the radiation emitted by the sun.
You also claim that “climate is not cut and dried”. How banal and vague. The truth is that climate is certainly cut and dried so to speak. However, those of meager intuition and proof logic, who cannot see the forest for the trees, fail to realize that this is not an expanding Universe as that retard Einstein claimed. It is a pulsating theatre which we have seen only a microcosm of, and the next phase will not be governed by known precedence.
The data you display is nothing more than edicts of crackpot pseudo science. It would be wise to get your facts straight, because there are soon to be a lot of people getting very angry at those of you who pretend to be some sort of scientist or research specialist, touting theories and propositions that have no basis in reality or empirical science, simply to make a buck or look intelligent. Mainly because you run the risk of being categorized (however errantly) with a growing list of targeted corrupt officials and traitors.
Do yourself a favor, and truly educate yourself with actual facts because I am about to prove to the world exactly why, when and how cyclic drastic climate change occurs.
William: This was a very interesting read, thanks!!!
Uri: You say the graphs I presented are incorrect? LOL. Go tell that to the scientists who spent years drilling the ice cores and analyzing the data. The graphs are as correct as modern science can make them.
What happened millions of years ago is not what I am discussing in this hub. Further, there is not enough information about what happened millions of years ago for you to be able to predict climate changes for the next century.
11,000 'professionals'"? LOL. You must be talking about the OISM petition, which had no quality controls and could have been signed by my grandmother. And, despite the fact that anyone who signed it could self identify themselves as whatever profession they wanted with no fact checking, most of the signatures are not even from climate scientists.
The rest of your assertions are barely worth dealing with.
william,
he gives new meaning to the phrase global warming. at least to hot air.
Uri wrote: "Just how do you account for the fact that your data appears to insinuate we are now going to reach levels of thermal increase far above any this planet has ever experienced?"
Appears to insinuate? LOL. I insinuate no such thing.
And I just noticed you called Einstein a retard.
I think that is all I need to point out.
As you pointed out, never before have we had to factor in a world population of 6 Billion when predicting future climate dynamics. If we ignore this fact and continue to attack the air we breathe, the results may be catastrophic. If we clean up our act...well, what is the downside?
Great hub on a critically important subject.
Thanks for the comment Hugh, and thanks for stopping by.
It's quite legitimate, from a scientific point of view, to look at the history of climate. But from a practical standpoint, we have to work with the conditions we have now. Sure, global temperatures won't be as warm as they were umpteen million years ago, but they will be higher than our civilization has ever seen.
That's big news.
it would be fun though if all the exxon types who have been holding up change in washington dc were now using global warming as a lever for full spectrum dominance.
Great hub,concise and well presented.I'm not especially well informed about climatic history but I tend to think human activity is influencing climate change.Thanks for the interesting article.
Very informative and useful hub. Especially reading about the Milankovitch cycles. Thanks for sharing this.
I find it interesting that Uri calls your hub a mouthpiece. Especially when the basis of his response is more political than scientific. Also since I've already read his opinion, almost verbatum, in other forms of propaganda that are more concerned with profits than any issues actually on the table.
Regardless, if he is right, than he'd have no problem sitting in his garage with the car running and all the windows closed. Surely nothing would happen. Without bringing science into it... imagine billions of cars and a bigger garage...
Thank you for the comments, everyone. Songster - reality is more tangled than we know, but I doubt that Exxon and the rest are competent enough to think that far ahead.
Oldenuf: thanks. I'll be looking for some of your writing soon!
nameless: thanks!
Film critic - LOL at Uri. He apparently knows better than Einstein. I like your hubs by the way!
The argument about global warming is over. Only a few old dinosaurs still believe that man's activities are not contributing to global warming. These dinosaurs are the dupes of business interests whose times are almost past. If they are allowed to dominate the agenda in the US, the US will fall behind in the newly emerging energy economy.
It's not just oil companies using their Republican friends to press the old and dangerous ways. It is Democrats from coal states who can block the path to clean energy. While lobbyists dominate Washington we are all in danger.
Thank you for the comment Will! Sorry I didn't reply earlier.
You are right, we are already falling behind in new, cleaner energy technology. Coal and fossil fuels are profitable, but when you consider the environmental impacts they are not cheap.
Very nicely done William. Never surrender.
I really like what film critic had to say. Very nice analogy.
Uri is quite correct, skeptics and deniers are two different things and he/she is no skeptic.
Do you suppose it might be possible that such people have learned of a way to eat, drink and breathe money?
CWB - good point. I think humans have forgotten how tiny and insignificant we really are compared to nature. We think we have mastered nature - all we have done is destroy our clean water and food sources. We are smart, but we are not wise.
hence my idea for a book called "Common Sense for Dummies"...
:) Laura. Sadly, the people who needed to read your book the most probably would be the least likely to read it.
Laura, William, sad but true.
“Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker, but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.” -Michael Rivero
MoniqueAttinger 2 years ago
Just read this - and I really like it! This is some great information on climate that demonstrates how climate is both very complex and tricky - and the fact that we are now affecting our planet greatly with CO2 concentrations. Alanna Mitchell's book "Sea Sick" deals directly with the CO2 issues and is very compelling reading. It's what helped me to understand that it's not just what's in our air, but what's in our water (especially our oceans) that matters.