Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
What significant predictions has the theory of natural global warming made?
Some claim that the observed trend of warming global temperatures is attributable to natural, that is, non-anthropogenic causes. If this is true, what could we predict to observe as a consequence? Have any such predictions turned out to be accurate?
For example, the theory of gravity allows us to predict what happens if we drop a ball from our window, or how hard we need to push a rocket to get it into space.
Does the commonly believed theory (outside mainstream science) that global warming is due to natural, non-anthropogenic causes, yield useful predictions like this? For instance, it might predict all planets in the solar system are getting warmer, or that there is a strong correlation between global temperature and solar output? And have any such predictions been observed to come true?
8 Answers
- Dana1981Lv 710 years agoFavorite Answer
That depends on the 'natural' cause. The beauty of denialism is that they don't restrict themselves to any single alternative argument. They say it's the sun, cosmic rays, oceanic cycles, clouds, etc. etc. Each of these explanations would result in different predictions.
However, it's very hard to explain some of the 'fingerprints' we've observed. For example, the cooling upper atmosphere as the lower atmosphere and surface warm. There aren't a lot of 'natural' causes of global warming that can explain that, but of course it's totally consistent with an increase greenhouse effect.
- 10 years ago
Here is the state of our climactic understanding in a nutshell... Okay, well, a big nutshell.
We have a couple of hundred years of surface temperature data, and perhaps a hundred years of geographically wide spread surface temperature data. We have thousands of years of coarse proxies (ice cores, tree rings, etc) at single points.
From this data we attempt to deduce signals. That is, meaningful variations on the data. Unfortunately our ability to accurately measure causes of such signals in the proxies on the geological time scale is limited. We can only infer, extrapolate, and guess. On our progressively better data it gets better, but the best stuff really is only recent.
There were many limitations to our ability to make spacial measurements of the globe until we had satellites capable of the feat. Nice and even readings over the whole globe, depending on the accuracy of the equipment involved. They really provide our best data but we only have a couple of decades worth of data there. There's only so much gluing one data set type onto another that you can do before you've introduced more error than makes the process worth while.
Some of those signal patterns are on geological time scales rather than decade time scales, and thus, predictions on what those signals actually represent may take just as long to test. Unlike a gravity experiment which can be done and measured on demand, waiting for the entire climate system to reach a particular experiment point, for most practical purposes, is impossible. As are efforts is changing particular individual conditions to test specific characteristics in exclusion of others. We cannot clone the earth for an experiment.
What about computer modeling? Some might ask this as a follow up. Computer modeling is not science, just like math is not science. Math is a completely artificial construct that is often useful to describe a scientific observation. Like math, a computer model might be a useful artificial construct to describe a scientific observation. I can claim my math equation will accurately predict my gravity experiment and then proceed to verify that hypothesis. Proving these out simply requires tests with measurements and the time and effort to complete it. In the case of the global climate, our time scales for some things are geological. Don't read too much into what we think we know, there may well be a lot of signals we haven't accounted for and are not represented in our historical proxies. Hind casting is also not fool proof, you can produce equations that match a historical chart accurately but have zero predictive power. The only way we'll have really solid stuff is to have the hypothesis born out with experimental data. And that's going to take a long long time depending on the signals you are looking for.
Bottom line, climate science is not mature enough to give you any solid predictions and our understanding is really rather small.
- DaveHLv 510 years ago
The IPCC has published several very large reports on this. The last one in 2007 was the 'Fourth Assessment Report'
In the "Summary for Policymakers", a summary for the worlds politicians, there is a section called "Projected climate change and its impacts" Here they list projected impacts.
This is the document
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/e...
"Have any such predictions turned out to be accurate?"
Day to day it's hard to tell what is weather and what is climate. Ask again in 7 years. Then you'll be able to look at the projections made for 2020 and see if they happened or not.
- zipperLv 710 years ago
Gravity is no longer a theory; it is an accept fact of what is there.
As for global warming, this planet has gone through it before and will again. To have ice ages we had to have had warming ages as well.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- ?Lv 610 years ago
That when the globe warms enough, iceburgs will calve off. This will dump tonnes of fresh water into the ocean, which will slow the thermohaline circulation.
http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daansgard-Oeschger_cy...
The two are related. Think of the thermostat on your wall regulating the house temperature in the summer and the winter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Tempera...
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-na...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/gallery_director...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18595-massiv...
Even if man does play a part in this current warming cycle, there are natural counters to it. Runaway global warming is just a fairy tale.
EDIT: just correcting my grammar.
- Jeff MLv 710 years ago
Natural global warming related to orbital eccentricity and other orbital variations as well as internal feedbacks are thought to be a major contributor to ice ages and the recovery from them (1). Variations in solar output and oscillations are also known to coincide with such things as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age (2). Volcanic contribution of CO2 was thought to have taken the Earth out of various snowball Earth episodes as that CO2 had very few carbon sinks to be absorbed by and, as a consequence, atmospheric concentrations increased (3). Global cooling, due to aerosols, and stratospheric warming, due to increased water vapour, is known to occur for a number of years after larger volcanic eruptions (4). The natural variation of CO2 decreases as the climate cools and the oceans become an absorber of carbon rather than an emitter. Currently, however, the oceans are absorbing more CO2, evidenced by the decreasing pH, than they are emitting due to Henry's Law and Le Chatelier's Principal, and the atmosphere is increasing in CO2. Anthropogenic CO2 amounts to 30gt/y while atmospheric increase amounts to 15gt/y with half of the anthropogenic amount being absorbed by the ocean and the other half staying in the atmosphere. Solar output has been declining for the past several decades while tropospheric energy has been increasing and measurements show that more energy is being retained mainly by CO2 (5,6). Therefor one comes to the conclusion that natural variation does not play a significant role in the current warming period.
Source(s): 1. http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/eemartin/GLY6075F10/... 2. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/Man... 3. http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/~peltier/pub... 4. http://atoc.colorado.edu/~dcn/ATOC6020/papers/Sode... 5. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI42... 6. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800... - Anonymous10 years ago
yes
Source(s): yes - Hey DookLv 710 years ago
People make predictions. Theories do not make predictions. If by the "theory of natural global warming" you mean climate science, it mainly developed in order to understand the past (the "riddle of the ice ages") not to predict the future.
Source(s): http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm