A asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 7 years ago

Do these statements against man-made climate change have any value?

"Climate change is caused by the change in position of the equinoxes of the earth in its position during its orbit around the sun and its effect and of the moon on the earth".

"Scientists predict that we are in for a 15- to 30-year global cooling period (according to NASA, the northern ice caps are now increasing 25 per cent year on year)".

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 7 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    The climate is far too complex to be replicated by any computer model. that is why when the models of the past failed to predict the leveling of the past few years they just came up with a new model. now all of the atmospheric temps have suddenly shot into the deep oceans. the argument for AGW has less credibility because it is made for political reasons

  • 7 years ago

    The first statement has been considered as a driver of ice ages in the past, and some people are using it to explain the current warming. It doesn't hold up though.

    The second statement can't be correct. I have read a lot of reports at www.nasa.gov (the real NASA web site, not some other site that claims NASA said something), and none have said the north polar cap is now increasing 25 percent per year. So I say that one is just totally wrong.

  • 7 years ago

    They need to be taken in context.

    The first statement is absolutely true but is important in discussion of man-made climate change only to look at how different it is from natural change. Climate changes due to the Milankovitch Cyles (earth's tilt and orbit) take thousands of years and are very likely the cause of ice ages coming and going. The study of past natural climate change is crucial to understanding the current man-made changes.

    The second statement is part mis-leading and part lie. NASA is not saying that ice caps are increasing. It could be argued that that part is still only misleading and not a lie because the minimum this year was greater than the minimum last year but that is only in the thin temporary ice, not the dense ancient ice that has been lost. There is nobody at NASA who would make the statement as written. As for the first part, there is a small haare ndful of scientists who predict a temporary period of cooling. These are predicting that the next couple of solar cylces will have little activity. That means fewer sunspots which means more gamma rays hitting the earth which means more clouds which means less sunlight hitting the surface. While is may be accurate to say "scientists predict", it is misleading without clarifying that "a small minority of scientists predict". This minority of solar researchers disagree with the majority of solar researchers in believing the effect of solar activity is as great as the increase in greenhouse gases. Most solar researchers believe that the effect could only offset about 10% of greenhouse warming. More importantly, this theory of upcoming solar-activity driven cooling says nothing about man-made global warming. It says that the temporary effects of solar cycles are strong relative to greenhouse warming, meaning that in periods of low activity the earth's environment will cool slightly, but in periods of high activity this minority believes that warming will be much greater than the majority believes. Even if they are right and low solar activity causes cooling over the next couple of cycles, then warming will accelerate in the following cycles and the environment will still warm at an average rate of something like 2 degrees per century.

  • 7 years ago

    The first statement has nothing to do with "man-made climate change". It's not for or against it.

    The second statement is a medium term prediction. Given the past success rate of such climate predictions, I wouldn't bet my house on it.

    "(according to NASA, the northern ice caps are now increasing 25 per cent year on year)". I highly doubt that is true over any kind of meaningful time period.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 7 years ago

    The first statement is true and in respect of the sun describes a major influence (but far from the only influence) on climate on timescales of tens of thousands of years. Anthropogenic climate change, or man-made climate change if you insist, is typically discussed on timescales of centuries. The discrepancy of a factor of 100 means that little scientific attention is given to possible interactions between these factors. Consequently it is in no way clear that this factor acts 'against' anthropogenic influences.

    Reading on I see that the second statement is very unlikely to represent reality in any respect. It therefore has little or no value to me. What value it has to you I will leave you to decide.

    Lunar climatic influences, by the way, are via tides, which are also influenced by the sun. The climatic influence of tides is significant but varies only by a small amount over perhaps tens of millions of years. No significant interaction with anthropogenic influences has been postulated.

  • Kano
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    The orbital movements (Milankovitch cycles) theory has some flaws, they don't match up completely, perhaps there is third factor such as longer term solar cycles involved.

    Your Northern ice caps statement is taken out of context, we had one year only with an increase.

    However it would be a good idea to keep an eye on them, as most interglacials last 10,000yrs and ours is now 12,000 yrs old and our sun is going into a minimum phase.

  • 7 years ago

    All seasons are back to normal naturally/ Global Warming ended in 2012. / man made climate change would destroy all life on and in earth. Mike

    Source(s): common logic
  • I doubt that they are true. Where is the cite?

    Without it they are valueless

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    No value whatsoever They are both bullsh*t

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.