# Anthropogenic v. nonanthropogenic global warming - what does it matter?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthropogenic-v-nonanthropogenic-global-warming-what-does-it-matter/408625>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [June 19, 2007, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthropogenic-v-nonanthropogenic-global-warming-what-does-it-matter/408625 "2007-06-19T18:58:07Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\
**Post date:** [June 22, 2007, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthropogenic-v-nonanthropogenic-global-warming-what-does-it-matter/408625/41 "2007-06-22T17:32:51Z")

</div>

> [@666](#):
>
> We’re seeing climatic changes significantly different from what we’ve seen over the past several hundred thousand years?

As **jshore** pointed out, why would we take this as evidence for the end of an ice age when we have much better scientific support for taking it as evidence for anthropogenic climate change?

The “ice age” debate so far seems to be going approximately like this:

**Mainstream Climate Science:** The best scientific explanation we currently have for the observed recent rise in atmospheric GHG concentrations and global temperatures is the hypothesis of an “enhanced greenhouse effect” caused by human GHG emissions.

**You:** But what if the real explanation is that we’re suddenly coming to the end of the current ice age?

**MCS:** Why would we be suddenly coming to the end of the current ice age? There’s no physical orbital mechanism or observable statistical pattern to support that assumption.

**You:** Because a sudden end to the ice age would produce rising temperatures and GHG concentrations, and that’s what we’re seeing!

**MCS:** But as we just said, there’s a **better** scientific explanation for the currently observed rising temperatures and GHG concentrations. The evidence and theory supporting the anthropogenic-climate-change hypothesis is quite strong, whereas the evidence and theory supporting your end-of-ice-age-climate-change hypothesis is basically nil.

**You:** But what if it **is** true that the explanation is that we’re suddenly coming to the end of the current ice age?

**MCS:** 😕 :rolleyes:

> [@666](#):
>
> I do not agree that the causative relationships between those factors have been adequately explored to warrant the level of attention applied to anthropogenic GHG emissions to the exclusion of all other possible causes.

Where do you get the idea that current climate science is focusing on anthropogenic GHG emissions “to the exclusion of all other possible causes”? There are lots of studies being done on non-anthropogenic climate phenomena like changes in global insolation.

It’s not true that anthropogenic climate change is the only explanation being seriously examined by climate scientists. However, it’s certainly true that ACC is overwhelmingly the **dominant** explanation being provisionally **accepted** by climate scientists as their working hypothesis.

And the reason for that is that, scientifically speaking, the ACC hypothesis is the best explanation currently available for observed climate trends. It’s only reasonable that scientists will devote the most attention to the hypothesis that has the best scientific support.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anthropogenic-v-nonanthropogenic-global-warming-what-does-it-matter/408625.md?page=2)