I overheard a couple of conversations in the last few days during a family reunion in which the participants argued (or anyway, serially asserted) that global warming is probably just part of some natural cycle, and who knows what’s causing it, and so on.
I realized I myself don’t have at my mental fingertips a basic explanation as to why it is we know global warming is caused by human activity.
Where can I find such a basic explanation, one basic enough that I could use it in casual conversation?
Hilarious, Roadfood. Neither of your links is directly relevant to my OP. The first link simply reports that scientists think that GW is caused by people. The second link gives one piece of evidence, not a quick summary of the basic case for the claim in general.
The first link did itself contain a link that was a little more relevant–it purports to be a page answering the question whether humans caused global warning. I’m still looking for more though.
HorseloverFat your link seems to be broken. (VALIS doesn’t want me to know about AGW!)
If you really want to have a good base of knowledge, you really need to look at peer reviewed journals and articles (though even those aren’t 100% unchallengeable). A google for such finds a few.
Whatever you do, try and draw your own conclusions from actual scientific data rather then the conclusions other, biased people draw for you. It’s a hard subject as there is so much bias out there; you really need to think about what you’re reading before blindly agreeing with it.
I have a number of good links at work that I’ll post here for you tomorrow.
The introductory page from RealClimate has links to various pages with explanations for beginners. You should be able to find something there. It also has links to more detailed explanations of particular points.
You know, this attitude intrigues me. I agree that peer reviewed journals may be a good primary source for this information, but it is your directive to “try [to] draw your own conclusions from actual scientific data rather then [sic] the conclusions other, biased people draw for you.” Why is it invalid to read a summary written by someone who is an expert in the field. I am not a climatologist. I lack the knowledge necessary to form valid conclusions. I would rather learn from people who have studied the issue and have the expertise to form educated conclusions. This is no different than anything else. If I need my car fixed, I may have the physical capacity to repair it, but I am better off taking my car to be repaired by someone with specialized knowledge. If I am sick, I trust the opinion of my doctor. It is not that I am not capable or educated; I rely on the knowledge of others in areas in which I am not an expert.
Experts can be cranks too. For every 99 perfectly normal physicists, there’s the 1 physicist who believes in cattle mutilations.
Here’s what I recommended to a previous poster who asked the same question as the OP:
*When you look at graphs, make sure that the graph covers as long a time period as is possible. Lots of denialist work depends upon graphs that–if you don’t pay attention–start and end at very specific dates rather than trying to show as much time as they can. Make sure that the graph is of the global temperature and not a single region or what-have-you. Make sure that the research was done by someone actually qualified to do scientific research and presents the data as such. There are probably real, scientific reasons to doubt various parts of the current science, but if you ever saw those, they would be presented in just as terse and eye-wateringly boring a format as any other scientific information. Some guy blogging on the internet, regardless of how pretty his graphs may be and engaging his text, still isn’t a credible source. Lots of secretaries around the world know how to make a pretty graph in Excel. I still wouldn’t entrust them with running the global economy.
Now just because something is produced by real scientists, this doesn’t mean it is so. There is every possibility that all the scientists in the world are wrong, and they will be the first to tell you so. Not believing what people know to be true is the very definition of a scientist’s job.*
I like what you have said here. I think the real trick regarding researching anything is finding trustworthy experts. You articulated what I was thinking much better than I did.
Kinda long, but I do recommend to read the whole history on The Discovery of Global Warming as it deals with the discoveries that pointed to scientists why it is that humans are a very important factor on the current warming trend.
The upshot is that there is an 1800 year global warming/cooling cycle (900 years from cold to hot) caused by deep ocean tides. This is not to say that humanity is not contributing to global warming but that the warming may have a much more fundamental natural cause about which we can do nothing but start moving inland. The good news is that the trend will start reversing itself in about 400 years.
Well, to be fair, it’s perfectly obvious that humans cause climate change – hell, greenhouse warming was theorized in the 19th century, and humanity’s heat output (a largely unexamined issue) is obvious if you put your hand on a hot light bulb, then mentally multiply it by a few billion.
I see many people advance theories of natural warming as if to suggest this means we won’t have to change our habits. But if the natural 1800 year heating/cooling cycle exists, it will add to human-caused warming, making the problem worse, not replace human-caused warming, letting us off the hook. So one of two conditions exist:
Human-caused warming exists by itself, and we will have to make drastic changes. These changes will not be expensive, since the alternative (making earth unlivable) will be far MORE expensive; they’ll just be a different allocation of effort, which some people will dislike because they fear change and other will dislike because the status quo is favoring them.
Natural warming is adding to human-caused warming, in which case the above scenario applies even more urgently.
Sage Rat answered your question, Drum God, as I would have attempted to, and that’s the view and tack that I take.
I also suggest that people should allow their views to evolve as they find more and/or different information, and as new data is provided to the public. A cut and dry stance on climate change isn’t really possible yet.
