The problem with global warming

Human causation is not that convincing

Published on May 2, 2007 By Draginol In Politics

The problem with global warming is that environmentalists are trying to act that its cause is a known fact. It is not.

As a refresher, here is the theory of human induced global warming in short:

The molecule CO2 is a green house gas. More specifically, when the sun's energy passes through our atmosphere and comes into contact with the carbon atoms, it holds some of that energy. As a result, heat is trapped in the atmosphere which increases the surface temperature of the Earth.

The primary source of energy used by humans involves using carbon-based energy sources. The worst of these are fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are so problematic because they represent carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere millions of years ago and stored underground in the form of oil, coal, etc. When we burn these fuels, the carbon that was trapped is released and combines with O2 to form CO2 and goes back into the atmosphere.

Since 1975, the mean temperature has gone up with the last few years being some of the warmest years on record. The environmentalist lobby has made a strong case that humans are the cause -- CO2 is higher today than it has been in millions of years, it's a green house gas, and we're tons of it into the atmosphere every day.

The problem with that theory is that it doesn't explain why global temperatures were going down between 1940 and 1975. To me, it screams weak science.

Correlation doesn't equal causation. CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas. But we have no understanding yet about how much it really can affect temperatures. Contrary to what some have claimed, CO2 increases have not preceded increased temperatures. On the contrary -- increased temperatures have led to more CO2 in the atmosphere historically (which isn't surprising).

CO2 definitely has an affect on temperatures, we just don't know if it's significant or not. For instance, all bodies of mass have a gravitational pull. You and I exert a gravitational pull (mine seems to increase every year...). But compared to the Earth, it's insignificant. CO2 could, in fact, turn out to be much the same thing in terms of temperature change. Sure, CO2 is a green house gas but the amount in the atmosphere one would need to increase global temperatures could be ridiculously high.

What amazes me is how eagerly people have been to join the Human-induced global warming bandwagon even with the elephant in the room -- the time between 1940 and 1975 when temperatures were decreasing. To me, that alone should have bred a healthy scientific skepticism in the CO2 theory of global warming.

The weather is getting warmer but we really don't have a clue why yet. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to find ways to "reduce our footprint". I support that. But what I don't support is the vilification of CO2 while forgetting about the dangers of sulfur dioxide, methane, NOx, etc. Watching people support monstrous things like bio-diesel (because it's "carbon neutral") sends shivers up my spine.

I certainly could be in error but I really do think that in a decade or two at most we will discover that CO2 isn't quite the boogeyman we thought it was and that other causes of global warming will be found (or even that mean temperatures start to decrease even as discussed here).

Until some environmentalist can explain why the temperature went down between 1940 and 1975 even has CO2 levels were skyrocketing, I think this talk about "human caused global warming" should show a bit more humility. Shrillness is no substitute for logic and reason.

Comments (Page 3)

danielost

on May 05, 2007

could just as easily argue that the ozone depletion caused more UV rays to get through at the caps that somehow caused more polar melting.

this is my belief only

but the holes in the ozone are there to let heat off the planet

most of the heat hits the equater and moves north and south to the poles and then escapes the planet

this is my theory only

the ozone is there to stop radiation from getting through the only problem is that it would stop it in both directions. So you would need holes to let the radiation out. for everyones info who doesn't know heat and radiation is the same

TheStonemansRevenge

on May 08, 2007

What happened to the GalCiv2 website? has it failed or something?

Vinraith

on May 08, 2007

The problem with global warming is that environmentalists are trying to act that its cause is a known fact.

That sounds like a problem with environmentalists, not global warming. Indeed this entire piece is a criticism of a scientific phenomenon by someone that disagrees with the political representation of that phenomenon. Let me save you some trouble. Environmentalism as a political movement. It's at best tenuously connected to the realities of climatological science. Stop paying them any mind if you really want to understand the issue, and start looking at the actual evidence and the people that really understand it.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/ - Hadley Centre for Climate Research in the UK]
http://www.research.noaa.gov/climate/ - Our own National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association on the topic]
http://wcrp.wmo.int/ - World Climate Research Programme

These are just a few convenient, centralized sources. A real reading of the peer reviewed literature on the subject would be ideal but is probably beyond your level of interest and time investment. The point here, regardless of what the environmental movement has to say, is that there is a real scientific consensus on the human cause issue. There are dissenting opinions, of course, but they are decidedly those of a minority of climatologists (and sometimes, though not always, carry reasonable suspicion of funding bias to boot).

Dr Guy

on May 08, 2007

is that there is a real scientific consensus on the human cause issue

Real science does not dabble in concensus. It is concerned with theory, proof and facts. Consensus is for politics and not science.

Vinraith

on May 08, 2007

A nice article from RealClimate on the "Global Cooling" period: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/en/

Draginol

on May 08, 2007

The cooling trend from the 40's to the 70's now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend (e.g. here). It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpreation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available.

(above from the link given)

Which doesn't address the issue at all. If humans are the cause of global warming, then there shouldn't be any interruption of an upward trend. Period.

In fact, if anything, it makes the case that there are much more significant variables in global temperatures than human-made CO2 emissions.

Vinraith

on May 10, 2007

If humans are the cause of global warming, then there shouldn't be any interruption of an upward trend. Period.

I'm sorry, I don't understand that at all. That would only be the case if the only variable affecting the climate was human interference, I don't think anyone's making that claim. If human activity is causing a warming trend and then another factor, say a build up of sulfur compounds in the atmosphere due to volcanic eruptions, causes a cooling "dent" in the data, I don't see how you can then dismiss the idea of a substantive human impact on the environment as you seem to be doing. The climate's a complex system, no one's denying that, to assume that the human contribution to climate change must be the only variable in the behavior of climate seems... odd at a minimum. In any study of a multivariable system there are going to be fluctuations due to whatever variables you aren't controlling, I don't see how the much vaunted "cooling period" has any real relevance to the question of whether human CO2 emissions are causing the current warming trend at all.

I suppose the best argument you could make is that our observations of the period affected by human CO2 emissions are sufficiently brief that another variable could also be used to account for the warming trend seen over the period. If all global warming was based on were those short term observations I'd even have to agree with you. The catch there is that the current period appears to be anomalous even by the normal fluctuations observed in Earth's climate via ice core studies, as well as the well characterized effect of CO2 spectroscopically (ie as a green house gas). In short, I can understand skepticism based on other factors, but the brief cooling period so often cited by "global warming" deniers doesn't seem to be the best basis for doubt to me. I also, to be honest, don't really understand the current "we don't trust science because environmentalists say stupid shit" trend. Ignore the people with an agenda and just look at the data and what the experts have to say about it.

Paladin77

on May 10, 2007

Here I go again!
The weather is getting warmer because the sun is getting hotter. It has been documented, proven and an accepted scientific fact since around 1964. It was proven again with probes to Venus, and Mars which are also getting warmer at the same rate the Earth is warming up. So either the Earth is polluting two other planets as well as the Earth or the sun is the reason why. Yes, man contributes to this warming when I first looked into this it was 6/100th of a degree now we are in deep trouble because it has skyrocketed up to 7/100th of a degree and if we keep going without any breaks in a thousand years man will be responsible for the Earths temperature going up a full degree.
If you were to be on a space station orbiting the Earth you would find that the temperature in sunlight to be about 250 degrees. The Earths atmosphere and rotation keeps the temperature down to an average temperature between 68 and 74 degrees. Our atmosphere filters out almost 125 degrees on average. The hottest point on Earth has a ground temperature of 150 meaning that the atmosphere still filters out 100 degrees. The sun is growing hotter each day and a carbon footprint is not going to help one way or another.

Dr Guy

on May 10, 2007

So either the Earth is polluting two other planets as well as the Earth

Must be all those probes we are sending to those planets.

Paladin77

on May 10, 2007

Must be all those probes we are sending to those planets.

Yeah right!

Wait, they are solar powered so there is no carbon footprint. LOL

One other thing.
Global climate change has been happening since day one.
At first the Earth was too hot to sustain life, it changed and the Earth cooled and water vapor fell as rain. This cooled the Earth even more, at the time the atmosphere was 79% nitrogen 4% oxygen, 10% sulfur, 5% carbon, and 1% trace gases. The water absorbed the gases in the atmosphere and one celled organisms took the carbon and sulfur in what is called chemosynthesis they built shells around themselves and grouped into colonies we call them coral. The problem was they farted oxygen which at the time was considered a pollutant. Trees came along and started sucking up carbon and exhaling oxygen. Now the balance is about 80% nitrogen, 18% oxygen, with the rest as trace gases. The climate has changed to allow us to thrive here. It will change again and we won’t be able to thrive here. It will continue to change bringing rise to one from of life while killing off another.

Vinraith

on May 10, 2007

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to find ways to "reduce our footprint". I support that. But what I don't support is the vilification of CO2 while forgetting about the dangers of sulfur dioxide, methane, NOx, etc.

Then we've really got no problem, because every other element of this discussion is essentially "academic." As to solar warming you're right, it's definitely a component, but most of the research I've seen indicates that it can't account for all the warming we're seeing. Like I said, there are lots of variables in the system, and no one (aside from some really loopy environuts) is claiming that human interference is the only important one. I think there is some reason to be concerned by the fact that we've produced enough CO2 "artificially" to move ourselves forward in the carbon cycle by about 10,000 years over the last hundred, though.

Still, honestly, if we can all agree that reducing pollutants including CO2 output is a good idea for any of a broad variety of reasons I could care less whether you're in line with climatological research on the subject. Oh, and hammer the envirotards all you like, of course, hell I'll join you (I detest people that distort science for political purpose, no matter which wing they're on). At this point, as long as we're all agreed that warming is going on (regardless of source), it seems to me we can all agree that 1) we want to take steps of eliminate any substantive contribution to it we may prove to be making and 2) we want to prepare for it and try to find ways to mitigate its effects on human civilization regardless of its source. Fair?

danielost

on May 10, 2007

but most of the research I've seen indicates that it can't account for all the warming we're seeing. Like I said, there are lots of variables in the system,

the only problem with this research is they are trying to prove a point which makes it non scientific

Paladin77

on May 10, 2007

As to solar warming you're right, it's definitely a component, but most of the research I've seen indicates that it can't account for all the warming we're seeing.

I don’t know what research you are looking at but try to get this. We have come out of an ice age that lasted over a million years. Antarctica used to be tropical and the Sahara used to be green with lakes, rivers and valleys. Then it got real cold and we had three mile thick ice over the entire planet that only global warming cured. The warming is fully accounted for except for about a degree which people attribute to man. The planet has been getting hotter and colder in cycles longer than man has been walking around but only man can be so arrogant as to think that our ten or so thousand years of progress has done anything to this planet that would destroy anyone other than man. Before man was dominant on the planet there were thousands of species that have been wiped out and I don't just mean by some rock that fell to earth I mean before that happened.

Dr Guy

on May 10, 2007

but only man can be so arrogant

Love that quote! Yes we are, and so we shall always be. Unfortunately, our arrogance may eventually be our real undoing.

Paladin77

on May 11, 2007

Love that quote! Yes we are, and so we shall always be. Unfortunately, our arrogance may eventually be our real undoing.

So true, if we listened to the “experts” that said we needed to melt the ice caps 30 years ago to save us from global cooling we would have found out way too late that they were wrong.
Think about it, if we destroy the economies of all the industrialized nations, get rid of all fuels that produce pollution, and if man stops exhaling, in one hundred years we will have reduced the global average temperature by one degree. WOW! This means that in that same one hundred years the temperature will have only risen by about 4 degrees instead of 5 if my calculations are correct.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!