Over the last hundred years the Earth has been warming. This warming is believed to lead to many issues such as drought, weather extremes and famine. The man made global warming theory states that man made CO2 is causing Earth to warm at an alarming rate; thus, the warming will continue. by Liberty
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Over the last hundred years the Earth has been warming. This warming is believed to lead to many issues such as drought, weather extremes and famine. The man made global warming theory states that man made CO2 is causing Earth to warm at an alarming rate; thus, the warming will continue. While some scientists believe CO2 is the culprit, other scientists believe the world’s warming and cooling happens in cycles due to various factors. Some of these scientists believe that Earth is starting a cooling trend after a long warming trend. Therefore, the trillion dollar question is global warming caused by CO2 or is this Earth’s natural cycle?
Carbon dioxide is the gas that is responsible for global warming under the man made global warming theory. CO2 is also a part of everyday life. Therefore, this gas should not be confused with smog, which creates a low level ozone layer that can be harmful to humans. CO2 is less than 2% of the world’s atmosphere. Meanwhile 93% of all CO2 is stored in the world’s oceans; the rest is stored the biosphere in things like plants. Oceans move CO2 into the atmosphere and then remove it as continual cycle. Warmer waters, like tropical waters, store less CO2 than colder arctic or deep waters. As CO2 increases in the Earth’s atmosphere, the oceans work harder to remove it. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased 30% since the pre-industrial era. The ocean has also increased its absorption of CO2 from roughly 2.0 Pg of CO2 in the 1980s to 2.4 Pg in the 1990s. Along with the oceans increased CO2 absorption, plants and trees also take in more CO2. This extra absorption of CO2 increases crop yields and plant growth.
The question arises if man is increasing the CO2 significantly or if the oceans are naturally warming and releasing more CO2 as a part of a cycle? Unfortunately, most graphs shown in news articles only go back 120 years, starting in the 1880s. One glance at these graphs and a person could easily deduce that man and industrialization has caused global warming. Many seem to forget that the last ice age was over 100,000 years ago, so looking at the last 120 years for temperature change seems inadequate. Archeologists have found cities under the oceans, such as the one in India that is 9500 years old. This indicates that the Earth must have been warming for some time, possibly including many warming and cooling cycles. Going back 2000 years paints a better picture than the 120 year "hockey stick" graph. In the Middle Ages the temperature deviation was the same as today. This period did not have industry that created man made CO2.
Images are from GlobalWarmingArt.com, red line is the most recent reconstructed model. Darker lines indicate older models.
Another interesting fact is that even though man made CO2 has exponentially increasing from 1950 to today, temperature from 1940 to 1980 decreased. Scientists back in the 1970s believed that pollution was causing global cooling. The real problem is that any model based off a lower point, like 1880s temperature, would make the model appear that the earth is on fire. Instead of using incomplete models, models need to include a couple of temperature cycles to fully understand how the Earth behaves.
At least 70-80% of the Earth’s warming effect comes from water vapor and clouds not CO2. CO2 traps about 10-20% of the world’s heat. Other contributors to warming include high altitude cirrus clouds and sunspots. Cirrus clouds block radiant heat from escaping the Earth’s atmosphere. Sunspots have been known throughout history to have an effect on the Earth’s temperature. From 1645 to 1715 there were very few sunspots recorded. This also was a period referred to as the little ice age. Over the last 60 years, our sun has been very active with a record number of sun spots recorded. This could also be the reason that ice caps on Mars are melting and other planets in our solar system are experiencing warming, like Jupiter.
By studying models that are more inclusive, scientists are now worried about the warming trend reversing. The Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing at a record pace. The media seems to focus on just the Wilkins ice sheet, which is only 0.01% of Antarctica’s ice cover. The rest of the ice cover is returning 60% faster than last year at 4.0 square km. Even Greenland is seeing a 15 year high in ice levels between Canada and itself. In the US this spring has been much cooler than normal for most of the country. These events are leading more and more scientists to believe the Earth is in for a cooling trend. If global cooling occurs, agricultural life could change as we know it. This could lead to a worldwide food shortage and a displacement of millions of people.
Currently, the United States Congress is debating a potential five trillion dollar energy policy. This policy will place carbon caps on corporations. This will raise cost of energy significantly. Money raised from these caps would be redistributed to more expensive renewable energy projects. The poor will suffer the most as they will have to contend with rising food prices, rising gas prices and now rising energy costs. With so many factors causing global warming, the anti- CO2 movement seems very reckless and will cause many people to suffer.
Fighting emissions from cars and factories is a very noble cause. Pollution can cause all sorts of problems like asthma. To say the world is warming because of humans is a very bold claim. Lots of factors go into warming the Earth. To focus on just one, CO2 is very naïve. It can also be very dangerous as it sacrifices our economic stability and standard of living. Doubling the price of gasoline over the last few years has caused food costs to shoot up; fishermen and truckers to be put out of business; and many low income people to suffer. Now, Congress is debating to do the same thing to electricity prices.
The views expressed
in this article are those of Liberty only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Liberty is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that global warming is happening. Their three key conclusions are:
* It is "unequivocal" that global warming is occurring.
* The probability this is caused by natural climatic processes is less than 5%.
* The probability this is caused by human emissions is over 90%.
"We now have evidence from the Earth's history that a similar event happened fifty-five million years ago when a geological accident released into the air more than a terraton of gaseous carbon compounds. As a consequence the temperature in the arctic and temperate regions rose eight degree Celsius and in tropical regions about five degrees, and it took over one hundred thousand years before normality was restored. We have already put more than half this quantity of carbon gas into the air and now the Earth is weakened by the loss of land we took to feed and house ourselves. In addition, the sun is now warmer, and as a consequence the Earth is now returning to the hot state it was in before, millions of years ago, and as it warms, most living things will die." (The Revenge of Gaia)
An error in judgment over if our emissions cause climate change is much much worse than a misjudgment over if smoking tobacco causes cancer:
"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07
Al Gore claims there are very few scientists who disagree with anthropogenic global warming. That statement is disingenuous at best. There are many scientists who disagree with the anthropogenic global warming theory. Following are three separate lists of scientists who disagree with AGW:
60 scientists signed a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, urging him not to sign any Kyoto like treaties. The letter states :“The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” Ref [link edited for length]
100 scientists signed a letter to the secretary general of the UN stating:“UN climate conference (is) taking the world in entirely the wrong direction” Ref [link edited for length]
19,000 scientists signed a petition stating:“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” Ref [link edited for length]
Each of the above letters or petitions contains a list of the signatories who disagree with AGW.
Now let me ask; where is the list of scientists who do agree with AGW?
Good summary. Interesting to look at the recent 2008 data showing the earth is cooling, below the 114 year averages. Also the NOAA data showing the oceans have cooled.
It is also intriguing to read some of the sunspot data people, showing the cycle 24 sunspots have not developed. More people are becoming concerned over the implications of this on cooling.
I came across another interesting note that the USA wheat crops are behind due to cooling. However, the USDA still predicts record crops. I wonder how they gain this conclusion when the current data shows the crops much behind.
Last quick point, the petition now has over 31,000 signatures. Senator Inhofe provides more information on this.
The letter seems to accept global warming as a fact. It disagrees on the extent that this is caused by man, and whether it is advisable to attempt greenhouse gas mitigation. the latter of these arguments is a valid concern. It is untruthful to state that the 100 signatories of "a letter to the secretary general of the UN" which you referenced are "scientists". From the list of signatories:
Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia
Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands
The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.
Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.
Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph
Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand
Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University
Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force
Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia
Two others of this letters' signatories deserve special attention.
Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona
Craig D. Idso is the son of the Center's President, Sherwood Idso, and brother of its VP, Keith Idso. Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, is a scientist, but it is very arguable whether his field of study, Soil Science, makes him qualified to speak about climate change as a scientist.
Sherwood Idso created a $250,000 video for Western Fuels in 1991 titled "The Greening of Planet Earth" which touts the virtues of global warming. The highly misleading video which claims that global warming is good for humanity was paid for by the coal industry and was the subject of Congressional Hearings in the early 1990s.
Keith E. Idso has published the results of the center's work, among other places, in the John Birch Society magazine, "The New American."
While The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide has tried to distance itself from the coal industry and Western Fuels Association, a look at the Western Fuels website indicates otherwise.(Note: Western Fuels website link in original article was corrected to point to the current live link)
The Idsos, who have previously been linked to Western coal interests, do not reveal the sources of financial support for their center, which on its Web site presents summaries of scientific studies purporting to raise questions about prevailing climate change theories.
The center had a budget of nearly $400,000 in 2001, the last year for which nonprofit statements to the Internal Revenue Service are available.
It operates from a post office box and offices in the homes of Craig and Sherwood Idso and a second son of Sherwood Idso, Keith Idso.
Identities of the four donors who provided the organization's $397,000 contributions in 2001 are blanked out of the Internal Revenue Service filing, and Sherwood Idso declined in an interview to name them.
The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is a 501(c)(3)charity, that attempts to alter public perceptions and government policies, yet refuses to publicly disclose even its major corporate contributers. To major sources have been divulged on the giver side though:
Granted; an entity's taking of money from corporate sources to fund studies that the corporations have a significant financial interest in does not necessarily mean astroturfing shill, but the fact the entity's home field stays green year-round, and they do not have any lawn mowers in their grounds maintenance department, indicates a need for increased scrutiny, yet the Ipso family will not even disclose who their major corporate givers are. The data which is produced by The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is dubious. Who paid the piper is a germane concern when considering the validity of data being promulgated by Think Tanks and Policy orgs, especially ones that operate entirely within a work at home pardigm.
The Oregon petition
Your outdated reference to the number of scientists the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine says have signed their petition leads me to believe that your research on this essay was less that a stellar effort. They now claim that" 31,072 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,021 with PhDs". Look at the petition form at the website though, and tell me exactly what kind of controls they have in place to assure that everyone who signs it has the degree that they claim to have. How can it be that an organization which bills itself as an "Institute of Science and Medicine", not using a scientific method to assure the veracity of the data that they collect and use? The signatories date back to the petition's first incarnation in 1998, which itself a questionable enterprise, using fraudulent techniques to secure signatures on it.
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.
Posted By: Kenneth W Gareau
Date: 2008-06-13 01:47:19
If you had done better research on the Petition Website you would have found your answer... They had members and volunteeers continually verify the incoming petition cards for a degree. The original website of the Organization has not been updated for a while but the Petition Website is and it is run by some of the heirs (children) of the founders. They also have degrees.
Posted By: Kenneth W Gareau
Date: 2008-06-13 01:52:33
Re: Petition Project
Scientific Method to verify the veracy of the data they use is well and good for primary research. But that same safeguard is not required if you are citing already reviewed or compiled date that has used the "scientific method" You will see at the end of the 12 pages of the PDF report that they include all of the references for you to check.
@ Kenneth W Gareau - If you had done better research on the Petition Website...
You're stating that what the OISM claims, should be believed at face value? I am greatly amused. As to your insult regarding my research; Bro, better go to the mirror, and check out that huge mote in your eye.
When the OISM first started pushing the Oregon Petition with Frederick Seitz, who is a past president of the National Academy of Sciences, they mailed out the petition with an unpublished paper printed up to look like it was a publication of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This prompted the National Academy of Sciences to issue a disclaimer, stating that the paper was in no way affiliated with them, and that it presented a view unsubstantiated by current scientific understanding. The paper was written by two chemists, Arthur Robinson, his son Noah, and an astrophysicist, Willie Soon. The mailing also included an reprint of a WSJ Op/Ed written by Robinson and Robinson, which was refuted in an article written by three renown American experts in climatology:
Thomas R. Karl - director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center
Kevin E. Trenberth - head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research
James E. Hansen - head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University
The legitimacy of the signatories of the first Oregon Petition Drive were challenged:
Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition-one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers-a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.
Arthur Robinson, a physical chemist from Cave Junction, Ore., who circulated the petition by mail among scientists, said questionable names were added to the petition by pranksters. [. . .]
Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."
Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "It's fake," he said.
"When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake," Robinson, 56, said in a telephone interview from Oregon.
The 2007.08.24 version has a bordered table with the following text:
"Be sure to read the peer reviewed scientific paper on which this petition is based."
and links to: oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm, which is referenced as an "an eight page review of information on the subject of 'global warming,' and a petition in the form of a reply card." At the bottom of the page can be found: "Paper: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", which links to the same page. The trouble with this is that the paper wasn't, nor has it ever been honestly peer-reviewed. That is a blatant lie.
The current version has deleted the table claiming that the paper had been peer reviewed but at the page's bottom is still found: "Paper: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", which again links to oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm, yet now it is now referenced as being 12 pages long, instead of 8. There is still a claim that the paper has been "Peer reviewed" on the OISM Petition Project Home Page. It does seem to have been published; in The recognized climatology forum: The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, which is published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. (AAPS). The Executive Director of AAPS is Jane M. Orient, M.D., who is also The OISM's Professor of Medicine.
The OISM lists on its home page Eight Faculty members, although it does not have any student body, or classes. Two of the listed faculty members are deceased, Martin D. Kamen and R. Bruce Merrifield. The Robinson family, father Arthur, a chemist, plus sons, Noah, a chemist, and Zachary, a veterinarian, fill three more of the slots. The other three "Faculty" positions are, along with Dr. Orient, Fred Westall, a biochemist, and Carl Boehme, who has a masters in Electrical Engineering, and is presently employed as an E-Commerce Market Development manager for Information Designs, Inc. out of Boise, Idaho. Where is the curriculum vitae of these "Faculty" members which would give these individuals credibility, when they disagree with recognized climate scientists?
There's more, but I've not the patience or the time to publish it presently. The point being: the paper published by the OISM, which they send out in their petition drive is of questionable veracity, and there is no justifiable reason to believe that the signatories of The Oregon Petition have been, are being, or will ever be properly vetted for accuracy, by the OISM, their claims otherwise notwithstanding, given their past willingness to engage in fraud, and to deceive.
Let me reiterate my last question; where is the list of scientists who do support the anthropogenic warming theory? At one time it was claimed that 2500 scientists supported it. But according to Richard Lindzen of MIT, many of those were not scientists and none of them were asked if they agreed with the conclusions. Lindzen was also on the IPCC.
Al Gore wants us to believe that there is no dispute about AGW. But there obviously is. Al Gore would like to immediately start enacting legislation aimed at curbing CO2 without further discussion. In his testimony before congress he recommended the following:
1) Banning incandescent light bulbs -this has already been done.
2) levying a large carbon tax to replace the social security tax. He doesn't explain how social security would be funded if the carbon tax actually achieves its goal and drastically reduces CO2 output.
3)Questionable carbon trading schemes which would likely provide large profits for Generation Investments, the firm which Al Gore chairs.
The scientists who wrote to Stephen Harper called for open debates between scientists on both sides of the issue so the public could see the facts and understand the potential outcomes of CO2 reduction measures. I think that is a very reasonable idea. We should do that before we embark on a program which will likely cost trillions of dollars and probably affect the way we live. Wouldn't you agree?
The problem with Global Warming is that it is such a complicated issue that unless we get degrees in climatology and economics, we have to defer to authority or fall back on our own prejudices. Also there are many issues, not just one:
1. Is the Earth warming and how fast? 2. If GW is real, is it man made? 3. If it is real and man made, in the net effet positive or negative? 4. If the net effect is negative, can we reduce or stop or reverse it? 5. If we can slow GW, will it cost more than the damage GW will cause? 6. What is the cost of adapting to GW as opposed to reducing it? 7. If we discover and agree on the answers to all of the above questions, can we create a political mechanism for implementing the solutions? 8.If we can create a political mechanism, can we ensure that the unintended consequesnces of said mechanism won't be worse than the environmental problem we were confronted with in the first place?
Billy Joe, I agree that the climate is incredibly complex and maybe no one completely understands it.
You raise many good questions. I think we should let the scientists debate those questions in public where the people can get a good understanding of what the issues are. Al Gore says the debate is over. I'd say the debate hasn't happened yet, at least not in public. Let's have that debate.
We are headed for a new ice age. Look at the research and the pictures of buried powerlines and cranes in the artic as well as thousands of articles of Glaciers actually growing. Yes people one glacier in one are melting does not prve global warming but ALL glaciers growing does prove a coming ice age.
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-07-13 02:08:45
Adam - in the charts you posted any idea on how to get the actual hard (ie raw) data) for them? Call me a skeptic, but making predictions based on tenths of a degree celsius calls into question where the data points are - if in cities, what about urban heat island effect or other changes. If the data is just from ice cores, well the earth is a big place, other areas need to be included. Second, if the data was taken in other areas, then how what is the reproducibility and repeatability of the thermometers used? If you tell me that scientists 120 years ago had thermometers accurate to 0.1 C, I think you are nuts.
I probably won't check back here again, but my emails firstname.lastname@example.org. Thanks and Peace, Jake
The article makes clear that global warming is happening. It mentions a relationship between CO2 and global warming. But it doesn't make the relationship clear. Instead, it is busy saying mankind is to blame.
There is an underlying, basic datum. A relationship between our planet's tempreture, and CO2 exists. It is not not fully known. But ice core samples show an exact, point for point relationship. We are uncertain how long it will take for our tempreture to arrive at the atmosphere's CO2 level. The CO2 has increased far too rapidly for our atmosphere's reaction to catch up with. Heat will continue to increase. We don't know how far these things will go, and we don't know how fast this will happen.
Placing responsibility is sometimes useful. But defining our lsituation is more important, until we have a grasp on global warming.
Those who dont agree with global warming... you're saying it doesn't matter that we release billions of tons of C02 into the atmosphere because we're in a cycle right? it will all go away eventually because we're in a cycle.. right? haha you are laughable and exactly whats preventing the progression of an environmentally friendly world. I suggest you educate yourself a little bit to understand these C02 molecules WE (MAN MADE) are releasing into the air is indeed connecting to oxygen molecules, thus, creating another blanket around the earth AKA Global Warming. Its not going away.
All very interesting... it is interesting to see how many people want to either simplify the problem too much; based on limited capacity to deal with the subjects complexity or prejudice? or throw mud at those who are taking a more cautious approach to the hype and excitement about the subject.
I would quite like to know how many of those scientists expounding Global Warming are receiving research grants etc? And by receiving one grant and wanting another what is it likely that the models will show?
In science a certainty is unusual, and the more complex a study area, the less certainty is possible.
Reducing the data set, making assumptions, adding factors etc are all ways to simplify complex issues and perfectly legitimate scientific tools, but they do not make the results any more than crude indicators and possible wrong.
There are many considerations for our modern world that will challenge us without global warming, but perhaps they are too thorny to handle?
Often people talk although there is some kind of “steady state” for the environment, but in reality change is an inescapable element of natural systems. Much is spoken about adapting to climate change... have we not done this forever already? Humans can be found everywhere that is even slightly habitable.
Clearly, man must contribute to change, but perhaps the crux of the matter is that there are just too many of us and we all aspire to the Western way of plentiful cheap food, comfortable environments (air con, heating, patio heaters), great medicine, and easy access to transport etc.
Is it possible to have the entire world’s population satisfied in this respect?
Or even in some respects? Unlike other animals on the planet, humans have not experienced a lot of limiting factors to population growth, unless you live in areas of the world with famine caused by drought, because we have been able to offset natural limiting factors with technology such as agriculture, machinery, chemicals etc. However, the picture does not look good for the future if the population continues to grow and we are in a global temperature cycle (however it is caused) that limits our productivity and the availability of resources etc.
Looking at global temperature trends over the longest possible timeframe is essential to put recent changes into perspective.
It is also essential to look at all the potential causes and effects of our complex modern world as well, for example, I was sailing on a beautiful cloudless warm sunny morning, but as the day went on I was periodically cooled by the shadows cast by high flying aircraft leaving condensation trails which over the period of the afternoon spread to cast a cool gloom on what should have been a really hot day.
This was a very direct and immediate effect of burning fossil fuels, and happens all day, every day and almost everywhere.Food for thought, perhaps.
Why does the funding source for the deniers matter but for those funded by the Gubment it is immaterial?
Why is it that there is so much trust placed in the veracity of a political report released by a corrupt, kleptocratic, mostly Communist, power-seeking Internaltional body such as the U.N. taken at face value?
If these computer models are so accurate that they can predict the global temperatures, climate and weather effects 100yrs in the future, why, when fed actual data from the recent past, they fall flat? Could it be (and say this softly) that the data\logic was manipulated for a specific outcome?
Hasn't the U.N., one of the most corrupt political bodies on the planet (remember Oil for Food? the African sex scandals?) with a yen for world domination, been searching for the ability to tax the Western states for a couple of decades, now? Wouldn't it be just dandy if this is the key issue with which they can "legally" fleece us of our industry, income and method of support? The U.S. has been the envy of the world, but envy can beget two emotions... the noble one, which encourages imitation, and the ignoble which seeks to destroy. Now... which would the U.N. promote (think, now... who's on their "Human Rights" council and who was kicked out)?
"Archeologists have found cities under the oceans, such as the one in India that is 9500 years old. This indicates that the Earth must have been warming for some time, possibly including many warming and cooling cycles."
The lowering of a section of land below sea level could be caused by MANY factors other than a rise in sea level. An earthquake, landslide, or or marshy soil couls all lead to a 'city' to be lowered below sea level. Think of Venice, for instance. It has gradually been subsiding below the level of the sea for many hundreds of years, before there has been any rise in sea level. To automatically assume that a site being below sea level is only due to sea rise is flawed logic.
Attributing small, short-term 'gains' in ice cover to a reversal in global warming is also a flawed argument, especially as you spent a good portion of your article in attempting to put things into perspective by establishing a long term view (over the last 2000 years.)
Although the current temperatures are now passing the peak at the 1000 AD mark, it is even more revealing to look at the RATE of the temperature increases. I've seen estimates that the rate of increase is the greatest that it has been for at LEAST the last 800,000 years, (as determined from antartic ice core studies.)
Humanity is now pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate which is substantially greater than the sum of all the removal mechanism rates (Plant life, ocean absorbtion, etc.)
Finally, the earth as a whole is a huge system, with an undoubtedly substantial delay constant for any type of natural feedback loop. This means that even IF we could stop all CO2 emissions, it would be many years before the CO2 levels could drop back to pre-1900 levels. The earth's ecosystems are much more complex than most of us can even imagine, (let alone understand,) so, for 99.999 percent of the world's population, for anyone who is not a specialist in the area of climate change (myself included) the opinions we have are uninformed, and should be acompanied by an open mind, and a willingness to learn from the experts, who HAVE taken the time to study their field of expertise.
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2010-03-02 11:00:49
Isn't it ironic that the same people who tell you that it was significantly warmer and more humid (i.e. more Carbon Dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere) during the late Cretaceous Period (that's when we assume T-rex was around) also enjoy telling you that all life will end on this planet because it's warmer?
Life goes on. There is proof that in areas that are now deserts there were once forrests or jungles. There is also proof that in areas that are now forrests and jungles there were once deserts.
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2010-04-23 00:48:01
I don\\\'t think the message is that \\\"all life will end on this planet\\\", rather life will drastically change. Just because life survived during the time of the T-Rex doesn\\\'t mean we want to go through it.
It is both and always has been. But if the evidence indicates that humans cause 40% of the climate change we are experiencing, that is a 40% we are morally obligated to prevent. We know pollution is caused by erupting volcanoes. Does that mean we should just let pollution we cause continue unchecked? We just have to be creative and find ways for the free market to work by reducing rather than increasing greenhouse gases. Educate the people and make them demand change from the bottem up, rather than the government forcing things from the top down. That never turns out good, since a change in government would end the efforts before they can bear long-term fruit.
There are a couple of errors in this article. First, CO2 isn't "under 2%" of the atmosphere, it is actually only 0.00039 of the air. Less than 4/100ths of one percent; a very minor trace gas. The panic over "carbon" [by which the scientifically illiterate mean carbon dioxide, a gas that everyone exhales] is baseless alarmism.
And Michael Mann's [thoroughly debunked] "Hockey Stick" chart, showing an alarming 20th Century temperature spike, doesn't cover "120 years"; it goes back to 1400 A.D. Mann deviously tried to erase the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age in his hokey stick chart in order to show that modern temperaturtes are "unprecedented." They are not; it was warmer during the MWP than it is today, and it was much warmer during the Minoan Optimum, when the biosphere and civilization flourished. The very mild 0.7° rise over the past century and a half is simply one of many similar natural cycles. Furthermore, temperatures have been declining for the past decade, indicating that CO2 is not the cause of rising temperatures.
Other than that, a good article. CO2 is airborne plant food. It has never been shown to cause any global damage. A few tenths of a degree of warmth is beneficial, not harmful.
The fact is that CO2 is a harmless and beneficial trace gas, and the "carbon" scare is simply propaganda used to increase our taxes. Fortunately, the public is beginning to see through Algore's "carbon" scam.
Have any of you even looked UP lately? Those are not contrails that are leaving those wide, ever spreading swaths of clouds. They spread out and leave a gray haze in the sky. Weather modification is active now. That gray haze lowers the temperatures 2 degrees. You can research this stuff yourselves, and I encourage you to do so. Persistent contrails is the politically correct term.