Go to google.com videos and watch: “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” It is so clear that man-made CO2 is not the cause of global warming.
(The video use to be one piece, 1 hr. and 15 mins. long. But now they chopped it up into 8(9?) parts.)
-LD
I don’t have an hour to spare. How about you summarize it for us?
No - don’t bother. Just refer to the previous thread that thoroughly debunked this piece of crap. Note also that the main scientist quoted in it complained bitterly that his views were totally misrepresented.
Do you get all your science from Google videos? Does that help you find truths that are being suppressed by mainstream Youtubists?
Sailboat
Why is it so hard for some people to accept that:
- Humans burn a LOT of carbon-based stuff.
- When you burn carbon-based stuff you create CO[sub]2[/sub].
- CO[sub]2[/sub] is a known greenhouse gas.
- Dumping a lot of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will cause–DUH!–a greenhouse effect, which will warm the planet.
Sure, there may be other things contributing to the result, and there may be other things that reduce the result, but the net result is that the planet is getting warmer and pretty soon you’ll be able to water ski to the North Pole.
Has it occurred to anyone else that Big Oil has deployed an army of global warming deniers to flood message boards and blogs with this drivel? We have certainly seen an increase in this type of activity from guests lately.
I have to agree that it seems very unlikely to me that man-made CO2 is “causing” global warming. I think any increase in greenhouse gases definitely contributes to global warming, and aside from that many other industrial emissions have far-reaching negative effects totally unrelated to global warming.
I find it fairly likely that CO2 is probably not our biggest concern in regard to global warming, primarily because historically CO2 has been around 20x higher than it is now in the past and over the past 500 million years the changes in climate when compared with the changes in CO2 level suggest CO2 probably is not the single biggest factor. Not that I don’t think we should reduce CO2 levels, but I worry that some people who are so worried about becoming “carbon neutral” are under the false impression that CO2 is the entirety of the global warming problem and that if we get that under control, we’ll get global warming under control.
It’s sometimes hard to express opinions like this without being labeled a global warming denier (ftr I’m highly suspicious of any individuals who register guest accounts just to “debunk” global warming.) I think there’s a very significant difference between being someone who denies that global warming is happening and being someone who thinks the picture is currently very incomplete and that over-focusing on one single GHG may hurt us overall.
This doesn’t equate to me saying we shouldn’t worry about CO2, we should, but I think we need to worry about the rest of the picture much more than we do now. Exactly how much, I don’t know, even the IPCC and other organizations don’t understand the total picture, the only real consensus is there is a problem. There are vague ideas on how to fix it, and maybe they’ll work and maybe they won’t. However, luckily even if things like reduced industrial emissions don’t save future generations from drastic global warming, they will save future generations from unclean air and all the negatives that come with industrial pollutants in the air and eventually the water cycle.
I also think we need to focus more attention on coping with global warming. Even if we knew precisely what we had to do to stop the trend dead in its tracks (which we don’t), it’s very unlikely we’ll be able to do it in time before we reach the “tipping point” so governments need to plan for adjusting to the changes to come just as much as they need to plan for trying to mitigate the temperature rise itself.
I think we have a better chance of successfully adapting to a warmer world than we do actually reversing global warming, I think that may be out of our hands now.
Whew! Thank god we have another newly-registered Guest who can come in here and help us finally solve Global Warming/The Moon Landing Hoax/The 911 Conspiracy.
Now we can all rest better at night, I’m sure.
-Joe
You forgot JFK. He’s the key to the whole sordid business!
Kennedy is dead. Dead DEAD DEAD! John Dillinger did it. I thought we all knew that.
-Joe
KOPPEL! It’s KOPPEL, damn you!
Wouldn’t call you a global warming denier. Just seems like you’ve got a few of the facts not quite straight. I’ve been reading a lot of data on this stuff…let me fill you in.
A few points here:
[ol]
[li] First of all, while it is true that CO2 levels were once higher at ONE point during life on earth, that particular era was marked by a very long period of drought and vast evolutionary changes, and large numbers of extinctions.[/li][li] While you’re right that CO2 is not the only culprit, it is a leading one. Methane, pound for pound, is more effective as a greenhouse gas, but we haven’t released quite as much of it into the atmosphere.[/li][li] The physics involved are very well-understood. It isn’t a speculation that CO2 can be a greenhouse gas; physics tells us that CO2 traps more heat.[/li][/ol]
The picture isn’t as incomplete as you might think. As I stated above, the physics are clear, and, in point of fact, our industrial output of CO2 correllates very well with the global rise in average temperatures.
No, there is consensus on more. There is consensus that there is a problem, it’s human-made, it’s caused by CO2 emissions, and that even using conservative estimates of the amount of warming, startling disasters await in 50-100 years.
Sure, we could adapt. And no doubt we will have to - some changes are already occurring. Just keep in mind that the adaptation you’re talking about, at the very least, involves mass migrations away from low-lying coastal areas…mmm, at least a single-digit percentage of the population. And massive changes in infrastructure and agriculture. On purely economic grounds, prevention is far less costly.
I highly recommend this book, it fairly handles nearly all the issues and is up-to-date:
Pretty standard stuff. Various politicians do that sort of thing as well, so do religous groups, and so on, and not just on message boards. For that matter, it’s not that different than the regular guest who signs on just to post a bunch of spam links.
You unfortunately seem to be quite uninformed on the facts for someone who came in to “set things straight.”
[quote]
A few points here:
[ol]
[li] First of all, while it is true that CO2 levels were once higher at ONE point during life on earth, that particular era was marked by a very long period of drought and vast evolutionary changes, and large numbers of extinctions.[/li][/quote]
This is a very inaccurate statement. The earliest information I have on CO2 concentrations start about 500 million years ago. Several different geochemical modeling estimates exist. The ones I’m mostly working from are:
Berner, RA and Z. Kothavala (2001). “GEOCARB III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time”. American Journal of Science 304: 397–437.
Bergman, Noam M., Timothy M. Lenton, and Andrew J. Watson (2004). “COPSE: A new model of biogeochemical cycling over Phanerozoic time”. American Journal of Science 301: 182-204.
Rothman, Daniel H. (2002). “Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99 (7): 4167-4171.
Also of interest is the Royer CO2 concentration database
Royer, Dana L., Robert A. Berner, Isabel P. Montañez, Neil J. Tabor, and David J. Beerling (2004). “CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate”. GSA Today 14 (3): 4-10.
What all of this brings us to are images like like this one and this one which give us a rough idea as to the amount of CO2 around in the past.
Over a period of almost 500 million years, CO2 was way higher than it has been in the last few thousand years. It’s undeniable that CO2 ppm in the atmosphere has gone up in the wake of the industrial revolution, but we’re talking in the mid 300 ppm now compared to 4,500-6,000 ppm 500 million years ago.
To say that the “last 500 million years” was a period of “great evolutionary change” and “many extinctions” is very disingenuous. Any period covering that amount of time is going to be one of great evolutionary change and many extinctions. That’s the nature of life on earth, what is known is that throughout that 500 million year period is that there have been periods defined as ice ages in which CO2 concentrations were almost 10x as high as they were today.
The period ~475-425 million years ago was a glacial period. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is estimated to have been around 4,000 ppm around this time, and this is during a glacial period. The people who try to explain CO2 as “causing” global warming, in my opinion, have a hard time explaining how we can have CO2 concentrations of 4,000 ppm during a glacial period 475 to 425 million years ago when today we have CO2 concentrations within the 350-380 ppm range.
The period from 225-325 mya was likewise a glacial period, as was 110-175 mya and present day back to 50 million years ago.
Right now, we’re arguably simply in an interglacial period of an ice age. The presence of large, permanent ice on the globe isn’t necessarily the regular state of things. Outside of the major ice ages (one of which we’re still in, and possibly at the tail end of) there is exceptional evidence that there is no polar ice whatsoever. There’s also evidence of extremes when it comes to ice ages, with the present ice age being very mild and then one that occurred from 850 mya to 630 mya possibly the most extreme, being theorized as causing a “snowball earth.” It has been theorized that the population explosion in life around 500 mya is because of the end of that extreme ice age.
A more accurate phrasing of your statement would be that in the past, for HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS, CO2 levels were vastly higher than they were now, and that that period of hundreds of millions of years was characterized by:
-Vibrant explosion in the number of species on the planet
-Drastic ice ages which have within them glacials/interglacials periods
-Periods of extreme global warming, with near-tropical weather and extensive animal life at the poles
-Periods of mass extinction
-Periods of drought
-Periods of flooding
Basically pretty much the entire gamut, from drought to deluge, freezing to warming.
[quote]
[li] While you’re right that CO2 is not the only culprit, it is a leading one. Methane, pound for pound, is more effective as a greenhouse gas, but we haven’t released quite as much of it into the atmosphere.[/li][/quote]
You seem to be working from the assumption, already, that greenhouse gases are the only explanation for climate change, no one I’m aware of in the serious scientific field of climate change believe that.
I don’t recall calling it speculation that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
The science behind CO2 concentrations being an agent in warming is sound but the conclusion that “higher CO2 concentrations cause warming” is not as sound. I believe that paleoclimatology firmly shows an incredibly complex system of which atmospheric changes are only one part and CO2 only a part of that aspect of it.
I think the questions that are most aptly asked are:
- What causes Ice Ages?
-The answer to that is controversial within the scientific community. The general consensus is that there is not one answer, but many. Atmospheric changes, Milankovitch Cycles (changes in the Earth’s rotation around the sun), movements of the tectonic plates, eruption of supervolcanoes, variations in solar output, and even possibly changes in the Sun’s position in the galaxy.
- What causes glacial/interglacial periods?
-The answer to this is also not something fully understood or explained. Right now we’re in an interglacial period of an ice age. In the past, ice ages have come and gone, periods of no glaciation and extreme glaciation have come and gone. Periods with much greater glaciation have existed millions of years ago with much higher CO2 concentrations.
This is the problem with the CO2 story. Over the past 140 years, there has been a general period of global warming. Over the past 140 years, there has been a rise in CO2 production. That’s correlation. There’s also evidence that the rise in CO2 concentration is part of the causation where I have a problem is when people argue it is an overwhelming part of said causation. Paleoclimatology suggests that while CO2 plays an important part in climate change, the climate isn’t near as sensitive to CO2 to cause the sort of warming we have seen over the past 140 years over a relatively miniscule rise (in the context of hundreds of millions of years of CO2 concentrations) in CO2 in the atmosphere.
There’s not any consensus like you’re suggesting. There’s consensus that human GHG emissions contributes to global warming there is no evidence that it is “caused by CO2 emissions” that’s akin to saying climate change is driven by one thing, CO2, and that’s ludicrous and any serious climatologist would laugh in your face if you suggested that. I’d love it if the Earth’s climate really was that simple, because then we could pretty much control it at a whim and everyone would be better off for it, unfortunately, climate change is way more complex than that and CO2 emissions are just one part of one part of the climate change picture.
I’m not really sure I’m sold on ‘startling disasters’ nor am I entirely sure I buy into the same definition of “startling disasters” that everyone else buys in to.
The thing is we can certainly adapt but there’s no certainty whatsoever we can stop climate change. In fact, I believe the idea that we have the technology to stop global warming is as ludicrous as the idea that we have the technology to blast humans to Pluto at light speed.
So ultimately, I come very close to agreeing with the thread title. I’d change it slightly to say that “man-made CO2 is probably not causing global warming, but is contributing to it.”
I believe that right now, we’re in a natural interglacial period of an ice age, or even possibly the end of an ice age. I believe that ice ages, glacial/interglacial periods come and go with no human involvement (the historic record suggests this is true.) I also believe that the rise in industrialization came at the worst possible time. If human society had become industrialized 25,000 years ago, during a glacial period, I doubt our industrial emissions would have been significant enough to have seriously altered the natural glacial period we were in. But since we are in a natural interglacial period, human contributions to global warming can and are more significant than they would be in another general climate period, and that our contributions to GHG concentrations and global warming while quite possibly very small compared to other things is upsetting a delicate system in such a way as to cause a greater degree of change than would otherwise happen.
My belief isn’t proven by any means, it’s just what I think from all that I’ve read. I believe people are probably fooling themselves if they think we don’t have a hand in climate change. I also think it is human arrogance to believe we are the prime engineers of climate change. I also think it is human arrogance to describe the worst case scenarios as “disasters” they are disasters because we have built entrenched cities in coastal areas and have an incredibly intricate global trade network and agricultural network. Ancient man would not have seriously been bothered by these changes at all, nor would many animals who routinely survive transitions from glacial to interglacial periods. Ancient man would just move his camp a few miles back from the shore, or move farther north or south to deal with warmer or colder climates.
Yes, but Lincoln planned it.
I’m certainly wouldn’t that the oil companies are above that sort of trick, but do keep in mind that there are plenty of people dumb enough to believe this sort of garbage and spread it on places like the humble Straight Dope Message Board without being paid to do so. If you look at LivingDog’s homepage, you’ll agree with me that he looks more like the dumb type than the shill type.
Some people believe Elvis is still alive and will swear over their beliefs, other people believe that they were abducted by aliens, it should not be surprising that NOT everyone is capable of seeing/understand the obvious…
The poster above who cited a bunch of articles should keep in mind that he is practicing SELECTIVE article reading, its very improbable that there is anything at all that ALL scientists believe in (heck some people even believe that the Earth is flat!).
The way to read science journals and understand the truths that science reveals us is to look at the BIG PICTURE and that its incredibly likely that if something, like MAN-MADE global warming, that is agreed by the VAST VAST MAJORITY of scientists/climate experts that it is VERY likely to be TRUE.
I’m old enough to remember those full page ads in Time and Newsweek that said things like “THINK. BE INFORMED. THERE’S TWO SIDES TO THE STORY” Paid for by Phillip Morris.
Did not.
Where do you get this from? In fact, most paleoclimate estimates are in the same general realm as the climate models in terms of the implied sensitivity to CO2, although here is an article by paleoclimatologists that argues that the paleoclimate data suggests the sensitivity may actually be higher.
Note that over most of the range of concentrations, the warming is logarithmic in the amount of CO2 so if you increase CO2 by, say, a factor of 8-16 (which gets us up in the range of estimates of what it might have been at some of the highest points in the past), you only cause 3-4 times as much warming as if you double it. [Or another way to look at it is that doubling CO2 from its pre-industrial value of 280ppm to 560ppm will produce as large a rise in temperature as doubling it from, say, 2000 to 4000ppm…Even though the latter is a much larger rise in absolute terms.]