# Man-made CO2 is not causing global warming
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [June 12, 2007, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719 "2007-06-12T15:38:41Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2007, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719/21 "2007-06-13T02:45:30Z")
[QUOTE=LivingDog]
Go to [google.com](http://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.)
[/QUOTE]
To get you started on all of the things that are wrong about that video, you might want to check [here](http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/05/joint_statement_by_rive_and_fr.php), [here](http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/more_tggws_fakery.php), [here](http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/the_use_of_damon_and_laut.php), and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/more_tggws_fakery.php), and [here](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/), and the links provided on those pages.
Basically, one scientists prominently featured in it and another whose work was prominently featured in it have denounced it (the former for editting his comments so it sounded like he was saying pretty much the opposite of what he was actually saying and the latter for fabricating data on one of the plots taken from his work).
Data was truncated (or earlier data used) when the additional data would have contradicted their point. And, in one case, a graph of temperatures was truncated like 20 years ago and then the time axis of the scale expanded to make it look like it went up until today. (They did partially correct this last distortion in their 2nd showing, after there was an uproar…although I think most of the videos floating around are from the 1st showing.)
The show as a whole is complete and utter garbage.
---
### Author:  [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2007, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719/22 "2007-06-13T03:19:43Z")
My first post in this thread contains a personal insult not appropriate for **GD**. Please disregard it and accept my apologies.
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2007, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719/23 "2007-06-13T04:22:41Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion]
My first post in this thread contains a personal insult not appropriate for **GD**. Please disregard it and accept my apologies.
[/QUOTE]
You got that apology in just in the nick of time. 😛
Come on, folks, I do not care how many times we’ve been over the same path, we can still be polite about it (or sit out the thread).
[/Moderating]
---
### Author:  [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2007, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719/24 "2007-06-13T07:32:01Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Right. Man-made CO2 is not _causing_ Global Warming. It is almost certainly _contributing_ to GW.
I beleive that just before the “Little Ice Age” Earth was warmer than it is now, and humans likely were not a major contributor back around AD 1000. Not to mention we survived quite nicely.
---
### Author:  [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2007, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719/25 "2007-06-13T08:06:46Z")
I don’t think you need to bother arguing with this guy. He is clearly beyond the need for evidence. Check out his home page–he has dusted off the old argument that the Pope is called Vicarivs Filii Dei and this proves he is the Antichrist since the Roman numerals in this name add up to 666. Tinfoil hat time, baby!
---
### Author:  [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2007, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719/26 "2007-06-13T08:34:49Z")
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
Tinfoil hat time, baby!
[/QUOTE]
You may mock him, but have you ever seen a person with a tinfoil hat being controlled by the CIA mind control rays? Hmm?
The disappointing part about threads like this is that the OP never returns to, y’know, debate. They just drop off the talking points and then the rest of the discussion is poisoned.
---
### Author:  [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2007, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719/27 "2007-06-13T08:49:01Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
Yes, but **Lincoln** planned it.
[/QUOTE]
Wrong again, it was Liberty Valance and John Wayne saw him off…altho’ Jimmy Stewart got the credit
---
### Author:  [@ClimateGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ClimateGuy)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2007, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719/28 "2007-06-13T11:37:29Z")
[QUOTE=LivingDog]
Go to [google.com](http://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
* * *
[my faith](http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33/)
[/QUOTE]
Not only is manmade CO2 not causing global warming, CO2 is not causing global warming. The historical data from 17000 BC through 2006 AD overwhelmingly supports this. Over the past 200 years atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased from 280 ppm to 380 ppm and the temperature anomalies have remained constant relative to historical anomalies since 9000 BC. See the following graph, this should look familiar since it is essentially the portion from the last glacial age to today from the 2001 IPCC.
[http://blogster.com/host/images/79154389080.png](http://blogster.com/host/images/79154389080.png)
See this post on the global temperature anomalies:
[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8667788](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8667788)
* * *
[http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt](http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt)
[http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat](http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat)
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions\_by\_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txt
[http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat](http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat)
[http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/siple2.013](http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/siple2.013)
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt
> **[Center for Science and Environmental Outreach | CEGE](https://www.mtu.edu/cege/research/centers-institutes/cseo/)**
>
> Michigan Technological University’s Center for Science and Environmental Outreach fosters partnerships, connects resources, and advances education in science, engineering, and environmental research.
---
### Author:  [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2007, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719/29 "2007-06-13T12:25:31Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
I beleive that just before the “Little Ice Age” Earth was warmer than it is now
[/QUOTE]
Well, most other scientists in the field believe otherwise. (Admittedly, it is not 100% settled given the difficulties with temperature reconstructions…but most of the evidence points to Northern Hemisphere temperatures not being as warm as they are now. For the Southern Hemisphere, there isn’t sufficient data to draw any conclusions.)
---
### Author:  [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2007, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719/30 "2007-06-13T12:33:19Z")
[QUOTE=ClimateGuy]
Over the past 200 years atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased from 280 ppm to 380 ppm and the temperature anomalies have remained constant relative to historical anomalies since 9000 BC. See the following graph, this should look familiar since it is essentially the portion from the last glacial age to today from the 2001 IPCC.
[http://blogster.com/host/images/79154389080.png](http://blogster.com/host/images/79154389080.png)
[/quote]
Okay, let’s run down all the reasons that this comparison is invalid:
(1) You have merged together data from Vostok for the ancient times with global data for the modern times. Vostok temps probably changed about a factor of 2 more during the ice age – interglacial transition than global temps.
(2) Forcing and thus temperature change is expected to depend logarithmically, not linearly, on CO2 concentrations.
(3) It is known that CO2 changes are not the only cause of the ice age – interglacial transitions, which are triggered by orbital oscillations that change the distribution of sunlight hitting the earth and have a strong contribution from the change in albedo due to the advancing or retreating ice sheets. CO2 is expected to be responsible for only about 1/3 to 1/2 of the change.
(4) The temperature is not yet in equilibrium with the current CO2 levels in the atmosphere because, as your graph shows, CO2 concentrations have changed very rapidly over the past century and especially the last 30 years or so. There are also other contributors such as sulfate aerosols that have been causing some countervailing cooling effects.
---
### Author:  [@tomoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomoe)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2007, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719/31 "2007-06-13T18:31:06Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
You unfortunately seem to be quite uninformed on the facts for someone who came in to “set things straight.”
[/QUOTE]
You know what, some others have chosen to ridicule you, but I have to admit, you have pointed out a few things that I’ve gotten wrong. Instead of simply discounting what you’re saying, I’m going to debate you. I have some sense that perhaps I was a little too personal saying you were uninformed. You can clearly throw around links like the best of them, and you state some valid facts. So I’m going to debate because I believe I might convince you.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
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.
…
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.
[/QUOTE]
That’s what I get for watching TV. I saw a documentary about a warming period in earth’s past in which a great number of species perished because of overall warming. Probably this was oversimplified. Shame on me. Score one for you.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Uh…you spend a great deal of effort here with a lot of data, but it’s unnecessary, because I wouldn’t challenge that bit. You ask…how can we have glacial-periodic colder temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations if CO2 causes global warming? And then lower amounts of CO2 interglacially?
First, ice ages are caused by things that are massively stronger than CO2 concentration. The wobble of the earth’s axis and the wobble of its orbit, mostly.
Second, natural CO2 concentrations are _directly affected_ by ice ages, and _contribute_ to the way the cycles work by _mitigating_ them. When an ice age begins, more CO2 is released into the atmosphere, but as the earth goes interglacial, more land mass is available for plant life, which begins to soak up the CO2.
But before you assume that I must now agree with any other parts of your argument, the difference this time is that the time scale for such things is thousands of years longer than what we are experiencing now.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
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,
[/QUOTE]
But not continuously, looking at the data. Sometimes it was less.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
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]
As I said…whoops…trusted the TV. I shoulda known better. But also…changes over millions of years, not 100 years…
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
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.
[/QUOTE]
No, I’m not assuming that. And I can tell that you’re just chomping at the bit to seethe with this particular complaint. But I’m not being that simple.
I would give you the possibility that there is a small effect caused by something natural. But the point of all this is this debate is whether or not a natural process could make it happen so quickly, or whether it’s the result of human activity. As I see it, CO2 is just the _main_ culprit as a part of human activity.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, maybe that time I put words in your mouth. Sorry.
But otherwise, what nonsense. CO2 is an agent in global warming because it traps more heat than oxygen or nitrogen. More of it will trap more heat. The only possible reason you could have to say something that ridiculous is that you are betting that natural negative feedbacks are stronger than the known thermal properties. Well, at least you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
I think the questions that are most aptly asked are:
1. 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_.
1. 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.
[/QUOTE]
There is SOME debate about what causes these things, but it’s about the MARGINS of the effects. The strongest effects are generally agreed-upon. The tilt of the earth becomes more or less radical, and the orbit of the earth becomes more or less eccentric. These things correllate well to known ice ages. The outlyers to that correllation are the things of some controversy. But even if that were a significant issue, the time frames are still vast.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
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.
[/QUOTE]
“Correllation, not causation…” Yeah, I have heard that one before. The problem, though, is not that it’s ludicrous to say there’s a connection, because it’s actually the SIMPLEST explanation. The simplest explanation is usually the right one. If we’re going to throw around idioms about debate it doesn’t give you a clear win.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
There’s not any consensus like you’re suggesting.
[/QUOTE]
Yes there is. IPCC, 99% of scientists, etc. etc. If you don’t believe this you need a better source of information. Didn’t you notice that there is a loud minority of paid robots parroting anti-global-warming theories for the benefit of CO2-emtting industry?
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
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.
[/QUOTE]
You’d love me to suggest that, because then global warming wouldn’t be the fault of the humans. Sorry, I think you just put those words in my mouth.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Well, if the temperature rises, maybe you won’t be startled. Sorry. You are one steeled human being. The sea levels rising to cover nearly all island nations and coastal areas…oh yeah, not startling.
Not a single piece of ice has to melt for the seas to rise. Temperature change alone will cause the sea to expand. That startles me, at least.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I’d actually agree with you, IF I thought humans weren’t to blame. In the end, yes, we can’t stop an ice age. But we could change our behavior. So whatever.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
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.”
[/QUOTE]
And I’d say, “Human-caused release of more-than-natural amounts CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases is the main cause of global warming.”
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
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.
[/QUOTE]
You should read some more. Most predictions I’ve read say that we’re just as likely headed for another ice age rather than into an inter-glacial period. Again, not proven. Fair enough.
We’ve caused acid rain. We’ve caused the oceans to get over-fished. We’ve spread organisms all over the place. We’ve defoliated vast tracts of jungle, forest, and plains. A few degrees of climate change in an earth practically smothered with our effects…doesn’t seem so arrogant to me.
I’m not sure what else to say about your speculations. You’re admitting you’re speculating, so I don’t feel I should probably debate it too much. I know that, if this was a natural occurrence, we wouldn’t feel guilt, so adapting really is the answer. Too bad for us humans. But if it IS our fault, it doesn’t make much sense to “adapt” to a climate the earth and all its life haven’t seen for millions of years. We arrive at these two conclusions from different assumptions, so I’ll give it to you.
So there it is. Thanks for the opportunity to debate.
---
### Author:  [@ClimateGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ClimateGuy)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2007, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719/32 "2007-06-13T20:42:45Z")
[QUOTE=jshore]
Okay, let’s run down all the reasons that this comparison is invalid:
(1) You have merged together data from Vostok for the ancient times with global data for the modern times. Vostok temps probably changed about a factor of 2 more during the ice age – interglacial transition than global temps.
(2) Forcing and thus temperature change is expected to depend logarithmically, not linearly, on CO2 concentrations.
(3) It is known that CO2 changes are not the only cause of the ice age – interglacial transitions, which are triggered by orbital oscillations that change the distribution of sunlight hitting the earth and have a strong contribution from the change in albedo due to the advancing or retreating ice sheets. CO2 is expected to be responsible for only about 1/3 to 1/2 of the change.
(4) The temperature is not yet in equilibrium with the current CO2 levels in the atmosphere because, as your graph shows, CO2 concentrations have changed very rapidly over the past century and especially the last 30 years or so. There are also other contributors such as sulfate aerosols that have been causing some countervailing cooling effects.
[/QUOTE]
1. Are you in denial, based on the Hadley and NCDC data, that the average temperature anomaly over the the past 10 years is approximately 0.25C and is no more significant from 0.00C than the anomolies, regardless of variablility or methods, over the past 11,000 years since 9000 BC as shown in that graph? The Moberg data could be replaced by the Vostok data. It was included to show how consistent all of the data actually is. Please provide your analysis disproving that the global temperature anomalies have been significantly different than 0.00C over the past 11,000 years.
2. There is a simple explanation for the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 9,000 BC and it has nothing to do with global temperature, r=0.997.
[http://blogster.com/host/images/87267188214.png](http://blogster.com/host/images/87267188214.png)
---
### Author:  [@ClimateGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ClimateGuy)
#### Post date: [June 13, 2007, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719/33 "2007-06-13T20:47:50Z")
PLEASE NOTE: The wrong graph was selected in the above post, this is the correct graph.
[ ](http://blogster.com/host/images/76319781433.png)
---
### Author:  [@Sunrazor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunrazor)
#### Post date: [June 14, 2007, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719/34 "2007-06-14T00:09:27Z")
Wait a minute! I’ve tried to glean some useful information from [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=424204), although none of the participants will answer my simple question: What do all of your graphs and jargon mean to the rest of us? As nearly as I can tell, it’s techno-weather-geeks arguing over whether there has been or hasn’t been global warming over the past 20 or so years. Now, I don’t WANT there to be any global warming, but if there has been, and if it’s human-caused, I need to know because it affects every decision I make every day of my life! Yes, the OP is a goon (attention mods: I did not say “troll”) but somebody, please make some sense of this for simple ol’ me! So far, Al Gore has my attention and my trust. Am I wrong?
---
### Author:  [@ClimateGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ClimateGuy)
#### Post date: [June 14, 2007, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719/35 "2007-06-14T00:41:28Z")
[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
Wait a minute! I’ve tried to glean some useful information from [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=424204), although none of the participants will answer my simple question: What do all of your graphs and jargon mean to the rest of us? As nearly as I can tell, it’s techno-weather-geeks arguing over whether there has been or hasn’t been global warming over the past 20 or so years. Now, I don’t WANT there to be any global warming, but if there has been, and if it’s human-caused, I need to know because it affects every decision I make every day of my life! Yes, the OP is a goon (attention mods: I did not say “troll”) but somebody, please make some sense of this for simple ol’ me! So far, Al Gore has my attention and my trust. Am I wrong?
[/QUOTE]
1.
- **CO2 ppm = 265.54 + 0.017006 x World Population millions [r=0.997, LS 1744 AD - 2004 AD]**
2.
- Global temperature is not driven by atmospheric CO2 concentration, at least not in the past 11,000 years, see previous posts and the 2001 IPCC, Woods Holes, Vostok data. This has been particularly true over the past 200 years where CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to 380 ppm and the global temperature has remained essentially constant at 0.00C. As follows …
3.
- The global anomalies today which have averaged appox. +0.25C over the past 10 years, based on the Hadley data and the NCDC data, isn’t even perceptably significantly different than 0.00C based on the variances shown by any of the published data, Hadley, NCDC, Moberg and Vostok.
---
### Author:  [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)
#### Post date: [June 14, 2007, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719/36 "2007-06-14T00:56:41Z")
[QUOTE=ClimateGuy]
1. Are you in denial, based on the Hadley and NCDC data, that the average temperature anomaly over the the past 10 years is approximately 0.25C and is no more significant from 0.00C than the anomolies, regardless of variablility or methods, over the past 11,000 years since 9000 BC as shown in that graph? The Moberg data could be replaced by the Vostok data. It was included to show how consistent all of the data actually is. Please provide your analysis disproving that the global temperature anomalies have been significantly different than 0.00C over the past 11,000 years.
[/quote]
First of all, your value for the anomaly is the anomaly **relative** to the 1961 to 1990 mean. This mean is already elevated from values of, say, even 20 and certainly 50 and 100 years earlier. The fact is that the global temperature has risen about 0.6 C since 1970 and the IPCC has concluded that most of this rise is very likely due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations (and that it likely would have been higher if there were not some offsetting cooling effects due to sulfate aerosols).
And, yes, this amount is significant and, furthermore, it is only the tip of the iceberg so-to-speak because CO2 levels continue to climb rapidly and the climate system is not yet even in equilibrium with the amount of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere. It may not look that large compared to the rises of several degrees C that occurred at the end of the last ice age but you have to remember that that rise occurred over a period of thousands of years and that it resulted in very profound changes…huge sea level rises and the melting of ice sheets a couple miles thick that covered much of the northern part of the U.S.
> [@](#):
>
> 1. There is a simple explanation for the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 9,000 BC and it has nothing to do with global temperature, r=0.997.
>
> [http://blogster.com/host/images/87267188214.png](http://blogster.com/host/images/87267188214.png)
I prefer mechanistic explanations to just looking for correlations in data. We know what is causing the current rise in CO2 levels and while growing populations certainly contribute to the emissions of CO2 from burning of fossil fuels and to a lesser degree land-use changes, I wouldn’t call them the cause all by themselves.
---
### Author:  [@Sunrazor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunrazor)
#### Post date: [June 14, 2007, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719/37 "2007-06-14T02:45:31Z")
[QUOTE=climateguy]
1.
- CO2 ppm = 265.54 + 0.017006 x World Population millions [r=0.997, LS 1744 AD - 2004 AD]
2.
- Global temperature is not driven by atmospheric CO2 concentration, at least not in the past 11,000 years, see previous posts and the 2001 IPCC, Woods Holes, Vostok data. This has been particularly true over the past 200 years where CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to 380 ppm and the global temperature has remained essentially constant at 0.00C. As follows …
3.
- The global anomalies today which have averaged appox. +0.25C over the past 10 years, based on the Hadley data and the NCDC data, isn’t even perceptably significantly different than 0.00C based on the variances shown by any of the published data, Hadley, NCDC, Moberg and Vostok.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=jshore]
First of all, your value for the anomaly is the anomaly relative to the 1961 to 1990 mean. This mean is already elevated from values of, say, even 20 and …
[/QUOTE]
And still, Al Gore makes more sense than both of you guys put together. I asked a simple question: “What does this mean to me?” You are unable, or unwilling, to answer it. Here’s a hint: My college degrees are in journalism and English, not in physics, math, meteorology, earth science or statistical analysis.
Question #1: Is the Earth getting warmer or not? (This is a YES or NO question, fellas!)
Question #2: If so, is this partly my fault or not? (Oh, guess what! Another YES or NO question!)
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [June 14, 2007, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719/38 "2007-06-14T03:11:55Z")
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
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?
[/QUOTE]
[That and more.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8034733&postcount=31)
---
### Author:  [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)
#### Post date: [June 14, 2007, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719/39 "2007-06-14T03:24:22Z")
[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
Question #1: Is the Earth getting warmer or not? (This is a YES or NO question, fellas!)
Question #2: If so, is this partly my fault or not? (Oh, guess what! Another YES or NO question!)
[/QUOTE]
1. Yes.
2. Yes. _Partly._
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [June 14, 2007, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719/40 "2007-06-14T03:31:41Z")
[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
Question #1: Is the Earth getting warmer or not? (This is a YES or NO question, fellas!)
[/QUOTE]
[Ayuh.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png)
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-made-co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/407719.md?page=3)