To get you started on all of the things that are wrong about that video, you might want to check here, here, here, and here, and here, 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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
See this post on the global temperature anomalies:
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
But not continuously, looking at the data. Sometimes it was less.
As I said…whoops…trusted the TV. I shoulda known better. But also…changes over millions of years, not 100 years…
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Wait a minute! I’ve tried to glean some useful information from this thread, 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?
CO2 ppm = 265.54 + 0.017006 x World Population millions [ r=0.997, LS 1744 AD - 2004 AD ]
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 …
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.
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.
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.
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!)
