# The Evidence Against Global Warming? READ BEFORE FLAMING! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 18, 2009, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897 "2009-03-18T16:00:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/41 "2009-03-19T16:35:42Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > I’m not saying it’s a conspiracy theory. I’m saying that it’s a money grab for a lot of people right now and that the whole AGW theory is false. Climate scientists are using the same equipment and techniques as paleoclimatologists use to determine what life was like during the age of the dinosaurs, that weather stations use, and that NASA uses to determine what the conditions are on other planets. These people would all be employed just the same if there wasn’t global warming as if there is, and they would be using the same equipment and techniques to do it. Why? Because tracking the state of the world is something humans do. We’ve got a million people in jobs related to the climate sciences in just the US, but I’d be willing to bet you anything that probably only 3% or however many of those people are actually working on anything related to global warming at any one time. Point in fact, probably almost nobody is studying “global warming”, rather there’s people studying methods of reconstructing the temperature record, there’s people studying El Nino events, people studying the interactions of the ocean and climate, etc. When people go to analyze any theories that explain the temperature increase since the 1800s, they take all this data created by people who are just taking about the workings of the world, and see if it matches what would be expected according to that particular theory. When the EPA issues a report to the president, they just conscript whoever is off of whatever his last project was to go out and pull papers on different topics, analyze it, and see what fits. So the 3% of those million people that is actively working on a global warming based project at any one time, probably 50-70% of those are different for each new iteration, they move in and out of whatever projects their superiors assigned to them, and they base their findings on thousands of papers that weren’t written about or for any sort of global warming study. These people are and will be employed. You’re not saving money by shutting down global warming. They’d just be assigned to working on tracking fallout from air pollution in China, predicting hurricanes with greater accuracy, or what-have-you. They’re just guys sitting in cubicles analyzing data, based on whatever project their boss has assigned them. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/42 "2009-03-19T16:39:45Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I will have to assume that your sources just minimize the problem. > > [CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm) So how come the latest information indicates that global temperature increases are actually responsible for increased CO2 levels, and not the other way around? ETA: Hang on. Let me get back to you after reading your link. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/43 "2009-03-19T16:40:00Z")
[Here](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/17/beryllium-10-and-climate/) is a critic making the classic mistake of mixing correlation and causation. The data is interesting, and a new take on the cosmic ray theory, but more is needed. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/44 "2009-03-19T16:49:38Z")
Global warming/cooling happens on a cyclic basis. The sun is the prime cause; humanity has little to do with it. However, there are a bunch of people making a bunch of money off of saying that humanity is responsible for it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/45 "2009-03-19T16:53:42Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Global warming/cooling happens on a cyclic basis. The sun is the prime cause; humanity has little to do with it. > > However, there are a bunch of people making a bunch of money off of saying that humanity is responsible for it. Yet another one that does not know that his sources are full of it. > **[Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions](https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm)** > > \In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.\ > [@](#): > > The correlation between solar activity and temperature > > The most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists from Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in the last 60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005). They also found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity. > > However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to conclude “during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.” > > You read that right. The study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun can’t be causing global warming. Ironically, the evidence that establishes the sun’s close correlation with the Earth’s temperature in the past also establishes it’s blamelessness for global warming today. > **[How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?](https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm)** > > \The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In... > [@](#): > > Carbon isotopes - the human “fingerprint” > > How can we know the rising CO2 levels are due to human activity? The carbon atom has several different isotopes (eg - different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/46 "2009-03-19T16:54:02Z")
Addendum to my previous post, but for example, the [General Circulation Model](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Circulation_Model) at [GISS](http://www.giss.nasa.gov) is used for teams that are doing research on: 1. Anthropogenic climate change (of any sort) 2. [To collect weather satellite radiance measurements and to analyze them to infer the global distribution of clouds, their properties, and their diurnal, seasonal and interannual variations. The resulting datasets and analysis products are being used to study the role of clouds in climate , both their effects on radiative energy exchanges and their role in the global water cycle.](http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/ISCCP.html) 3. Paleoclimate research (for instance, the reconstructing the climate during the days of the dinos) 4. [El Nino events and their repurcussions](http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/projects/cafe/) 5. Agricultural/Marine Ecosystem Interactions Etc. So this one same machine that’s been developed by the evil conspiracy for the one sole task of proving global warming, is probably spending 80% of its time working on projects that are entirely unrelated to global warming, and all the scientists using it are basing their results on it. So either they’ve built in a switch between Falsified Data Mode and Real Data Mode, or it’s just a all-purpose simulator that’s being used by whoever needs it for whatever project they’re currently working on. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/47 "2009-03-19T16:57:48Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Global warming/cooling happens on a cyclic basis. The sun is the prime cause; humanity has little to do with it. Here’s a link with all the graphs you could ever want of the sun’s output and the temperature record. Have a blast trying to make them match up: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=510071](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=510071) ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/48 "2009-03-19T17:07:34Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm) > > > [@](#): > > > > Carbon isotopes - the human “fingerprint” > > > > How can we know the rising CO2 levels are due to human activity? The carbon atom has several different isotopes (eg - different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions. Not so much full of it as irrelevant. It’s been repeatedly demonstrated that the amount of CO2 has increased and (as per your cite) it comes from fossil fuels, but what hasn’t been demonstrated is evidence that the increased CO2 levels are causing the warming that we’ve seen. As with Beryllium and cosmic rays, correlation is not causation! ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/49 "2009-03-19T17:09:21Z")
There is a huge fallacy of the excluded middle in the AGW debate. - Proponents say that global warming is happening, and humans are contributing to it, and therefore we need to take immediate action. - Opponents tend to focus on ‘debunking’ the entire concept of human-caused global warming. I personally believe that the science is fairly well established that humans are contributing to the warming of the planet. It’s time the debate shifted from that basic fact and focuses more on what can and should be done about it. In my opinion, once you get away from the basic mechanisms of warming and start casting models out 100 years in the future, you are on very, very thin ice scientifically. We simply don’t know enough about all the mechanisms that contribute to long-term climate trends. We don’t fully understand the contributions of various planetary and extra-planetary forces. The earth’s climate is a highly complex system - perhaps too complex for us to model and understand. As an analogy, consider our understanding of how markets work. We understand markets well enough to be able to predict certain things - for example, that if all else is equal and you raise interest rates, economic growth will slow down. Or if you pump more money into the economy, all else being equal prices will rise. We actually know this stuff with a high degree of precision. We understand all the contributors to the effects in question. We have mathematical models which explain these forces. Now try to take that information and build a model which predicts where the Dow Jones average will be in ten years. Good luck with that. The problem is that even if the basic mechanisms are known, in the real world there are so many variables and so many feedback loops and unforeseen events that the system is just too complex to model. Getting back to climate: Ten years ago, not a single one of the atmospheric models that predicted global temperatures 50 years from now predicted that temperatures would stay flat from 2001 until now - but they did (although there was significant variation from year to year, the overall trend is flat through those years). New contributions to the field are quite recent - new data on the contribution of cosmic rays, new information about water vapor effects, etc. We’re still learning. Next, there is an important question regarding what can be and should be done about it. Let’s assume our models are pretty accurate. What do they tell us about potential damage? When will that damage occur, how much will it cost us, and what is the net present value of that future damage? After all, a 1 trillion dollar expense to be paid 100 years from now actually has a relatively small net present value, and you’d be crazy to spend even a tenth of that amount to avert the 1 trillion cost later on. The ‘act now’ side of the debate seems to assume that any amount of man-made global warming is too much, but the IPCC itself has said that warming on the order of 2.5 degrees C or less would actually result in an overall economic benefit for the planet (i.e. the gains in the temperate regions would more than make up for the losses in the equatorial and coastal regions). If that’s the case, then economically speaking why would you even want to do something about it? So the question of the amount of warming is critically important to determining current policy, as is a good understanding of the limitations of the models and the error bars around the numbers so we can price the risk of greater damage accordingly. Note that I’m talking about purely economic costs. We can talk about costs in terms of changes to ecosystems and such, but that’s an overtly political discussion. We need to stay grounded in hard numbers here, so discussing the issue in terms of the economic cost of dislocations and property destruction and energy costs and such seems more fruitful. Even if we assume that there is a significant net present cost of future warming, it is not at all clear that the correct approach is to attempt to curb carbon emissions. For example, let’s say we could determine that the net present cost of future warming is 100 billion dollars. One response to that could be to simply start a UN ‘global warming mitigation fund’, with various wealthy nations contributing to it to the tune of 100 billion dollars per year. Then use that money over the years to pay reparations to the countries damaged. As it turns out, the median model for warming damage by the IPCC suggests that global warming will probably help the economies of the rich nations in the high latitudes (by lowering heating costs and increasing growing seasons, for example), but impose severe costs on the poorer nations which tend to be closer to the equator. So one way to mitigate this is to simply set up a program of wealth transfer from the rich countries to the poor countries to compensate them. The final question to be asked is, “Even if warming is happening and is man-made, and even if the math tells us that the best way to respond is to cut carbon emissions, is it even possible to do that?” There are plenty of reasons to suggest that it’s simply not politically possible to cut carbon emissions by any serious amount - too many countries have their economies bound to carbon, and the reality of the fungible oil market is that voluntary, unilateral reductions in oil consumption by one country simply cause the price to decline, which stimulates consumption elsewhere. There’s also the problem that alternative sources of energy are still too expensive, too unreliable, and not ready to take the place of, say coal. So get away from the trap of trying to argue for or against the existence of man-made warming itself. It’s actually the easiest question to answer (yes), but the least important in terms of determine what to actually do next. After all, even if warming was occurring naturally, we’d still be left with the other questions about how to figure out the cost, and what to do about it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/50 "2009-03-19T17:13:59Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Not so much full of it as irrelevant. It’s been repeatedly demonstrated that the amount of CO2 has increased and (as per your cite) it comes from fossil fuels, but what hasn’t been demonstrated is evidence that the increased CO2 levels are causing the warming that we’ve seen. As with Beryllium and cosmic rays, correlation is not causation! The problem here is to assume that all other reasons for the warming were not considered or investigated before arriving to the conclusion that CO2 is the big reason for the current warming. In other words, it is misleading to assume that researchers have not made an effort to investigate the causation before they arrived to the current consensus. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/51 "2009-03-19T21:51:52Z")
Quoth **Sam Stone** : > [@](#): > > There is a huge fallacy of the excluded middle in the AGW debate. > > - Proponents say that global warming is happening, and humans are contributing to it, and therefore we need to take immediate action. > > - Opponents tend to focus on ‘debunking’ the entire concept of human-caused global warming. > > I personally believe that the science is fairly well established that humans are contributing to the warming of the planet. It’s time the debate shifted from that basic fact and focuses more on what can and should be done about it. OK, now we’re on ground where reasonable individuals can disagree. Yes, the sensible question is now (or should be) what should be done about global warming. Of course, even if global warming is a net benefit (a point which could be argued either way, but let’s grant it for the sake of argument), that still doesn’t necessarily mean that we should do nothing about it. It’ll be a benefit to some parts of the world, and a detriment to others. Maybe there’s some way we can mitigate the detriments where they occur, while still reaping the full benefits where those occur. This might mean, for instance, building dikes to protect those regions (or at least, those economically-significant regions, like cities) which are threatened by rising sea levels. Or maybe there’s some way to selectively cool some regions of the globe but not others, like those orbital sun-shades science fiction writers sometimes talk about. Or maybe we can stop the global warming (by reducing our carbon emissions or whatever), but gain the same benefits it would have given us through other methods. > [@](#): > > …and the reality of the fungible oil market is that voluntary, unilateral reductions in oil consumption by one country simply cause the price to decline, which stimulates consumption elsewhere. I’ve seen this argument many times, but it doesn’t work. Even if a decrease in oil consumption here in the US would trigger an increase in consumption elsewhere, the net oil consumption would still decrease, just not by as much as it does in the US. And that’s even assuming that other countries wouldn’t follow our lead: If we develop practical technologies that make it economical to use less oil, why won’t other countries use those technologies, too? ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/52 "2009-03-19T21:57:44Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Michael Crichton is, indeed, one of the people advancing the theory, and he’s right there in the OP. How do you want me to argue with Michael Crichton if I’m not allowed to present Teh Loony. He isn’t advancing or arguing anything these days: [The Writers' Guild of Great Britain blog: Michael Crichton obituaries](http://writersguild.blogspot.com/2008/11/michael-crichton-obituaries.html) ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/53 "2009-03-19T22:00:48Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > However, there are a bunch of people making a bunch of money off of saying that humanity is responsible for it. Who, exactly, is “making a bunch of money” off AGW? If you’re making the accusations, surely you can say their names. And- more importantly- is it a lot of money compared to the people who are making money off of \*resisting \*AGW? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/54 "2009-03-19T22:13:17Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Quoth **Sam Stone** :OK, now we’re on ground where reasonable individuals can disagree. Yes, the sensible question is now (or should be) what should be done about global warming. Of course, even if global warming is a net benefit (a point which could be argued either way, but let’s grant it for the sake of argument), that still doesn’t necessarily mean that we should do nothing about it. It’ll be a benefit to some parts of the world, and a detriment to others. Maybe there’s some way we can mitigate the detriments where they occur, while still reaping the full benefits where those occur. This might mean, for instance, building dikes to protect those regions (or at least, those economically-significant regions, like cities) which are threatened by rising sea levels. Completely agreed. If global warming hurts the warm, poor equatorial countries, and helps the richer countries in the higher latitudes, one answer is a simple wealth transfer from the north to the south - preferably in the form of engineering and aid to directly mitigate the effects of the warming. > [@](#): > > I’ve seen this argument many times, but it doesn’t work. Even if a decrease in oil consumption here in the US would trigger an increase in consumption elsewhere, the net oil consumption would still decrease, just not by as much as it does in the US. Yes, the new equilibrium will be at a lower overall level of consumption. How much lower depends on the elasticity of supply and demand. But it won’t be THAT much lower, because the U.S. only represents 25% of the world’s oil consumption in the first place, and that percentage is already dropping fast. And there are other pernicious effects - for example, the price drop would reduce the incentive for other countries to invest in alternative technology research or to invest in technologies to conserve energy. > [@](#): > > And that’s even assuming that other countries wouldn’t follow our lead: If we develop practical technologies that make it economical to use less oil, why won’t other countries use those technologies, too? Absolutely. Which was why I limited my comment to government rationing. The bottom line I mentioned is that every drop of oil in the ground that can be burned at a profit will be. All the rationing the U.S. can do might be able to push the usage curve around a bit at great cost. It seems to me the answer is not in rationing, but in developing technologies that produce energy at competitive prices with oil. If you can make oil more expensive than the alternatives, the world will stop using it without having to resort to treaties, trade tariffs, or other coercive measures. The problem is that I have no idea how to wave a magic wand and create that technology - and neither does the government. And it seems possible that the solution will be on the way shortly anyway. Once the recession is over, oil should begin a rapid price increase, and reasonably soon will probably price itself out of the market anyway. That will happen when the cheap Middle Eastern supplies begin to dry up and demand has to be made up from high cost secondary sources like oil shales and tar sands. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2009, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/55 "2009-03-19T23:16:17Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The problem here is to assume that all other reasons for the warming were not considered or investigated before arriving to the conclusion that CO2 is the big reason for the current warming. Please. I make no such assumption. > [@](#): > > In other words, it is misleading to assume that researchers have not made an effort to investigate the causation before they arrived to the current consensus. Herein lies the nub: there has been no investigation that successfully demonstrates the causation. There’ve been plenty of investigations which show correlation. But causation eludes them. As yet. This is also true of the anti-AGW side (q.v. sunspots, beryllium, cosmic rays, etc). ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/56 "2009-03-20T01:24:38Z")
Well, it’s very clear that the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is due to human burning of fossil fuels. We know how much fossil fuel we’re burning, we know how much carbon dioxide that amount of fuel would release into the atmosphere, and we know at what rate the actual amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. The numbers match up. So if you’re going to claim that the increase in atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] is due to some other process, then you also have to explain what’s happening to all of the known man-made CO[sub]2[/sub]. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/57 "2009-03-20T01:29:28Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Herein lies the nub: there has been no investigation that successfully demonstrates the causation. There’ve been plenty of investigations which show correlation. But causation eludes them. As yet. This is also true of the anti-AGW side (q.v. sunspots, beryllium, cosmic rays, etc). I agree, except that the skeptics do not bear the burden of demonstrating what caused recent warming. Particularly since recent warming is within the range of natural variation, as far as anyone knows. Moreover, even the IPCC admits that the level of scientific understanding of some of these possible agents is rather low. So it would seem difficult to rule them out. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/58 "2009-03-20T02:04:57Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Please. I make no such assumption. > > Herein lies the nub: there has been no investigation that successfully demonstrates the causation. There’ve been plenty of investigations which show correlation. But causation eludes them. As yet. This is also true of the anti-AGW side (q.v. sunspots, beryllium, cosmic rays, etc). :dubious: Like if basic chemistry should be ignored. > **[chemistrydaily.com - chemistrydaily Resources and Information.](http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Carbon_dioxide)** > > chemistrydaily.com is your first and best source for information about chemistrydaily. Here you will also find topics relating to issues of general interest. We hope you find what you are looking for! > [@](#): > > As of 2004, the earth’s atmosphere is about 0.038% by volume (380 µL/L or ppmv) CO2. Due to the greater land area, and therefore greater plant life, in the northern hemisphere as compared to the southern hemisphere, there is an annual fluctuation of about 5 µL/L, peaking in May and reaching a minimum in October at the end of the northern hemisphere growing season, when the quantity of biomass on the planet is greatest. > > Despite its small concentration, CO2 is a very important component of Earth’s atmosphere, because it absorbs infrared radiation and enhances the greenhouse effect. > > The initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity; this was essential for a warm and stable climate conducive to life. Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year. Volcanic releases are about 1% of the amount which is released by human activities. > > Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by approximately 110 µL/L or about 40%. Monthly measurements taken at Mauna Loa [2] since 1959 show an increase from 316 µL/L in that year to 376 µL/L in 2003, an overall increase of 60 µL/L during the 44-year history of the measurements. Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased man-made CO2; deforestation the second major cause. > [@brazil84](#): > > I agree, except that the skeptics do not bear the burden of demonstrating what caused recent warming. Particularly since recent warming is within the range of natural variation, as far as anyone knows. As it was shown in a different thread, many scientists know that there is plenty of evidence that shows it was not natural, but it has not stopped you from still repeating this discredited bit. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/59 "2009-03-20T02:41:53Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Herein lies the nub: there has been no investigation that successfully demonstrates the causation. There’ve been plenty of investigations which show correlation. But causation eludes them. As yet. This is also true of the anti-AGW side (q.v. sunspots, beryllium, cosmic rays, etc). Our understanding of how CO[sub]2[/sub] (and other greenhouse gasses) act in the atmosphere match what we are seeing, and we know how much of that CO[sub]2[/sub] is ours. As to how our understanding of CO[sub]2[/sub] (and other gasses) came to work, it’s by comparing to events like volcano eruptions, tests in laboratory environments, and the understanding of chemical reactions. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897/60 "2009-03-20T10:03:23Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As it was shown in a different thread, many scientists know that there is plenty of evidence that shows it was not natural, but it has not stopped you from still repeating this discredited bit. I’m a little confused. Are you claiming that recent warming is NOT within the range of natural variation? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-evidence-against-global-warming-read-before-flaming/489897.md?page=4)