Global warming - man made, natural, or just plain not happening?

[Tom]

Almost every day now we see something in print, or on the television, screaming the dangers of global warming and climate change to a mostly apathetic audience. For the most part, like most other people, I've trusted that the general concensus that the planet is becoming warmer is true. Recently however, I've started reading all kinds of articles that state the case for it all being a fallacy quite well.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/081204D.html

This being one of them. I've read others which show that global rises in temperature actually precede Co2 levels in the atmosphere by several hundreds of years.

I don't claim to understand the politics behind the organisations on either side of the fence, and doubtless some articles have a political bias, but it does seem odd that we're getting so panicky over something that in the past, the Earth has just shrugged its shoulders over and got on with things.

In Roman times, they were growing grapes as far north as Scotland. Shakespeare experienced plagues of mosquitos carrying malaria. In England! In London, there were 'Ice Fairs' on the Thames during the early 18th century (attributed to a reduction in solar activity).

 

[DaGaffer]

We're making fundamental decisions about the future on very short-range data; remember the hole in the ozone layer? And how it would take at least 50 years to fix? Guess what? Its almost closed, both in the northern and southern hemispheres. There's always a good debate about this at jerrypournelle.com: (http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail346.html#climate)

The problem is that there are now way too many vested interests in CO2 emissions regulation to sit back and say, "actually, we're doing all this on the basis of some pretty flaky science, maybe we should concentrate on other environmental problems until we have more data".

 

[Trem]

I watched a program the other week about this.

They say that the problem is global dimming not warming. The global warming is balancing out the dimming. If we improve warming, which we are doing, it makes the dimming a whole lot worse.

Basically buy a ticket to Mars and make a new home there.

 

[Uriel]

I'm sure this is one of those topics not best suited for discussion on the web since both those for/against the cause/existence of ozone depletion/global warming have easy access to (pseudo)scientific material that for the non-scientist is going to be very hard to argue against without recourse to someone else's work.

Having said that, I'll take the bait and say I'm not entirely convinced by this:

We're making fundamental decisions about the future on very short-range data; remember the hole in the ozone layer? And how it would take at least 50 years to fix? Guess what? Its almost closed, both in the northern and southern hemispheres.

Last time I checked with the British Antarctic Survey Team, link they were saying something along the lines of whilst the hole had started to close this was a pretty slow process and something that wouldn't be completed for years. Also, I remember this question coming up in (I think) 2001 when a lot of papers picked up and ran with the story that the hole was closing much faster than previously thought and that we'd no need to worry. Turns out it was just a freak occurrence but the chemical/physical processes involved in ozone depletion are highly complex which makes it very difficult to get an accurate story.

 

[leggy]

The ozone hole is not permanently open. It closes regularly but we are about to experience probably the biggest opening ever in the history of openings. Apparently it will reach as far as northern europe.

As for dimming/warming well I'm not so sure. The disaster scenario that is being juggled around by the media is almost surely bollocks. As it stands there probably isnt enough oil left (to burn) that will cause this disasterous increase in the level of CO2. I know other fossil fuels are a factor but in the next ten years almost half of britains coal fired plants will be shut down or converted to natural gas/biomass fired. Natural gas giving a reduction of 60% in CO2 during combustion as compared to oil and coal.

You can talk all day about natural CO2 levels but whether you like it or not we are significantly increasing levels ourselves. It's basic science though that dictates this will increase the average global temperature. One of the theorys banging about however is the one of global dimming. What some scientists are saying is that global dimming (reduced solar activity due to particulates in the air) is cancelling out the effect of global warming. If this 'smog' was ever to clear we would apparently see a significant increase in temperature.

This isnt all pseudo science. I have been studying this for a while for some reason or another.

 

[Cask]

Britain could be a tropical country within three generations? Fucking great!

 

[Tom]

Britain could be a tropical country within three generations? Fucking great!

Erm not really, if you've been to a tropical country it isn't really anything to look forward to. In fact its something I'd be a bit worried about.

 

[SAS]

To be honest the truth is so mixed up with mis-truth it's impossible to see what is really going on. However if you look at the freak weather patterns (flooding is now common place in most areas of europe compared to 10 years ago), you can see something is happening, but if its man made or a natural cycle of the Earth, and will it cause the end of the world as we know it? I doubt we will ever find out, until its too late.

Its a shame govenrments cant put aside the politics, greed, and lies and work together to truely expose the facts about global warming.

 

[Munkey]

I think what is happening now is a natural process, however mankind's actions are not only speeding up the process but are also aggravating it.

I think a lack of basis is no reason for Bush to back out of the Kyoto agreement, at the end of the day reducing emissions is still a good idea.

 

[SawTooTH]

I'll be dead by then. The looming fuel crisis is more of a worry. Wars for oil seem to be starting early.

 

[Chilly]

You can talk all day about natural CO2 levels but whether you like it or not we are significantly increasing levels ourselves. It's basic science though that dictates this will increase the average global temperature.

Please explain this "basic science" and how much of it have you picked up from TV, and how much is actually reliable?

I'm sorry, but its not basic science for shit, basic science is drop a sphere in a bowl of water and the water level will rise, not the interactions of various atmospheric gases with thousands of chemicals and the action of sunlight/darkness/solar radiation in other forms on them. Its perhaps one of the least basic areas of science, thats why the weather man is never very accurate over more than a dar or two.

 

[Turamber]

When the spectre of global warming first raised it's head in the early '90's there was a news item on the local BBC programme highlight it. Pointed out how here in Birmingham we'd be safe from the flooding caused by melting polar ice caps (we're on a plateau don't you know); how we'd be growing wine and enjoying weather such as they currently have in the South of France.

Then they briefly mentioned that the rest of the world would be underwater, but - hey ho - who cares, we'll be fine. The media are somewhat egocentric!

 

[DaGaffer]

The ozone hole is not permanently open. It closes regularly but we are about to experience probably the biggest opening ever in the history of openings. Apparently it will reach as far as northern europe.

We've got about thirty years of data, maybe fifty tops. In geological terms this is nothing. You can go back further with core samples etc. but this is an inference based on very incomplete data.

I think a lack of basis is no reason for Bush to back out of the Kyoto agreement, at the end of the day reducing emissions is still a good idea.

I can't beleive I'm backing Bush about anything but there are two key considerations about Kyoto; i. The growth of China, and ii. North America is actually a net absorber of C02 (all those forests), whereas Europe and Japan are net emitters. This isn't to say the US isn't the biggest polluter in many other areas, but burdening themselves with C02 reduction costs when the world's second largest economy (or sixth depending on which way you look at it) doesn't have to, makes little sense from the Americans' prespective, and is a classic example of western liberal guilt and China appeasment because we're allowed to criticise America but as past history has shown, China will just ignore us and there's sod all we can do about it.

I'm also sceptical about the rush to C02 reduction willy-nilly because of the Laws of Unintended Consequences; for example, Europe's rapid move towards the dominance of Diesel has raised particulate emissions, while I'm absolutely certain the Japanese/American growing love-affair with hybrid technology is going to result in huge increases in heavy metals, PCBs etc. (all those electric motors).

 

[leggy]

Please explain this "basic science" and how much of it have you picked up from TV, and how much is actually reliable?

I'm sorry, but its not basic science for shit, basic science is drop a sphere in a bowl of water and the water level will rise, not the interactions of various atmospheric gases with thousands of chemicals and the action of sunlight/darkness/solar radiation in other forms on them. Its perhaps one of the least basic areas of science, thats why the weather man is never very accurate over more than a dar or two.

An ecosystem is not basic. Which is what your implying with your rather blunt and idiotic post. I never said that though did I?

I was saying that increasing the CO2 levels in even the most simple environment will have an effect on the temperature. This environment being one with all your variables taken into consideration. Even with those variables there will be a net level of CO2 in the atmosphere that can be measured.

 

[leggy]

We've got about thirty years of data, maybe fifty tops. In geological terms this is nothing. You can go back further with core samples etc. but this is an inference based on very incomplete data.

correct me if I'm wrong but the hole is only caused by, the now banned, CFC gases. Considering CFCs are a fairly recent invention I assume 30 years is about the most complete data you can expect.

The hole is well documented and the cause known exactly. Satellite images show the hole very clearly and the level of ozone is easy to measure. I'm almost certain these scientists can predict when the hole will open and how large it will be.

 

[moomin]

Basically buy a ticket to Mars and make a new home there.

How about a ticket to uranus?

 

[Scouse]

Just to put the original article in perspective read it again whilst bearing in mind:

1) that the author of the article is using one area of the science to his own means, ignoring the (outnumbering) arguments that point to an increase in pace of global warming due to the activities of man

2) that he's got a book coming out and controversy helps sales, a lot; and

3) It's posted on a website with an economic bias. If you have a look at this incredibly shortsighted argument you'll find this quote:

In my view, the worst policy option of all is to subsidize the use of alternative forms of energy.

(Jeesus, is the author so blind to anything but cold hard cash that he can't see the benefits of lower-polluting forms of energy? What about the health benefits for example?)


Yes there's lots of science that makes the global warming theory look very dodgy. (A lot of this is sponsored by oil companies). Yes, there's a lot of science that makes global warming look incredibly catastrophic. (A lot of this is sponsored/carried out by environmental pressure groups).

What there is though is far too much evidence to be ignored that we are doing harm to the environment in many ways, which does include provable warming of the atmosphere. What we're not sure about is what exactly is going to happen.

K?

 

[leggy]

Nice post scouse.

 

[Mazling]

I don't care if I freeze to death, get drowned, get infected by malaria from a swarm of locusts or become sterile and slowly baked to a crisp by un-filtered solar radiation. We are having an impact on the environment now, on a global scale.

 

[Chilly]

An ecosystem is not basic. Which is what your implying with your rather blunt and idiotic post. I never said that though did I?

I was saying that increasing the CO2 levels in even the most simple environment will have an effect on the temperature. This environment being one with all your variables taken into consideration. Even with those variables there will be a net level of CO2 in the atmosphere that can be measured.

So why does CO2 = higher temperatures?

cos i dont know and Im not sure anyone does really, its all guesses about co2 impeding sunlight radiation back into space - if co2 does that why doesnt it just stop it getting in in the first place?

 

[Bodhi]

Anyone who's lived in St Andrews in February will tell you that Global Warming can only be a good thing. Antartica could do with warming up a bit too - we could turn it into a massive ski resort.


Makes me want to buy an old American muscle car that does 5mpg.

 

[leggy]

So why does CO2 = higher temperatures?

Simply, it traps infrared heat radiation and stops it radiating back into space.

 

[Will]

So why does CO2 = higher temperatures?

cos i dont know and Im not sure anyone does really, its all guesses about co2 impeding sunlight radiation back into space - if co2 does that why doesnt it just stop it getting in in the first place?

Fossil fuels such as gasoline, methane and propane contain mostly carbon. When these fuels are burned, they react with oxygen and produce carbon dioxide.
Because of our heavy use of fossil fuels, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing since the industrial revolution. The destruction of forests which use carbon dioxide also contributes to the increase in carbon dioxide.

Most of the light energy from the sun is emitted in wavelengths shorter than 4,000 nanometers (.000004 meters). The heat energy released from the earth, however, is released in wavelengths longer than 4,000 nanometers. Carbon dioxide doesn't absorb the energy from the sun, but it does absorb some of the heat energy released from the earth. When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs heat energy, it goes into an excited unstable state. It can become stable again by releasing the energy it absorbed. Some of the released energy will go back to the earth and some will go out into space.

So in effect, carbon dioxide lets the light energy in, but doesn't let all of the heat energy out, similar to a greenhouse.

Currently, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of about one part per million per year. If this continues, some meteorologists expect that the average temperature of the earth will increase by about 2.5 degrees Celsius. This doesn't sound like much, but it could be enough to cause glaciers to melt, which would cause coastal flooding.

Stolen.

 

[DaGaffer]

correct me if I'm wrong but the hole is only caused by, the now banned, CFC gases. Considering CFCs are a fairly recent invention I assume 30 years is about the most complete data you can expect.

The hole is well documented and the cause known exactly. Satellite images show the hole very clearly and the level of ozone is easy to measure. I'm almost certain these scientists can predict when the hole will open and how large it will be.

You're wrong. CFCs were a contributor, not the only cause of chlorine, although they were targeted as the obvious lead culprit. As for scientists being able to predict 'exactly' what the ozone holes will do, they told us it would be fifty years, even with a ban on CFCs, before the holes closed up again; this hasn't happened; the hole in the Antarctic broke up into two smaller holes almost immediately after forming last year (check NASA's web site) and was the smallest ever recorded. We have no idea about previous ozone holes, their causes or their effects or if there's any cyclical trends over and above man-made activity. Pseudoscience strikes again.

 

[Will]

Scientists are dealing with things for the first time. They give their best estimates, but if they make any mistakes, we aren't to believe them at all?

The truth is undoubtly somewhere between the two extremes of "nothing is going to happen" and "the world is going to end in 20 years". I'd prefer to take some preventative action now, just in case everything goes to shit, than to wake up one day and find its too late.

 

[Tom]

So why does CO2 = higher temperatures?

cos i dont know and Im not sure anyone does really, its all guesses about co2 impeding sunlight radiation back into space - if co2 does that why doesnt it just stop it getting in in the first place?

Take a look at the image in my first post.

 

[Chilly]

OK, I was mostly wrong then, but it seems to me that according to that very nice graph Tom posted, it taked ~800 years for a CO2 change to echo into temperature change - that suggests to me its an indirect change, probably due to plants growing faster and mosre leading to warmer weather in one way or another. And supposedly we have, in the last 100 years or so, actually created a noticable temperature change with only a fairly small CO2 increase, seems like there might be another reason than purely CO2 emmisions - perhaps something completely random.

 

[leggy]

Pseudoscience strikes again.

why exactly?

I was merely giving my unresearched opinion. I didn't read any websites (your source of this so called pseudoscience) before giving it. It was merely information I thought correct.

Is this www.patronisinghouse.com? As is it beginning to feel like it a little.

But I will say this: "Man made chemicals break the equilibrium of ozone destruction and regeneration (in the outer atmosphere)"

Without them we wouldnt have a big hole.

 

[DaGaffer]

why exactly?

I was merely giving my unresearched opinion. I didn't read any websites (your source of this so called pseudoscience) before giving it. It was merely information I thought correct.

Is this www.patronisinghouse.com? As is it beginning to feel like it a little.

Isn't that the point? The debate about global warming seems to be far more about PR and vested interests than the truth (on both sides). If you simply say stuff like "CFCs...blah, blah...C02...blah,blah...we're all going to do die...blah, blah..." all you're doing is parroting the PR spin of whoever's shouting loudest. It's incredibly easy to demonise industry, the oil companies, the Republicans (God help me) etc. because they've done very little historically to make us trust them; but that doesn't mean the doomsayers are right either! Every time I hear a scientist say "In x years this will happen" I know they're wrong, because a good scientist would simply never make the kind of pronouncements routinely made by the green lobby. Maybe 'pseudoscience' was the wrong phrase; how about "sound-bite science"?

 

[rynnor]

What there is though is far too much evidence to be ignored that we are doing harm to the environment in many ways, which does include provable warming of the atmosphere.

Well I agree that we are harming the environment in many ways but regardless of much hype its certainly not proven that the climate is warming up and even less provable that mankind has had any effect on it.

We simply do not have enough data to make any conclusions - anyone who jumps in with a conclusion without data is not a scientist.

Climate has such long cycles and is so complex we would need a couple of thousand years of records before we could start making predictions and even then they wouldnt be very accurate as some cycles of climate are measured in the hundreds of thousands of years - instead we only have reasonably accurate data for the last few hundred years during which time there have been a few anomalies that we cant really explain like the little ice age.

I think its a mistake to think that climate is somehow a static thing and that we should regard it as terrible if it did change since the geological records show that it has changed many times in the past - once there was a warm sea at both poles etc. etc.