The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Bart007]

Is Global warming occuring because humans iin the 20th century are filling our atmosphere with enormous amounts of CO2? Or is it politicians manipulating the voting public using fear?

Yes, we are experiencing global warming. It is caused by changes in radiaition output in the sun. It is not caused by humans emmiting CO2 in the Atmosphere.

Al Gore is completely wrong, over 18,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition rejecting Al Gore's claims that humans are the cause of Global warming.

Most probable cause of the recent global warming is changes in radiation from the sun.

We are currently undergoing global warming, this has been ongoing since 1900 AD. We just came out of the mini ice age that occurred from 1370 AD until 1900 AD. We have a ways to go before we reach the global temperatures that we had 1,000 years ago. Greenland was actually green back then. Perhaps it was the more violent storms on the Atlantic that delayed the discovery of America by Europeans until 1492 (aside from the viking explorers and settlers that came to Greenland and North America).

In the medieval global warming, England was wine country, the Vikings and Sweden had population explosions and they necame world powers. Greenland was green and the vikings had settlements on the coast of Northern Greenland. There was a mini ice age before and after the Medieval warm period. Prior to the dark ages ice age, there was a Roman warm period that was much warmer than the temperatures today.

Some politicians and their allies tend to replace science with scare tactics in an effort to rally people behind them and thereby influence election outcomes.

here: watch, listen, learn, and enjoy.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Al Gore is completely wrong, over 18,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition rejecting Al Gore's claims that humans are the cause of Global warming.

Well, turns out I managed to summon the motivation to look at the OP.

Believe it or not, I have actually read a good portion of the Oregon Petition.

I recall very few signees who were actually documented as having science degrees. I recall quite a few signees "accidently" managed to sign their name multiple times throughout the petition. At least half of the names on the list have not been confirmed as being actual people.

I wish I was kidding, but I'm not.

Oh yeah, there were a few actual scientists on the petition. I don't recall any who were not getting money from Exxon, though.


As long as we are going to play the numbers game, let's set a few ground rules.

(1) The scientist must actually exist
(2) The scientist must have a degree
(3) The scientist cannot work for an oil company

Using these qualifications, the "Yes, Global Warming is human induced" crowd numbers about 50,000+

The "Global Warming is a political ploy yada yada yada" crowd is probably more in the neighborhood of 50.

There literally has not been a scientific consensus of this scale since the theory of gravity.

[QED]

There literally has not been a scientific consensus of this scale since the theory of gravity.

Sure, it's easy to prove "the greenhouse effect". It's easy to show that we are producing "greenhouse gasses" - and it's easy to show that the global climate is going through a rapid warming phase. What's not so easy is proving that our contributions are having a significant impact above all other naturally occurring factors. After all, those past peaks in CO2 were nothing to do with Human industry.

The political reasons for promoting "green energy" are quite plain. In fact our Prime Minister actually mentioned the security element in a recent speech - something I had only guessed at beforehand.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

What's not so easy is proving that our contributions are having a significant impact above all other naturally occurring factors.

The current temperature increase is easily traced back to the dawn of the industrial revolution. These naturally occuring factors had thousands of years to start going into effect. Did they coincidintally decide to occur in correlation to human industrialization?

There has never been an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations without a subsequent temperature rise. Human contributions have created a CO2 concentration that is at least twice as high as the second highest level in recorded natural history.

Seems pretty easy to me.

The political reasons for promoting "green energy" are quite plain. In fact our Prime Minister actually mentioned the security element in a recent speech - something I had only guessed at beforehand.

But scientists do not care about national security. And, need I remind you, it was the SCIENTISTS who first came to a conclusion about Global Warming, not your Prime Minister.

The only politically charged aspect of this debate is in the "skeptics" side of the argument; those politicians who got to office with the help of campaign contributions from companies who's very livlihood depends on the American consumer burning gas and pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I would be interested to see how many oil funded politicians have spoken out in favor of Global Warming...

[AClockWorkOrange]

Global warming and cooling is a very natural, long, and slow process, and it seems that the planet goes through tempermental changes everytime there is a dramatic increase in human population.
Since the industrial revolution, it appears as if natural temperature changes have spiked and increased in an abnormally quick way.

There are too many people, who are trashing to air too much.

Fortunatly for the earth, it will continue with or without us.

[QED]

Well PP, I just don't know. Instinctively I am a skeptic and there's one or two alarm bells ringing about this subject.

The current temperature increase is easily traced back to the dawn of the industrial revolution. These naturally occurring factors had thousands of years to start going into effect. Did they coincidentally decide to occur in correlation to human industrialization?

How big a factor is ruling out coincidence in concluding that the current warming trend is due to human industry? If we look at the detailed data a page or so back we see no reflection of the global depression in the data. How would you account for that?

There has never been an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations without a subsequent temperature rise. Human contributions have created a CO2 concentration that is at least twice as high as the second highest level in recorded natural history.

Yet some have pointed to CO2 lagging temperature rises in the historical data -- as natural sources are stimulated by hotter conditions. In terms of greenhouse effect, CO2 has a relatively weak effect compared to an equivalent mass of CH4 (methane) which has 25 times the warming effect - although it's concentration in the atmosphere is normally an order of magnitude less. The biosphere is very complex to the point of being chaotic. I would agree that the safest thing to do would be to cut out all CO2 emissions, but it's far from clear that other areas of human impact (e.g. Agriculture and Land-fill waste) won't have more impact. And with global dimming caused by particulate material generated by the burning of fossil fuels being reduced by current policy -- we might inadvertently make things worse (if it is an upturn in radiant solar energy that's driving the current trend).

But scientists do not care about national security. And, need I remind you, it was the SCIENTISTS who first came to a conclusion about Global Warming, not your Prime Minister.

Sorry to have to disagree yet again, but as a retired scientist who has tendered many a funding proposal, the business has a tendency to generate work rather than rest. I agree that we should be re-doubling our efforts to understand what's happening, but ultimately it's Governments that call the shots and they don't have a very good track record for impartiality in these sorts of matters.

Security of energy resources is a highly significant challenge for Western Governments. The immediate threat is not from wild weather but from a collapse in Economies built upon carbon resources that are increasingly being supplied by other territories.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

How big a factor is ruling out coincidence in concluding that the current warming trend is due to human industry? If we look at the detailed data a page or so back we see no reflection of the global depression in the data.

Yes we do.

Temperature rises do not directly coincide with increases in the CO2 concentration, they lag behind for a few years. Hence, if we were to drasticly increase the burning of fossil fuels beyond the current amount (God forbid), it would be a few years before we really started to pay the price.

Behold:



The dip you see from 1940-1950 is the result of decreased economic activity during the depression years. If we moved that line back about ten years, the graph would almost exactly match a graph demonstrating the amount of human industrial activity.

Yet some have pointed to CO2 lagging temperature rises in the historical data -- as natural sources are stimulated by hotter conditions.

The temperature rises always lag. I found a fantastic graph demonstrating this the other day, but I can't remember where I found it.

The natural factors can try, but they will never be able to equal the current human footprint.

In terms of greenhouse effect, CO2 has a relatively weak effect compared to an equivalent mass of CH4 (methane) which has 25 times the warming effect - although it's concentration in the atmosphere is normally an order of magnitude less.

Most methane derives from human activity. The only significant natural sources come from volcanic eruptions and wetlands. The Earth's volcanic activity has all but stopped in the recent geologic era , and we probably won't have to worry about wetlands much longer (also thanks to human activity).

Sorry to have to disagree yet again, but as a retired scientist who has tendered many a funding proposal, the business has a tendency to generate work rather than rest.

What was your field (just curious)?

[QED]

How big a factor is ruling out coincidence in concluding that the current warming trend is due to human industry? If we look at the detailed data a page or so back we see no reflection of the global depression in the data.

Yes we do.

Temperature rises do not directly coincide with increases in the CO2 concentration, they lag behind for a few years. Hence, if we were to drastically increase the burning of fossil fuels beyond the current amount (God forbid), it would be a few years before we really started to pay the price.

Behold:



The dip you see from 1940-1950 is the result of decreased economic activity during the depression years. If we moved that line back about ten years, the graph would almost exactly match a graph demonstrating the amount of human industrial activity.

I'm afraid to say that's not altogether convincing. According to that plot the downturn lasts for 10 years (from 1940~1950) then, over three oscillations spanning 25 years (1950~1975), gradually climbs before it really takes-off again from 1975 onwards. By your reasoning, this implies that the depression lasted 10 years and was then followed by 25 years of slow recovery. That doesn't tally with the plot of raw material consumed in the US over the same period See plot on page 3 of this report. I'm assuming that material consumption is proportional to energy and carbon emissions.

Using your "10 year lag time" the rapid ascent starting in 1975 would correspond to a significant gearing-up of carbon emissions from 1965 onwards. While this might seem plausible in the context of post-war economic recovery, the consumption data shows a reasonably linear increase from the end of the depression onwards.

Yet some have pointed to CO2 lagging temperature rises in the historical data -- as natural sources are stimulated by hotter conditions.

The temperature rises always lag. I found a fantastic graph demonstrating this the other day, but I can't remember where I found it.

OK, Google "CO2 lagging temperature graph" and see what comes up. A figure of 800 years crops up now and then. It's imply not conclusive either way from what I've seen.

The natural factors can try, but they will never be able to equal the current human footprint.

You do appreciate that ours is a "variable star" and that our Planets orbit generates a series of heating/cooling cycles? Such things can make our footprint pale into insignificance. I understand the potential for our activities upsetting natural balances, but those balances in themselves have proven to be highly dynamic in their own rights.

What was your field (just curious)?

Nuclear engineering is the best way I can think to put it.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I'm afraid to say that's not altogether convincing. According to that plot the downturn lasts for 10 years (from 1940~1950) then, over three oscillations spanning 25 years (1950~1975), gradually climbs before it really takes-off again from 1975 onwards.

Notice that there are also three oscillations during the same time period on the material consumption graph you provided.

Granted, these fluctuations do not exactly correlate to the fluctuations in temperature. But then again, while atmospheric CO2 concentrations are obviously one of the major determining factors in earth's climate, no one has ever claimed that they are the ONLY factor. I am sure that the vast dynamicism of Earth's atmosphere can account for the small disparities between the two sets of data.

Meanwhile, the same prevailing truth remains evident: higher CO2=higher temperature.

While this might seem plausible in the context of post-war economic recovery, the consumption data shows a reasonably linear increase from the end of the depression onwards.

And the global temperature data does not?

Both graphs have their fluctuations. Both, however, show a dramatic positive increase with a nearly identical slope.

Demanding that carbon output exactly matches the temperature increase is perhaps taking skepticism a bit too far.

You do appreciate that ours is a "variable star" and that our Planets orbit generates a series of heating/cooling cycles? Such things can make our footprint pale into insignificance. I understand the potential for our activities upsetting natural balances, but those balances in themselves have proven to be highly dynamic in their own rights.

These dynamic natural cycles have not resulted in a CO2 concentration of over 280 ppm in the last 650,000 years. In just in the last 150 years, humans have succeeded in almost doubling that. Does that footprint seem insignificant to you?

The warming effects of increased atmospheric greenhouse gases is grounded in solid, simple science. It is going to get a lot hotter, granted that we continue in our heedless burning of fossil fuels.

Our atmosphere is indeed dynamic. Presently, the most dynamic force in the equation is the 6.5 billion human beings polluting it.

[QED]

I'm afraid to say that's not altogether convincing. According to that plot the downturn lasts for 10 years (from 1940~1950) then, over three oscillations spanning 25 years (1950~1975), gradually climbs before it really takes-off again from 1975 onwards.

Notice that there are also three oscillations during the same time period on the material consumption graph you provided.

Granted, these fluctuations do not exactly correlate to the fluctuations in temperature. But then again, while atmospheric CO2 concentrations are obviously one of the major determining factors in earth's climate, no one has ever claimed that they are the ONLY factor. I am sure that the vast dynamicism of Earth's atmosphere can account for the small disparities between the two sets of data.

OK, here I've had a stab at superimposing the two plots -- with your 10 year lag between human activity (in the US) and global temperature...

My eye is drawn to the linearity of the slope leading out of the Great Depression in construction material usage. I guess it's too much to hope that this mirrors global industrial activity - but it just seems to need too many impossible translations to get any real alignment. What can you see?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

My eye is drawn to the linearity of the slope leading out of the Great Depression in construction material usage. I guess it's too much to hope that this mirrors global industrial activity - but it just seems to need too many impossible translations to get any real alignment. What can you see?

I see that the global temperature and human industrial activity have (in general) a positive correlation.

Not surprising, since we have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that extra CO2 in the atmosphere traps light rays and results in a greenhouse effect.