.
See also: “Global Warming Skepticism”, entry dated 6/29/07
————————————————–
Warmer summer? Must be global warming.
Colder winter? Must be global warming.
Too much rain? Must be global warming.
Not enough rain? Gotta be global warming.
It is agreed among the scientific community that our planet has become warmer over the past couple of decades.
What is not agreed upon is (a) the cause of this warming, (b) its future projections and related consequences, or (c) whether or not the warming is a natural part of Earth’s climate activity.
————————————————–
I’m no expert in this area, but I do think scientifically, and it’s hard for me to reconcile to the human race’s responsibility for global warming in light of the following facts:
(1) Accurate readings of the Earth’s temperature have only been taken since the 1880s.
Yes, at the back end of our “Mean Global Temperature vs. Time” graph, you can clearly see a warming trend. But if you’re really interested in climate evolution, take a look at a few of the graphs that project backward a couple of centuries, and you’ll notice warming and cooling trends of the same magnitude as the one just mentioned. To me, this is yet another part of life that tends to follow a cycle.
(2) The dominant cause of Earth’s “greenhouse effect” (i.e. the trapping of heat near the Earth’s surface) is water, not carbon dioxide.
Be aware that CO2 is the greenhouse gas on which many of the media’s doomsday-scenario climate models are based. And be aware that global climate change is also a function of the shape of Earth’s orbit (i.e. what type of ellipse it’s following), its axial alignment (i.e. how much the Earth is tilted as it orbits the sun), and the sun’s brightness. Volcanic events and tectonic plate movement are also usually ignored.
(3) Carbon dioxide isn’t pollution. In fact, a rise in CO2 means more nutrition for plants, and therefore greater crop yields.
Humans take in oxygen and expel CO2. Plants take in CO2 and expel oxygen. Remember that, for each positive feedback mechanism in nature, you can usually find an associated negative feedback mechanism which balances it out. Have some faith in the homeostasis of God’s creation.
(4) Climate models have been notoriously bad at predicting the future state of Earth’s atmosphere.
A model is only as good as the human understanding of the process being modeled and the validity of the underlying assumptions of the people who put the model together. (i.e. The model will only account for those factors to which scientists have been able to apply an accurate statistical form.) I know from my own experience that it’s a hugely computing-intensive task to model things like the wind flow over a single wing of an airplane or the scattering of sound waves in an empty room. Modeling natural processes is very complicated. Oftentimes, in order for a computer to be able to produce meaningful simulation output within a matter of days, its programmers still have to make a lot of simplifying assumptions. It’s a bit of a stretch to claim that our simplified models can predict what Earth’s climate will be like 10 years down the road when we can’t accurately predict what the weather will be like next week.
————————————————–
So let’s keep our heads. The United States realizes that human-induced global climate change is a theory, and that’s why debate about climate control, e.g. the Kyoto Protocol, is valid on both sides of the aisle. Don’t be pressed by global-warming fearmongering into believing that the industrial world will destroy itself within your lifetime, or your children’s lifetime, or your children’s children’s lifetime, etc.
————————————————–
And with regard to things like Kyoto–
It’s idiotic to curtail economic progress by putting restrictive CO2 emission regulations on industrial companies in the face of such uncertainty about the human responsibility for global warming. It is asinine for countries like the United States to pay a penalty for a phenomenon that has not yet been conclusively proven to be a problem for anyone.
Clear evidence first, responsibility later.
March 22, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Have you ever heard of preventative action? Maybe by the time the evidence becomes clear it will be too late
March 23, 2007 at 12:14 am
And maybe all this global warming talk will amount to nothing at all.
Also, many of the scientists that do believe the earth is warming also say that there’s very little that the human race can do about it. The United States doesn’t need to sacrifice a chunk of its GDP trying to “fix” something that we can’t control in the first place.
April 4, 2007 at 1:07 pm
However we have never before pumped this much Co2 in th atmosphere while sussintly cutting away the trees and other plants that take them in for energy. While we have had warm periods before never to the deegee that were talking abou today. Besides which you said it was a theory. If so it an almost undebated one in the scientific community. It is only politician and other citizens such as youreself who are not scientest that dissagree with the theory. Very wll renown global science boards have all concurred that Global waring does exist. While it is true that it is a theory so is the theory of relitivity. That doesnt make it wrong. Besides all of that considering the health risks and the value of green energy pumping a little less co2 in the air couldnt hurt anyone/.
April 4, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Besides converting to greener energy sourses would limet our dependence on forieghn oil and eventually boost the economy.
April 4, 2007 at 10:46 pm
(1) It’s tempting to think that the human race has control over the earth’s climate, but the science of global warming is far from proving that.
(2) You don’t know that we haven’t had warm periods like we’re having today. Here you’re making an extrapolation centuries into the past based upon a few decades worth of data.
(3) I may not be a global warming scientist, but I have spent the last nine years studying physics. So I can tell you, from a scientific point of view, the following: Relativity is a theory that is readily lab-testable, its results have been repeated many times, and its conclusions are straightforward. Global warming, on the other hand, is a theory that is only minimally lab-testable, its results are not nearly as precise (because its experiments need to account for FAR more variables), and its conclusions are tenuous at best. It seems foolish to let such a young and imprecise science dictate government policy.
(4) Science is not established by concensus. Yes, scientists generally agree that the Earth has become warmer over the last century, but the scientific community does not agree on the cause of that warming, nor do they agree that the warming will continue indefinitely. Many scientists believe that the sun itself has also become hotter over the last several decades and point to a correlation between its temperature and the Earth’s temperature.
(5) Yes, developing greener energy would help reduce our country’s dependence on foreign oil. But we want to be careful not to stunt our economy’s growth by placing undue emissions restrictions on businesses and/or putting even more taxes on everybody’s gasoline.
(6) Global warming is an immature science mixed with a lot of political propaganda. The jury’s still out on all of this.
April 23, 2007 at 4:31 pm
All right granted that we may not have a definite answer on this. Further i acsede that you may have greater knowlegde on the subject then I do. Im still a freshman in high school all i can tell you is what i learned in Earth science. However even if not all scientests agree many geoligists believe global warming is happining and is caused by increased c02 in our atmosphere, which is a proven insulent making it warmer. Even if were not absolutly sure we can show how the pattern of increased c02 coincides with the pattern of rising and falling tempatures. However even with this evidence we are not sure. Still it is pretty compelling. Given the fact that we surely can affect our envirment, for example by destroying our rainforests it doesnt seem so far fetched. Im not saying its a fact but what is the harm in a little envirmental awerness. It certanilly wont hurt to try greener energy and using less power will only help youre electric bill.
Lets get a little away from the enviremental issue. A very big issue today is our dependence on forieghn oil. Because of this dependence we fund nations such as saudi arabia, who in my opinoin should be on President Bush’s axis of evil. Because of this dependece we a re subject to high prices designated by our enimies. Because of dependence on forieghn oil our forieghn policy is affected. Because of this dependence one day when we run out of this finite resourse our economy will collapse. If we start now we can prevent all this. Now about stunting our econmy well switching over to nuclear power like many other nations have done will increase jobs with builders and trained workers. It will severly improve towns that are currently recieveing little profit margin. Since the Us has a very large uranium deposit it will allow for forienghn trade which benifits us. It will tear a hole in our eneimies pocket. storing and protecting the uranium and the waste will add more jons and we will be able to provide cheaper energy that will not run out nearly as easily as oil.
All and all stooping our use of oil may or may not prevent harm to our planet. We dont know for sure. But it will definitly help our economy. If you are right and global warming doesnt exist then we still make money. If im right we make money AND we save our lives. Theres no down side.
May 8, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Certainly I agree that the United States should conserve energy and become as independent as possible with regard to foreign oil. From what I’ve seen, solar power and fuel cells can only, at best, produce a small fraction of the nation’s energy needs. Nuclear power, although it may scare some people to believe it, is one of our best alternative options.
The reason I mean to focus this blog entry solely on global warming is because the issue is often framed as follows by propagandists like Al Gore: The earth is warming –> humans are destroying the planet –> the United States is a large consumer of oil –> the United States is warming the earth and destroying the planet. And after hearing the words “global warming” hundreds of times on the news, many people buy into this phenomenon and what we need to do about it before they’ve even considered (a) whether or not global warming is actually happening, (b) whether or not humans have ANY control over it, and/or (c) whether or not mass warming & cooling is simply a natural part of how the Earth behaves.
You’re absolutely right that carbon dioxide is a natural insolator. CO2 allows sunlight to pass through it, and after the sunlight reradiates off the earth, it traps heat within the atmosphere. But so does water vapor. And atmospheric water vapor is far more abundant than atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is just one of the many ‘variables’ that I mentioned earlier that is often ignored by the doomsday models that you hear about.
Even if you completely ignore the effect of water vapor on earth’s temperature, the cause-effect relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature is still weak. Granted, there appears to be a correlation between CO2 and temperature. But correlation doesn’t imply causation. You can’t look at two graphs that overlap and say that a rise in one causes a rise in the other unless you see that one of them rises and then the other one rises shortly thereafter, or that one of them falls and then the other one falls shortly thereafter. Take a look at the “Carbon Dioxide & Temperature Data from Antarctica Ice Cores” graph that pops up in so many global warming presentations. What you WILL see is a correlation but what you WON’T see is the causation that I’m talking about. Sometimes you see temperature peak before carbon dioxide peaks. That would imply that a rise in temperature causes a rise in CO2, not the other way around.
Also– Don’t give credit to the sky-is-falling idiots who will point to global doom & gloom, and then when they’re proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, will turn around and say, “well, at least we raised awareness”. Bird flue. DDT. SARS. Heterosexual AIDS. Sometimes people will take a small problem (or even a non-issue) and blow it WAY out of proportion by convincing everybody that they’re affected. Sometimes a political agenda masks true science. I am beyond sure that global warming fits this mold.
September 27, 2007 at 9:56 pm
I’m not a fan of pleasantries, so I’ll say hello, and that I’ve read some of your site, and though i generally disagree (with exceptions) to what you say, I do respect you because you are always intelligent and civil.
That said, I think that emphasis on uncretainty and the lack of conclusive data about global warming in general does not justify ignoring the problem.
While it is indeed murky to what extent the earth is warming, whether or not this is normal, what role we have in it, and what we can do to rectify the problem, There are pertinent issues that are crystal-clear; We disturb the natural order. 6 billion of us and then some are consuming rescources, producing waste, consuming more rescources, producing waste, wasting rescources, and producing consumers, and if i forgot, consuming rescources and producing waste.
The fact of the matter is, nothing has ever defoliated our planet so steadily and inexolerably. Even the eruption of Krakatoa, which essentially took 2 populated islands and erased them from existence, and caused a year-long winter across the planet from all of the ash produced, only eliminated 2 islands’ worth of trees. We’ve cut down far more than that.
Even if CO2 is not a sinister chemical that is accumulating above our heads, waiting to suddenly cast us into an unstoppable spiral of natural diasasters culimating in the eradictation of humanity — and i don’t think it is — it still IS a greenhouse gas, and we are putting a lot more of it in the air then there otherwise would be. Just because plants can make use of it doesn’t mean we’re helping out the world be rewriting the makeup of our atmosphere. The reason Carbon levels are rising is that we’re putting more carbon into the atmosphere than our flora is taking out.
I live in New england, and the weather here is incredibly erratic. When its 85 degrees in september, and when it snows in may, i do not look up to the heavens and curse global warming, because the seasons are not as rhythmic as people would have us beleive. I’m not sure we’re even really seeing that much of an impact from global warming (I leave aside the icecaps, particularly the north pole, which was recently fully melted for the first time in i dont even know how long) but that doesn’t mean we aren’t disturbing the natural order, and violating our world, and i think we have a responsibility to make sacrifices to combat the destructive nature of our consumptive lifestyles, rather than writing off all attempts to be constructive as ineffective.
As a minor bonus question, you mention Golbal warming as an instance where “A political Agenda Masks true science” you also state that things like the Kyoto protocol will end up hurting out GDP. Now, i ask you, what is the political agenda that benefits from getting people to be slightly less selfish in their treatment of the world we share, and why would anyone be interested in hurting our Economy?
September 27, 2007 at 11:27 pm
(1) First, thank you for your comments. Feel free to leave more.
(2) I’m not advocating ignoring the issue completely. I’m saying that the evidence that’s been presented so far is dubious and tainted by personal opinions, and that a much deeper study of the subject is required before we can accept the problems & solutions that many hasty scientists have put out there.
I’m all for conservation of natural resources, reducing pollution, etc. But I’m not yet convinced, however, that (a) man is responsible for global warming, or (b) that the Earth can’t naturally correct for global warming even if it IS a legitimate phenomenon. Trying to fix a problem that doesn’t actually exist is itself a waste of resources.
(3) What about the idea that man IS part of nature and that the Earth contains plenty of negative feedback mechanisms to offset the effects of the destruction that you’re talking about? Who’s to say that the cold places of the earth shouldn’t get warmer, or the warmer places cooler? Who’s to say that green lands shouldn’t turn to deserts, or vice versa? I think you’re assigning more guilt to the human race than is fair to assign.
(4) If you feel the need to “combat the destructive nature of your consumptive lifestyle”, that’s great. Drive a hybrid, plant a tree, and encourage others to do the same. I, on the other hand, do not believe that my lifestyle is destructive enough to warrant paying more in gas taxes, or paying more for any other product from any company that would be affected by Kyoto-type regulations.
(5) About your “bonus question”– There are plenty of people in this country who like to latch onto an issue that looks like a problem and use it to play to the sympathies/opinions of others in order to win political points. These people are called “demagogues”, and Al Gore is one of them. Many of his followers abhor the nature of capitalism and the United States’ role as a global consumer. They buy into the idea of man-made global warming without caring about the science behind it or the economics of the “solutions” to it because they’re looking for a way to blame the human race (or more specifically, the United States) for destroying our planet. Global warming may, in fact, be legitimate, but the credibility of the science is only scarred by people like Gore and the many leftists who think of him as a scientist, or — more frighteningly — as some kind of savior.
And on a global scale– There are plenty of nations who would love to see our GDP suffer and have the value of their currency rise against the American dollar. That speaks for itself.
November 13, 2007 at 9:03 am
Here’s a question for matt and Evan: Do you believe that, absent adverse inputs of human origin, that it is NORMAL for average Earth surface temperatures to remain stable (i.e., invariant) over centuries or millenia?
If you believe this, why do you believe it?
If you don’t, what makes you think that present trends, to the extent that they are measurable, are abnormal?