2011 Global Warming Latest News – NO Consensus On Human Cause
74In 2011, a large number of people continue to argue convincingly that carbon dioxide emissions cause dangerous global warming, even though all the evidence does NOT support this argument.
SURVEY -- Global Warming
Do you believe that carbon dioxide emissions produced by human industrial activities are threatening planet Earth?
See results without votingEvidence ?
Robert M. Carter is an Adjunct Research Professor at James Cook University and a marine geologist who studies Earth’s ancient climate. He receives research funding from competitive public funding agencies such as the Australian Research Council. He receives no funding from special interest groups such as environmental organizations, government agencies or the oil industry. In his peer-reviewed journal article, Knock, Knock: Where Is The Evidence For Dangerous Human-Caused Global Warming?, he writes:
“… since the early 20th century it has been agreed amongst climatologists that ‘climate’ is taken to be represented at a particular site by an averaged 30-year-long span of meteorological data.”
This means that humankind’s instrumental record of climate change is as follows:
- 153 years of thermometer data = 153/30 = 5.1 or roughly 5 climate data points
- 53 years of radiosonde data = 53/30 = 1.8 or roughly 2 climate data points
- 33 years of satellite data = 33/3 = 1.1 or roughly 1 climate data point
Christopher R. Scotese, former Co-Director of the Paleoceanographic Mapping Project at the University Of Chicago, starts his discussion of Earth’s climate at 2 billion years ago.
If we use Scotese’s starting place for discussing Earth’s climate at 2 billion years ago, and we use 30 years as the span of time between distinct climate points, then we observe that the number of climate points in Earth’s climate history is:
2,000,000,000 years/30 years = 66,666,667 climate points, well over sixty-six MILLION climate points! Modern measurement of climate data spans a mere 5 climate points, or a phenomenally miniscule seven hundred millionths (0.00000007 of Earth’s climate history).
According to Scotese, during the past 2 billion (that’s BILLION) years, Earth’s climate has oscillated between ice houses and hothouses, or generally, between very cold conditions and very warm conditions. Climate oscillation, therefore, is the rule, NOT the exception on Earth. Even in the absence of humans and in the absence human industrial activities, Earth’s climate normally goes through ups and downs.
During the last 4,500 years alone (a relatively small span, compared to two billion years), at least seventy-five significant temperature swings have occurred.
Why The Global Warming Uproar ?
Why, then, does an average global temperature increase of only a fraction of one degree in 150 years seem to cause such an emotional stir in so many people?
I suggest that a good many people cannot evaluate all the relevant facts, taken together. As human beings, we tend to make judgments according to our first impressions and according to the least complex explanations. We tend to make judgments based on circumstantial evidence and strong associations, even though all associations are NOT correlations. We also tend to respond to good salesmanship.
The sole mission of the United Nations political organization known as the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) is to investigate HUMAN influences on climate. A person could argue that this primary focus on human influences predisposes the IPCC to finding these very influences, because IPCC panel members recognize only evidence that supports their already-decided conclusion (what researchers call “confirmation bias”). Add the additional bias of news media who thrive on bad news, and we have a full-blown, epic tale of how humankind’s carbon dioxide emissions threaten the planet.
The Way It Is -- Scaled In Degrees
The Way It Is Exagerated -- Scaled In Tenths Of ONE Degree
Vainglorious Worries
Studies of the geological record show that rapid natural climate changes have occurred in the past, at speeds and at magnitudes that would be hazardous to human life and economic well-being today.
Carter points out:
“... rapid temperature switches of several degrees within a few years to a decade have long been identified in ice core and other records. ... Similarly, rapid changes are recorded in the modern instrumental data record. For example, during the 1920s warming in Greenland, at five coastal weather stations, the average annual temperature rose between 2 and 4 degrees Celsius [and by as much as 6 degrees Celsius in winter] in less than ten years. “
Worries about climate change, therefore, are not without justification. Worries about humans as primary causes of catastrophic climate change, however, ARE UNjustified. At least in the present era, if we look, with open minds, at all sources of evidence, then we canNOT conclude that any signal of human influence on Earth’s climate exists. The signal for humanity’s effect on Earth’s global average temperature simply has not been detected. I have discussed this in detail in 4 previous hubpages articles:
Proper worries about climate change, therefore, are worries about NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE. Just as we are justified to make plans for inclement weather, we are justified to make plans for inclement climate. In other words, we must adapt to anticipated crises for the right reasons. We must plan to survive, as we always have.
Humans currently are not climate threats, but rather engineers to prevent devastation from natural forces.
Global Cooling NOW – Are You Kidding?
In the midst of heated debates over human-caused global warming, intelligent, knowledgeable people are now presenting evidence that global cooling is currently under way.
Matti Vooro discusses this seemingly paradoxical claim in his article, Signs Of Global Cooling.
Chart Forcasting Future Global Cooling
CONCLUSION
I am very much in favor of a healthy body and a healthy world. I do not believe that a fossil-fuel technology is the most elegant technology. But I still do NOT believe that carbon dioxide from our current fossil-fuel technology is the evil destroyer that many people believe it is.
My reasons for wanting cleaner technologies are aesthetic, much as my reasons for wanting people to stop smoking are hygienic. Truly advanced civilizations care deeply about the beauty and elegance of their choices.
REFERENCES
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/CarterSept2008.pdf
Robert M. Carter (September 2008), Knock, Knock: Where Is The Evidence For Dangerous Human-Caused Global Warming?, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS & POLICY, vol 38, no 2, pp 177-202
.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases
William Happer [Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University] (June/July 2011), The Truth About Greenhouse Gases, FIRST THINGS
.
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
Christopher R. Scotese (2002), Climate History, PALEOMAP PROJECT
.
http://notrickszone.com/2011/01/22/signs-of-strengthening-global-cooling/
Matti Vooro (January 2011), Signs Of Global Cooling, NOTRICKSZONE
.
http://clothcap.livejournal.com/35229.html
Peter H. Zeigler (November 2010), GLOBAL WARMING AND PHANERZOIC CLIMATE CHANGES
.
CommentsLoading...
When you look at the (extremely) long term data, the Earth is actually in the middle of an ice age. We do not currently have the amount of ice seen during the Wisconsinan Glaciation, but the Earth is considerably cooler than it has been for the vast majority of it's history.
One of the main reasons for this is the emergence of the Panamanian Isthmus during one of the previous ice ages (not sure exactly when this happened). This changed the flow of the North Atlantic/ North Pacific Currents, which changed the way that the oceans regulate the global temperatures. Since the cold waters from the north could no longer spend extra time in the equatorial zone, they return sooner, meaning that they return at lower temperatures. This causes moderate to cool climates throughout much of the world when compared to their historical averages.
And on a different note:
If global warming is so horrible for life, why were the animals during the Mesozoic Era gigantic compared to those found today? Rising temps are generally equated with increases in global oxygen levels, which animals need to live. The more oxygen available, the bigger the animals can get (there's more to it than that, but this is one of the main contributing factors).
And if CO2 causes rising temperatures, why did the huge increase of CO2 during the early Cretaceous period coincide with the huge drop in temps seen at the time?
We (of the human race) think that we are bigger than we really are, ... at this time.
Again, I emphasize, the signal of human warming of the planet has NOT been detected. Even with all the asphalt, land use abuse, cars, industry and so forth, the signal of human warming of the planet HAS NOT BEEN DETECTED. And CO2 is NOT the villan. The villan is the hot air of emotional wailing about humankind's threatening the planet with its industries, so that some people can continue to have jobs and funding of their constructive interests, which happen to be false interests in CO2 as a poison.
RK
I agree that CO2 is not to blame. Since records have been kept, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from .034% of the atmosphere to .035%. This isn't much when you consider that the percentage has been much, much higher in the past.
What are some other greenhouse gases? Water vapor, ozone (o3), oxygen (o2), nitrogen, along with many others. All of these are vital to life on earth, just as CO2 is. Where are the calls to decrease the amount of ozone? Oh right, getting rid of that increases the temperature, even though having it increases the temperature. What about water vapor? Oh yeah, we need that for rain. The clouds that it produces reduce temperatures even though the water vapor in the clouds raises the temperatures. Nitrogen eventually makes it into the ground, where it becomes food for the same plants that get rid of CO2 and create more oxygen (removing one GHG and replacing it with another).
The point that I'm trying to make is that there are so many variables in climatology that NO ONE is capable of determining what will happen more than a few days out. There are so many things involved in even trying to figure out the weather a week from now that a meteorologist "discovered" Chaos Theory while trying to determine weather patterns. It is nothing short of impossible for humans to read the future of our climate, even with the world's largest supercomputers working night and day for the next 100 years.
The complexity in climate prediction, indeed, is great.
There are contradictions and conundrums. For example, the urban heat island effect seems to be a defense of global warming skeptics, yet I would ask, "Isn't city heat still heat?, and why would we doctor this factor to poove a point that the world is not getting hotter?" If the islands of the world on which humans live most densely are getting hotter, then maybe our concepts of cities are erroneous. Maybe the arguments about undesirable climate change need to be more specific to the islands on which we live. Extrapolating such local effects imprudently to global proportions, however, as some pro-global warmers do, is the other side of the conundrum.
I want to do a hubpages article on urban heat islands at some point, where I investigate and elaborate on this issue.
Robert
I am currently a Chemistry major at the University of Hartford and have been studying the climate debate for abotu four years and I can say without a doubt that human activities are changing the earths weather patterns. Yes we are at the end of an ice age, so earth should be warming slowly but what current data taken from points all over the world in ice cores, recorded temperatures, coral cores, and a large variety of other exact sources. Clearly show increases in average temperatures. Adding to this is the clear increase in storm frequency and intensity. Glacial melting world wide is accelerating along with the melting of the ice caps in antarctica and Greenland. What many people misunderstand of scientific concerns over this is not that the earth is warming but the sociopolitical consequences and the long term survivability of densly populated regions. There is more than enough evidence to atleast make this a serious concern for the long term stability of current international affairs and more importantly the ability of humans and all of life on earth to adapt to a world changing at, in solar terms,a blink of an eye.
dc11,
Very intelligent, multi-degreed experts beilive that humans are causing the warming. On the other hand, very intelligent, multi-degreed experts totally disavow everything you believe.
Studying chemistry at a respected university does not give you any further special view of the debate. You are equally vulnerable to the politically correct position, which most certainly is NOT proven. In fact, there is even more mounting evidence that humans are miniscule factors in the Earth's climate.
We should be more worried about natural geomagnetic storms than about our insignificant effect on Earth's long-term climate. We should divert the research funding that so many global warming alarmists have depended on towards nobler ends that address REAL threats, such as TRUE climate-change events, when such events really happen.
As pointed out on another hub, we could possibly be struck by an asteroid or succumb to a devastating virus. These are possible, but not probable, events. I place geomagnetic storms in the above category: possible, but not probable.
Global warming, on the other hand, is a proven concept. And it is one that raises a great level of concern among something like 97% of the worlds climate scientists. They are in good company. NASA, the National Academy of the Sciences, NOAA, the United States Military, the EPA, the leading scientific institutions of most other countries around the world, the Roman Catholic Church, all support the science.
Maybe there is an off chance that that they could all be wrong, but I doubt it. After all, every reliable form of data we have shows that there is a very, very large amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, far more than usual. The data suggests that human activity is responsible for most of it.
Other evidence for climate change is the rapid melting of the ice caps in Greenland and the West Antarctic. The rate of extreme weather has been rising for quite a while. The permafrost in the worlds tundras is melting. Africa below the Sahara desert is in the process of desertifying. Any of these claims can be validated using a basic source like Wikipedia.
In short, there is a consensus on man-made global warming. There is overwhelming evidence supporting that reality. That charlatans like Richard Lindzen and Robert Carter dispute the science and its conclusions does not change the science or its conclusions.
Nathan,
In all my hubs on global warming, I have addressed the issues of the data, the ice loss, the consensus claim, and the numerous OTHER experts who most assuredly do NOT form the "consensus" that popular belief insists on.
Merely making a strong assertion of belief does NOT prove that CO2 is the cause of global warming. If you look at the information closely, there is NO hard causal link between CO2 and global heating, AND there certainly is NO human CO2 signal that can even be detected as a cause for warming. The association between temperature increases and human CO2 production is just THAT, an association, NOT a causal connection that warrants the alarmism that has gained such wide-spreak support.
Very accomplished mathematical physicists question the very validity of comparing Earth's atmosphere to a greenhouse. These mathematical physicists point to a flaw in the whole idea of a "global average temperature", ESPECIALLY in such a small range of LESS THAN ONE DEGREE, which is probably within the range of error of the global-average measurement itself.
I once believed in human-caused global warming. But I started reading much deeper on the issue, and now I just do not buy it.
Robert
Forgive me for sounding blunt, but I have studied the science far more closely I think you give me credit for. And you seem to be making a strong assertion of belief yourself.
Very accomplished mathematical physicists also question Einstein's theory of relativity, though it has held up remarkably well. Prominent doctors once questioned that smoking tobacco causes cancer. A small percentage of doctors also deny that HIV causes AIDS, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Whether they write good articles and peer reviewed papers is beside the point; science is still science.
I have to ask how many of your own sources besides Mr. Carter are actually climate scientists. Too me, its seems that there is a vested interest in the various energy companies to deny that there is a problem. There is more than enough evidence to go around for that.
It is one thing to believe that global warming is not caused by human beings, it is quite another to deny that the problem exists... it does. That is proven. Except for a few scientists, each with likely support from big oil and big coal, there is agreement on the fact that the global average temperature is rising along with carbon emmisions. Peer reviewed data shows this.
You might be surprised by how much money supports the claim that human beings cause global warming. Oil companies are not the only institutions that make money, you realize.
Universities, research institutes, government grants, etc. all have a financial stake in the human-caused global warming claim. Lots of jobs and research funding (that's MONEY) depend on this claim.
But this is beside the point. Peer reviewed data also shows that human beings are NOT the main player in the climate change game, as is popularly believed.
You want experts who claim that humans are NOT the cause? Okay, here you go:
http://traffic.libsyn.com/rbushway/2010_Senate_Min
...
Oh dear. A 2010 Senate Minority Report. That is clearly meant to blow my arguments out of the water.
I hope you realize that the people who contributed to this report are, in fact, being paid by taxpayer money, just the same those Universities and research institutes you mentioned that support the science.
I think you will also find, if you look deeply into the sources that this report cites, that the "scientists" are not in fact endorsed by the majority of the scientific community.
What is your point about money? My point is that it is being used to misinform the public about the reality of climate change. Call me foolish if you will, but I will take the word of a credited professor over an energy mogul any day.
In closing, I hope that you will provide me with more conclusive proof of this "peer reviewed" data. I have yet to find any such data. A Senate Report from the same party that most ardently denies climate change just does not cut it for me.
Nathan,
You appear to have focused only on the phrase, "Senate Minority Report". Did you even read any of the information in the link that I provided? Your response leads me to believe that you did NOT.
There are prominent, degreed professional scientists noted in the link that I provided, ... to name a few (with their comments):
“We?re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” -- UN IPCC‘s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.
“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” -- NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself.? -- Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
My point about money is that there is far more money invested in perpetuating the myth of human-caused global warming than there is money invested in discovering the truth about climate change.
Take off your blinders and read past a single phrase to the details. Also, very few people deny climate change. More people, however, are questioning whether human beings' influence climate to any significant, measureable extent. The empirical fact is that NO SUCH ACTUAL MEASURE EXISTS. What exists is a strong conjecture based on misdirected worry, driven by misunderstandings.
Druid Dude Level 4 Commenter 9 months ago
Good hub! I believe that our presence here, on earth, in the numbers that we have managed to achieve, coupled with the fact that we have destroyed millions upon millions of oxygen producers (Trees) and have a penchant for asphalt and tarmac, which are very heat absorbing, and purposely keep reflective surfaces to a minimum (they're blinding) AND have created a civilization based on burning fossil fuels and using other things which are detrimental to our ecology, that, yes, we are probably responsible in large for the exelerated melting of the global ice...but, we have been in a state of warming since the last ice age ended...we just speeded up the process. Voting you up!