New Scientific Findings Cast Doubt On Global Warming

[harleyquinn]

For all this talk of Global warming, we still seem to be pretty freakin cold here in Upstate NY. This is not a flame, I'm just saying, if you have some of this warming, please send it this way. I'm sick of not getting above 30 degrees (F).

[Timber Loftis]

Regarding scientific proof: It is neither "doom and gloom" nor junk science to say a few simple things about excess CO2 (and other GHGs). The GHGs in the air insulate the earth in a way other gases do not. They hold in heat. It's very simple. Add more, increase the "blanket's" thickness.

Oh, and regarding CFCs and HCFCs: Stratospheric ozone is a related but separate concern from global warming. Different chemical effects. Chlorine molecules in the stratosphere destroy O3, turning it to regular breathable oxygen (O2), which then plummets to the ground. The O3 in the stratosphere is both a blanket but more importantly a shield - keeping out UV radiation from the sun.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by harleyquinn: For all this talk of Global warming, we still seem to be pretty freakin cold here in Upstate NY. This is not a flame, I'm just saying, if you have some of this warming, please send it this way. I'm sick of not getting above 30 degrees (F).

Calling it Global Warming is a bit of a misnomer. Global climate change is closer to the truth. One of the nastier predictions I've read about it is that the gulf stream my change or even stop. This would be very bad news for the east coast.

[Azred]

Don't forget that all plant life converts CO2 into O2, including oceanic algae; the algae generate at least as much O2 as all the trees in the world combined. However, algae is rather sensitive to changes in the oceans pH (acidity).

Most likely there are still far too many factors and not enough evidence to conclude completely whether or not global warming is even happening or whether it is a good (natural) thing.

[Kaltia]

Hmmm...my biology teacher once told us that the temperature that caused the last ice age was only about 5 degrees centigrade lower than it is now....is this true?

[Attalus]

That is the global average temperature, Kat. At the more northerly and southerly extremes it was much colder.

[Timber Loftis]

But yes, Kat, it is true. And, supposedly at this point last year we were 0.7C warmer than ever in 1000 years. Link.

We're talking mean change over time here. Not whether Saturday was warmer, but whether the year on average was warmer in 2002.

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Azred: Most likely there are still far too many factors and not enough evidence to conclude completely whether or not global warming is even happening or whether it is a good (natural) thing.

Well, they *did* find evidence that the amount of CO2 is higher than was ever the case in the last 160,000 years, by "reading" ice cores:

Temperature has yo-yoed over the ages as wildly as it does through any single year. Like natural thermometers, ice cores have recorded these fluctuations, which scientists can "read" by examining isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen in water trapped in the ice. These isotopes come in two forms--"light" and "heavy." Light isotopes have regular hydrogen and oxygen, while heavy isotopes have either hydrogen with an extra neutron or oxygen with one or two additional neutrons. Since heavy isotopes precipitate out of the atmosphere more quickly than light ones, scientists can measure the ratio between the two isotopes to estimate the temperature at any given time. The data in this graph, gleaned from a core drilled in central Greenland, shows how temperatures have risen by more than 20°C (36°F) since the height of the Ice Age 25,000 years ago.

Many scientists fear that rising levels of so-called "greenhouse gases" from the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities will cause global warming, with potentially grave consequences for human agriculture and society. One of the clearest signs that elevated levels of greenhouse gases can result in warming comes from an ice core taken near the Russian Vostok station in Antarctica. This graph tracks temperature and atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) from the present back to about 160,000 years ago. (This represents about 11,350 feet of ice accumulation.) The graph clearly shows how a rise in gases will mean a rise in global temperature (though whether rising gases trigger rising temperatures, or vice versa, remains unknown). Also note that, at about 360 parts per million, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere today far exceeds levels at any time in the past 160,000 years--indeed, in the past few million years. For those worried about global warming, this is a sobering statistic.

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/stories/

[Kakero]

kinda think of it, perhaps these global warming thing just happen naturally. I believe few thousand years ago. there was the age call the ice age, temperature was cold at that time and I certainly know humans at that time didn't make that happen. When the ice age ends and temperature begun to warm up, again I know humans didn't make that happen. thus, perhaps we humans shouldn't be blame for our current problem of global warming?

[Thorfinn]

While CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, it is not a major one by a long shot. Far and away, the biggest is water, and greater in contribution, but not fraction, is methane.

What is frequently forgotten about fossil fuels and CO2 is that at one time, all those fossil fuels were a part of the ecosystem, and thus that the CO2 levels were dramatically higher in the past. In fact, if not for the high CO2 levels favoring the angiosperms over the gymnosperms (very roughly, plants with leaves over plants with needles) we would not have a world covered with grass and trees at this point, and since gymnosperms are very poor at photosynthesis relative to angiosperms, the world could only support a tiny fraction of the animals it currently does. Anyway, since angiosperms and the lesser quantity of animals would have been only constituted a small carbon sink, it stands to reason that the bulk of the rest of the carbon would have had to exist as CO2, there being no evidence that the inorganic composition of the oceans of prehistoric ages were much different than today. If it existed as CO2 then, and life went on, and in fact, under those conditions developed the forerunners of todays plant and animal life, it is not reasonable to say that those conditions would be the death of life on earth.

Secondly, to talk of climate in terms of yearly fluctuations is deceiving at best. By definition, this year will either be warmer or cooler than last. Since extreme weather is by definition more than one standard deviation from the mean, by definition, 32% of all years will have aggregate extreme weather, and if you closely examine the individual components of the weather, you have a negligible chance of not finding some component to call "the worst in years".

And furthermore, why should we assume that the weather of today is the "right" weather? When Iraq was the cradle of civilization, it was much wetter and warmer than today. Middle Kingdom Egypt enjoyed the warmest, wettest climate in the area in millenia, and developed the greatest culture the world had ever seen, not to be approached again until the Romans some 2000 years later, "coincidentally", in another warmer, wetter period. Whether coincidence, or due to greater productivity of agriculture during the Medeival Optimum, the standard of living increased throughout Europe due to warmer temperatures. The entire ecosystem appears to benefit from higher temperatures -- just compare the biodivesity in the tropics versus the biodiversity in temperate or tiaga. Are we really certain that the weather we have today is the "right" weather for the ecosystem?

Bear in mind that our weather is always changing, and there are always alarmists about to call attention to it. The boys camped out at Valley Forge in the midst of what is now called the "Little Ice Age", and during this point, the Thames froze well beyond the accepted range. From about 1940 to 1977, there is a widely known cooling trend, despite the huge increase in CO2 emission during that time. And throughout the '70s there were plenty of alarmists demanding that the government do something about the impending ice age.

The amazing thing about this whole global warming "controversy" is that despite reports to the contrary, there is actually not a consensus that there is an anthropomorphic signature to climate change. In fact, that is what the NAS report said, and what the ICPP report said at the time it was reviewed, though the NGOs and politicos managed to get the final draft to say that there was the unmistakable hand of man. It is interesting to note that most of the sources cited in the IPCC report have come out against the report, saying that the conclusion of the report was not supported by their research.

Anyway, here are a couple pretty decent sources for the "other" side of the global warming story:

http://co2science.org/center.htm

http://greeningearthsociety.org/