We’ve been trying and trying to see if there really is compelling evidence that humans are the cause of global warming, and we can’t. With most contrarian positions we’ve published, whether they regarded DDT, GMO’s, Chemicals, Recycling, Nuclear Power, The Hydrogen Hoax, Transportation, or Suburban Sprawl, it’s been pretty easy to allow differing points of view to be expressed – and remain a passionate environmentalist. But are global warming theories, like these other issues, really still open to debate?
In our search for answers we’ve encountered countless informed individuals who didn’t have the slightest understanding of the science, and the scientists we’ve questioned have quickly either given up trying to explain, saying the issues were too complex for a lay person to understand, or they abandoned their initial position and acknowleged that we aren’t really sure whether or not global warming is a product of human industrial activity. This is too bad. Scientists who want us to believe in global warming should do more than paint apocalyptic scenarios for press releases – they should explain, chapter and verse, why they have reached the conclusions they have reached.
Many of the arguments for and against Global Warming theories are covered in our article on that topic, Global Warming, published in April 2006. But one new factor has turned up since then that deserves mention. In our attempts to determine the ratio of anthropogenic (human caused) CO2 in our atmosphere vs. natural (volcanoes, etc.) CO2, we stumbled upon an excellent article entitled “Why Does Atmospheric CO2 Rise?” authored by Jan Schloerer of the University of Ulm in Germany.
Schloerer has compiled charts, by source, that estimate the total CO2 sequestered in the earth and oceans, the total atmospheric CO2, and the yearly emission and absorption rates of CO2. Schloerer writes “Compared to natural sources, our contribution is small indeed. Yet, the seemingly small human-made or ‘anthropogenic’ input is enough to disturb the delicate balance.” This claim is one heard again and again – humans only produce about 5% of the yearly CO2 that spews into the atmosphere, so why is human CO2 that significant?
According to Schloerer and other atmospheric scientists, the isotopes of human produced CO2 differ from the isotopes of naturally produced CO2, and this slight difference in chemical composition makes the anthropogenic CO2 more difficult to be digested by the natural carbon sinks on the planet – hence, this small incremental yearly increase from human activities is causing total atmospheric CO2 to rise. This point, among others (such as why CO2 is a more potent greenhouse gas than, say, water vapor which is millions of times more prevalent in the atmosphere), is a key point that must be better understood.
In the June 26th editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, a professor of atmospheric science at MIT, Richard S. Lindzen, opined “There is no ‘consensus’ on Global Warming.” In his essay, he says “Nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so.”
Global warming is an environmental challenge of potentially cataclysmic proportions. But that doesn’t justify pretending the theory – that global warming is caused by human-produced CO2 – is beyond debate. Responsible environmentalists hesitate to offer any challenge to the widening mandates to control CO2 emissions, lest their environmentalist credentials become questioned. Nobody who opines on the topic of global warming should fail to do their best to make their own conscientious, unbiased assessment of the science underlying their proclamations.
You end your post with a common refrain for those who doubt the science behind global warming- a quote that reflects a largely isolated opinion among atmospheric scientists at top research universities. (Yes, we all noticed that he’s an MIT professor.) Did you take a poll of atmospheric scientists at the nation’s top 10 research universities, or globally, to conclude that a scientific consensus does not exist that humans should do something to reduce manmade CO2 emissions?
Just because the science is difficult to understand doesn’t make it any less credible. If a layperson has difficulty understanding a complex theory of electromagnetics, does that make the application of that theory any less valid- esp. if it’s employed in today’s hard drives? Furthermore, science is by nature subject to uncertainty and questioning. The presence of information that challenges a theory or introduces doubt doesn’t necessary invalidate the theory. Your arguments are neither very relevant or convincing.
When I attended University of Michigan (Ann Arbor) over 12 years ago, I took a class on atmospheric science. At that time, the researcher who taught the class said that human-induced global warming was undoubtedly occuring and that we’d see clear data begin to emerge over the next 15 years. But he made an even more important point: if we can say with only 50% probability that human activity is the source of global warming, how long are we willing to wait before taking action? If scientists are wrong about the cause of global warming, we will needlessly spend on technology that develops clean energy sources, cuts back on CO2 emissions, reduces smog, and for Western nations, reduces dependence on the Middle East. That’s the worse outcome; perhaps you can argue that building a clean energy industry would hurt our economy.
But if scientists are right about the human cause of global warming, can we afford to do nothing and deal with the consequences of climatic disaster? The science is complicated enough that we will NEVER reach a point where every doubt and question can be resolved to every skeptic’s satisfaction. Do nothing and risk everything? That’s foolish and wreckless. It would be an unforgivable mistake for the generations of humans living today.
Did you phone any of the following?
The UK’s Royal Society (the UK’s national academy of science) whose official stance on climate change is:
“International scientific consensus agrees that increasing levels of man-made greenhouse gases are leading to global climate change. Possible consequences of climate change include rising temperatures, changing sea levels, and impacts on global weather. These changes could have serious impacts on the world’s organisms and on the lives of millions of people, especially those living in areas vulnerable to extreme natural conditions such as flooding and drought. “
Or,
Any of the National Academies of Science for all G8 Nations, along with China, India and BrazilIn who in June 2005 , signed a joint-statement stating that there is strong evidence that global warming is happening and that most of it can be attributed to human activities.
Or,
Any of the 48 Nobel Prize Winners in science who in 2004,signed a letter to US President George Bush, stating that: “By ignoring scientific consensus on critical issues, such as global climate change, the US government is threatening the earth’s future.
Just a thought. Are you one of those that assumes a scientific consensus is 100% agreement or proof? You will always be able to find a fringe scientist or a contrarian that will poo-poo global warming.
Finding out if there’s a censensus is pretty easy…
The MIT switchboard is 617-253-1000. Call and ask for the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. Talk to whoever picks up the phone and ask them whether a global consensus exists. Then do the same thing for Berkeley, Stanford, and whatever other institutions you consider credible.
If you get consistent answers, then there’s likely a global consensus.
My experience, in talking to about 15 PhDs and researchers in the field over the years, is that all have the same response: “The debate is about whether warming will be 3 degrees or 15 degrees.”
Jon, kudos to you for pointing out that it doesn’t matter whether or not humans are causing global warming. The only rational course of action is to act as if we’re the cause. If we aren’t we’re screwed anyway. But if we are, we survive.
There is strong scientific consensus that the globe is warming. But that isn’t the subject of debate. The subject of debate is over whether human action is a majority or even significant contributor to the current warming and whether the effect of reducing CO2 emissions on future warming would bring more benefit to the world’s people and other species than the costs of achieving that reduction. On those issues there really is no scientific consensus–even if consensus were an important issue (since science works not but by consensus but by evidence). For plenty of documentation of this, and some of the evidence that current and foreseeable future GW are within the range of natural variability, that human activity is a minor influence, and that reducing CO2 output would have negligible impact on future temperatures but at enormous cost to the global economy, harming especially the world’s poor, see “A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming,” co-authored by a climatologist, an environmental economist, an energy analyst, and a theologian/ethicist, and endorsed by over 130 scientists, economists, theologians, pastors, and others, at http://www.interfaithstewardship.org/pdf/CalltoTruth.pdf.
–E. Calvin Beisner, National Spokesman, Interfaith Stewardship Alliance
Water vapour is between 10 to 100 times a more potent greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide and now that NASA has discovered that the ice caps on Mars are also shrinking, I think we should look to the solar activity as a more probably cause of climate change.
I agree that reducing out dependence on fossil fuels and moving to renewable sources of energy is a good thing but I think it makes more sense to try to adapt to climate change and expect the temperature to fall after the warming has ceased.
In excess of 31,000 scientists,engineers, etc, including more than 9,000 PHD’s have signed a petition that there is no scientific basis proving that anthropegenic co2 is the cause of Global Warming.
Global warming has been occurring since we are coming out of thr Little Ice Age,
Rates of change of the temperature,sea level rise.glaciers receeding, glaciers advancing,maximum temperatures are within the range of changes that the earth has experience in it history. The IPCC ignores the effects of the sun on climate change. Co2 levels are small compared to those we have experienced in the past.
Global Warming is easier to adapt to than Global Cooling. Many more deaths are a result of cold than heat.
We have several decades to develope alternate energy sources which we must do since eventually carbon based sources will be exhausted. We need a Manhatan Project to develope alternate sources of energy instead of wreaking havoc with the world economy attempting to restrict usage of carbon based energy sources which will only result in reducing the temperature rise of a miniscule change of less than .o5 degrees C by 2050 assuming all countries met the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol.
Whether humans are the cause or not of global warming seems irrelevant. A small twist on the question seems better targeted: “can humans do anything about global warming?”
America needs to stay FOCUSED, AWARE and EDUCATED.
Focus:
History reminds us that every time oil prices peak and the North American market/consumers start to discuss alternative energy sources, the oil exporting countries start to trim down their prices. History also tells us that the oil exporting nations have been very successful in the past and in fact, we have lost our enthusiasm and dropped many of our alternative energy initiatives after oil prices are reduced.
WE need to stay focused this time.
1) Al Gore and his energy initiative is on course.
2) T. Boone Pickens and his wind power initiative is on course.
3) The BG Automotive Group mass production electric vehicle program is on
course along with renewable solar energy charging option.
4) Richard Branson from the UK is on course w/his environmental programs..
5) The Gas Reduction Act of 2008 might not be the most environmentally sound
solution, but yet it shows that Congress has finally realized that we have an
energy crisis (again), and a real threat to our national security.
The continued dependence on foreign oil is a threat to our long term democratic values. We must become an energy independent nation, and with this, some sacrifices will have to be made by the American consumer.
Be aware!!
We are exporting approximately USD $700 Billion dollars per year of U.S. currency. The majority of this money is being transferred to the Trillion dollar “sovereign wealth funds”. This is USD $700 Billion not being spent on America’s educational system, health care and security.
The “sovereign wealth funds” are directly buying major interests (large blocks of stock) in U.S. companies, including most of the major banks. Also, billions of dollars of “sovereign wealth fund” money is being invested in our hedge funds, private equity firms, and the investment banking industry. A few of these firms are directly and indirectly investing large sums of money into our “gas combustion” automobile industry. Do we want our auto industry in the direct or indirect control of the firms that are supplying us oil? This is an interesting topic for an investigative reporter.
There are automotive consulting companies in Michigan (heart of our auto industry), lobbying States and our Federal Government, NOT to subsidize the Electric Vehicle industry. The latter seems to be contradictory to what the American public would like to see from our automobile industry. After the billions (excess of $20 billion) the automotive companies have lost in the past 6 months producing gas combustion vehicles, you would think they too would change course. Changing course is not adding 2-4 miles per gallon w/Hybrids. Drastic measures in our auto industry must take place and NOW!
Do not let the temporary reduction in oil prices push us off course….AGAIN.
Educated:
Read, Read- Stay on top of the issues. Let’s not be fooled again.
STAY FOCUSED, AWARE and EDUCATED!
There seems to be a lot of vitriol here so I’m going to try and add a little to the science you missed and I hope I’m not wasting my time.
You are absolutely right about the low amounts of carbon the human race puts out, most carbon comes from decaying matter, volcanoes and bush fires. Before we interfered the system was at something of an equilibrium carbon went out through the above methods and through the digestive and pulmonary (breathing) systems of animals and was absorbed by autotrophs (plants, algae, and some bacteria). We (humans) cut down a lot of forests, and destroyed a lot of natural vegetation, this stuff literally eats carbon, it uses energy from sunlight to break up carbon dioxide into carbon which is the basic building block of life and oxygen. Also we have increased the amount of carbon going out (even if it’s not a lot).
It’s a very complicated system and there are a lot of other factors at work not least of all the oceans and associated evaporation and condensation of water which causes the temperature changes we measure week to week, year to year. When we look at the average temperature change over the last 100 years there is a clear increase in temperature. We know that carbon in the atmosphere can cause an increase in temperature, it has already done so in the past, the temperature of the earth without carbon would be below the freezing point of water. We know other things can cause an increase too and some of those are especially active in the same time frame. The conclusion the evidence leads you to is that some warming is anthropogenic and some isn’t. How much is up for debate.
What has most sensible people worried (and there is a clear lack of sense on both sides of this debate) is that we are cutting down more forests and putting out ever increasing amounts of carbon, if we keep this up only bad things can happen. What exactly will happen is again up for debate, the earth will not be flooded but the entire polar ice caps may melt and we would lose many low lying islands and a lot of farmland. Some species are very sensitive to changes in temperature and they may die out. This will affect the other species in their ecosystems. It could affect food production. The system is just too complicated to make accurate long term predictions but there is a strong probability of a large amount of human deaths, while making changes like using more renewable energy and reducing waste are unlikely to kill anyone.