Global Warming
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.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
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.
August 22nd, 2006 at 8:33 am
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.
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:51 pm
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.
August 24th, 2006 at 5:35 am
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
January 20th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
[...] Global Warming January 20, 2007 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? . . . 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. humans only produce about 5% of the yearly CO2 that spews into the atmosphere, 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. __________________ United We Stand. [...]
February 24th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
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.