Neolib should agree with this E-Mail from a friend
The data for the last 600,000 years show a very different story... There is a very good correlation between Earth's mean temperature and CO2 levels. The CO2 data is from atmospheric air captured in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, so we have a reasonably reliable direct measurement of atmospheric CO2 levels. Global temperatures are determined from oxygen isotope data in the same samples; not too bad for getting a relative mean Earth temperature. Here is a site that explains how ice core data can give information on both GHG levels in the atmosphere, and the Earth's temperature, at the time the snow fell, that formed the ice.
gisp2.sr.unh.edu
Now here is the problem, current CO2 levels are higher than they have been in the entire last 600,000 years, and unless we do something, are headed from 360 ppm now to over 600 ppm in my son's lifetime! If that happens, mankind (and many other species), are going to have a really tough time of it.
It is easy to shoot down the nonsensical theories.
Here is a partial list
1. Its natural, if warming is happening at all!
the sceptics mis-stated the temperature collection data to hide the warming of the earth over the last 40 years. And they ignored the fact, that one of the first clear signs of global warming, would be loss of ice pack, not rising temperature. Most of the sceptics stuff was in special interest site white papers, that never underwent peer review.
2. Its the sun, stupid!
Remember Occam's razor.... The sceptics said the sun was responsible for global warming, because this is the simplest theory. Well, they didn't even interpret the axiom for Occam's razor correctly, because under this axiom, one should throw out all reasons that are contradicted by the facts, before selecting the simplest causal reason for the phenomenon. And the data on sunlight hitting the earth, show that the amount of light penetrating to the surface is dropping! Yet the earth is still warming in spite of less solar energy hitting the surface.
3. Carbon sinks (like the ocean) will eventually absorb CO2.
The sceptics said that the oceans would absorb the CO2, and it is true that about half of anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed in sinks worldwide. But this has been included in global warming forecasts. And now recent data show the uptake of CO2 by the Southern Ocean is dropping off... the scientists who support global warming theory have conservatively underestimated the impact, and not over-estimated the impacts as the sceptics claimed.
news.bbc.co.uk
4. The temperature data is wrong, and has been manipulated by eco-nut scientists!
Typically the sceptics cherry pick a hot year, or a hot period, and then twist the data. The most spectacular case of this, was when NASA corrected the temperature data for the USA since 2000, last summer. The sceptics were all over the news media blathering on about how the hottest year on record was now in the 1930s, and not 2005 or 2006 as the scientists had said. The problem: the scientists didn't say that. The sceptics confused the US temperature record, with the global temperature records quoted by scientists, but the sceptics didn't care... Any data will do, as long as they could preach to their supporters, what they want to hear, and confuse the general public in the process. Who cares if we destroy our planet, as long as we protect our special interests?
csmonitor.com
columbia.edu
4. Beware of pinheaded Quants... Don't trust scientific models!
A lot of the sceptics are scientists who never developed the skills to mathematically model earth's climate. These scientists were often passed by, as computer models became necessary for planetary climate research. The problem with the sceptic's argument... the computer models must be calibrated against hard data, and so must reflect actual temperature and CO2 measurements. And the temperature model presented by Dr. Hansen back in the late 1980s, has done a great job of forecasting the temperature since then. Of course, the sceptics resorted to scientific fraud, in order to criticize the model's forecast.
select.nytimes.com
5. Carbon dioxide is good for plants!
Inherently, the sceptics imply that increased uptake of CO2 by plants, will counter anthropogenic CO2. First, plant CO2 sinks are already in the models, and secondly, plants cause roughly 15-20 ppm swing every year in CO2 with the low point corresponding with the summer in the Northern Hemisphere where most seasonal vegetation grows. If plants dramatically increased CO2 uptake, then they could, over time, reduce CO2 by 5-10 ppm. But anthropogenic caused CO2 levels has risen 180 ppm, and could rise another 220 ppm. This explanation can't reduce the CO2 nearly enough to prevent catastrophic CO2 level rises. It is a red herring designed to appeal to people, and mis-lead them terribly.
6. Water is the strongest Greenhouse Gas, and the others get lost in the noise!
In the audience was the inevitable water vapor GHG proponent, who disrupted the meeting, and destroyed the Q&A because he keep insisting water vapor would account for everything. The scientists in the room told him that the water cycle and effect of water vapor was well known, and consistent, and kept the planet livable etc, but that over time the buildup of other GHG would cause global warming anyway. But this sceptic just kept raising his voice and pushing ahead, without knowing what he was talking about. I wish you could see the look on the faces of the CMU profs... their faces said "Why do we have to deal with idiots like this, who don't know what they are talking about!"
There has and will be water vapor in the atmosphere, and it helps keep the planet warm. So what? The planet will still get hotter as other GHGs accumulate in the atmosphere.
7. Dis-regard recent history, lets talk about 100-500 million years ago!
I covered this one above, with the last 600 thousand years of data, that is far more relevant to forecasting GHG caused global climate change going forward from today.
Of course, the sceptics have included their political views on the sites, and in the news media ... Interlaced in all these arguments, is how the socialist government-loving and American-hating liberals are out to destroy our American way of life. Or that behind global warming theory, are the married gay terrorist children of illegal immigrants, who want to destroy America, period. |
