TCS Daily

No News Is Bad News

By Roy Spencer - March 15, 2006 12:00 AM

A World Meteorological Organization (WMO) bulletin on Tuesday revealed some startling news: that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are at an all time high(!) From the press it received, you would think it was the kind of evidence that put the final nail in the coffin of skepticism over climate catastrophe. In reality, this earth-shaking announcement could have been made last year... or the year before... or really, just about any year out of the last 50. And I predict that it will also be true of each future year for decades to come.

Manmade greenhouse gases have been accumulating, and will continue to accumulate, in the atmosphere faster than the biosphere can remove them. So tell me something we don't already know.

In this type of announcement, I would have expected the statements made by the WMO to be fairly straightforward and factual. But the Reuters' quote of WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud contained a serious error. Jarraud said, "Global observations coordinated by WMO show that levels of carbon dioxide, the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, continue to increase steadily and show no signs of leveling off". Sorry, but water vapor, not carbon dioxide, is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (by a factor of about ten) in its ability to warm the lower atmosphere. I suspect Jarraud meant, "the most abundant manmade greenhouse gas." At least I hope that's what he meant, since he is the Secretary-General.

Regarding the total greenhouse gas concentration in his statement, I'll bet there are many years past when the total greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere was greater than today. This would be true especially during El Niño years, when warmer sea surface temperatures lead to greater amounts of water vapor in the lower atmosphere.

The Reuters story also contained another bold claim: "carbon dioxide, which the WMO says accounts for 90 percent of warming over the past decade...". Now, how could the WMO possibly know how much warming over the last decade is due to man-made greenhouse gases versus natural variability in the climate system, let alone such a precise number as "90%?. After all, the climate system is fully capable of its own changes, since it is a chaotic, nonlinear, dynamical fluid system. Just because we don't understand those changes and what causes them doesn't mean they do not exist. Oh, but I forgot, mankind is the dominant influence in climate change now. Natural climate variability is so passé.

The news story continued the usual 'blame-the-U.S.-for-global-warming' drabble, just as all recent news articles do. If a Pulitzer Prize for journalism ever gets awarded for warning the public about global warming, it will have to be held jointly by 78,000 journalists, because they have now all done the same story. The story never goes any deeper than 'global warming is bad', with the unstated, obvious implication that we need to stop producing greenhouse gases.

When will we see a story about increasing levels of manmade greenhouse gases being a sign of progress? A story that points out that our use of affordable sources of energy continue to spur increases in global productivity, health, longevity, and quality of life in general? A story about the fact that the wealth that is generated by access to fossil fuels is just what will be required to develop and refine alternative energy technologies in the future? Instead, we are constantly reminded that the U.S. did not sign on to the Kyoto treaty -- that wonderful plan to reduce global warming by an unmeasurable amount while having the additional benefit of hurting the poor, destroying jobs, and creating economic havoc in general.

But I think an astute journalist could have looked deeper than just the surface of the WMO report, and asked: Why did the WMO think increasing greenhouse gas concentrations was 'news'? Or maybe this was one of those cases where the media decided to make the story news?

Come to think of it, maybe we did go a few days without a climate disaster being, I guess it was time.

Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He is also a member of the TCS Science & Health Roundtable.



When the news stings...
Acid seas threaten to make British shellfish extinct
The Sunday Times (UK), March 12, 2006

...The acidification of the oceans is directly linked to the 23 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted annually by human activities such as power generation, car use and air travel. About HALF OF THESE EMISSIONS ARE SOAKED UP BY THE OCEANS -- a reaction that has so far benefited the planet by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and so slowing climate change.

About 10 years ago, however, scientists noticed hints that the oceans could no longer cope. Measurements of pH -- the basic measurement of acidity -- showed it was falling sharply, meaning the oceans were becoming more acidic.

John Raven, professor of biology at Dundee University, chaired a Royal Society inquiry into ocean acidification. It concluded that a marine catastrophe could be looming. “The pH of the oceans has fallen by 0.1 units so far and could fall by 0.5 units by 2100,” said Raven. “This pH WOULD BE LOWER THAN FOR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS and the rate of change is so fast that marine life may be unable to adapt.”,,2087-2081700,00.html

For details on how scientists were able to experimentally determine that man-made CO2 is changing ocean chemistry, see:

The Dangers of Ocean Acidification
Scientific American, March 2006

Don't worry, the judge is on the case.
"A likely explanation is that high acidity spurred greater turnover in diatoms, until they sequestered it in sufficient quantity to bring the pH back up to normal levels. So it may be that our own acidification of the oceans will have a self correcting function. "

A case of indigestion
Oceans May Soon Be More Corrosive Than When The Dinosaurs Died
Carnegie Institution, February 21, 2006

The computer models of Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology, have predicted that the oceans will become far more acidic within the next century. Now, he has compared this data with ocean chemistry evidence from the fossil record, and has found some startling similarities. The new finding offers a glimpse of what the future might hold for ocean life if society does not drastically curb carbon dioxide emissions.

"The GEOLOGIC RECORD TELLS US THE CHEMICAL EFFECTS OF OCEAN ACIDIFICATION WOULD LAST TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS," Caldeira said. "But biological recovery could take millions of years. Ocean acidification has the potential to cause extinction of many marine species."

...When carbon dioxide from the burning of coal, oil, and gas dissolves in the ocean, some of it becomes carbonic acid. Over time, accumulation of this carbonic acid makes ocean water more acidic. When carbonic acid input is modest, sediments from the ocean floor can buffer the increases in acidity.

But AT THE CURRENT RATE OF INPUT -- nearly 50 times the natural background from volcanoes and other sources -- THIS BUFFERING MECHANISM IS OVERWHELMED. Previous estimates suggest that in less than 100 years, the pH of the oceans could drop by as much as half a unit from its natural value of 8.2 to about 7.7...

when reporters lie
That the oceans are marginally more acidic is not in doubt.

However the hyperbolic claims of imminent disaster have no basis in fact.

125MYA, the atmosphere had 10 times as much CO2 as it does today. Yet far from a catastrophe, this was a period of abundant marine life, including shellfish.

another scientists who trades his credibility for headlines
If the oceans acidity is being driven by atmospheric concentrations of CO2, then there is no way that it is about to be more acidic than 125MYA. Unless you are predicting an increase of 1000%, not the 20-30% that most alarmists are hyperventilating over.

Improvise, adapt, overcome
." In addition, diffusion of CO2 is enhanced by the tube worms extraordinary ability to control its own pH levels regardless of the large influx of CO2 and the relatively acidic pH of the surrounding environment. This unique ability allows the worm to keep CO2 influx high without worrying about a decrease in the internal pH, which could be deadly to the bacteria. In fact, R. pachyptila is able to maintain a consistent, alkaline pH level relative to the surrounding environment. Although the exact mechanism the tubeworm uses to control internal pH is still unknown, it has been hypothesized that a method known as active proton-equivalent ion transport is used. Basically, protons, or positively charged hydrogen atoms, are pumped out of the worm to keep the internal pH levels constant (2)."

When scientists record the truth
Atmospheric CO2 accumulating faster than ever
New Scientist, March 15, 2006

The greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere at an ever faster rate, according to new data published this week by the US government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The finding has renewed concern that nature's ability to absorb the gas -- which is believed to be warming the atmosphere -- may be waning...

...NOAA said the average atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 reached 381 parts per million, an increase of 2.6 ppm since 2004. The annual increase, which has been recorded since the 1950s, HAS NOW WXCEEDED 2 PPM FOR THREE OF THE PAST FOUR YEARS -- an unprecedented rate. Half a century ago, the annual increase was less than 1 ppm...

...Peter Cox, an expert on interactions between plants and the atmosphere at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Dorset in the UK, says the recent surge "may be the first evidence of a feedback from the carbon cycle, in which plants under heat stress from global warming START TO ABSORB LESS CARBON DIOXIDE".

The finding follows reports that 2005 was probably the warmest year on record, slightly exceeding the previous record-holder, 1998. And scientists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre, in Boulder, Colorado, reported that Arctic SEA ICE FAILED TO REFORM FULLY THIS WINTER following the record melting during last summer.

Pet worm project
Great, now all we have to do is plant tube worms in the upper ocean where the bulk of the CO2 breaks down into carbonic acid.

But wait a minute, tube worms are deep sea creatures and can't survive in the reduced pressures of the upper ocean. And didn't I hear something about tube worms subsisting on undersea hydrothermal vents?

Well marjon, looks like you're pet worm idea is a bust -- or should I say "burst".

Not in the headlines...
Impacts of Anthropogenic CO2 on Ocean Chemistry and Biology
NOAA, October 3, 2005

Last April, a NOAA/NSF/USGS-sponsored workshop at the USGS Center for Coastal Studies in St. Petersburg, Florida revealed potential future problems for marine ecosystems from ocean acidification. A group of FIFTY INTERNATIONAL EXPERTS discussed how the release of the huge amounts of carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning, land-use practices, and cement production will affect the chemistry and biology of the oceans. For 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 concentrations remained between 200 to 280 parts per million (ppm)...

RECENT FIELD AND LABORATORY STUDIES reveal that the carbonate chemistry of seawater has a profound negative impact on the calcification rates of individual species and communities in both planktonic (floating) and ocean bottom organisms. The CALCIFICATION RATE OF NEARLY ALL CALCIUM-SECRETING ORGANISM INVESTIGATED TO DATE DECREASED in response to decreased carbonate ion concentration. This response holds across multiple taxonomic groups from single-celled organisms to reef-building corals. In general, when dissolved CO2 was increased to two times pre-industrial levels, a decrease in the calcification rate was observed, ranging from -5 to -50%...

Expand your horizons
Where there is life, there is hope.

Reading is great way to expand your horizons
I have a similar thought -- where there is intelligence, there is hope. Although I must admit, you do cause me to entertain doubts.

Utter rubbish
More carbonic acid in the oceans simply means a slightly higher rate of the cold carbonic reaction converting into limestone. Where does RH think most of the world's carbon dioxide went to? It's mostly in limestone, and it's continuing to be converted into limestone through the carbon cycle, driven among other things by plate tectonics.

The basic formula is the equation
CO2 + CaSiO4 (calcium silicate) = CaCO3 (limestone)+ SiO2 (Sand)
The cold reaction happens in the presence of water in solution, while it reverses in the presence of heat (how we make cement essentially).

To imagine a long term buildup of carbonic acid in liquid water in which it reacts catalytically is simply idiotic.

So what?
“This pH WOULD BE LOWER THAN FOR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS and the rate of change is so fast that marine life may be unable to adapt."

Life has already adapted. The oceans are pretty big. Heck we are still discovering new species on land. How many more are in the oceans? Ocean vent life was a recent discovery including the hairy crab.

So the report that CO2 levels are increasing is like saying the sun rose today. What news!

Truth starts with 'may'
"may be the first evidence of a feedback from the carbon cycle, in which plants under heat..."

I just love these definitive predictions.

True for every species
Is this true for every species? Even the ones they don't know about yet?

Reap what you Sew
Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms
Nature, September 29, 2005

Today's surface ocean is saturated with respect to calcium carbonate, but increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are reducing ocean pH and carbonate ion concentrations, and thus the level of calcium carbonate saturation. Experimental evidence suggests that if these trends continue, key marine organisms -- such as corals and some plankton -- will have difficulty maintaining their external calcium carbonate skeletons.

Here we use 13 models of the ocean–carbon cycle to assess calcium carbonate saturation under the IS92a 'business-as-usual' scenario for future emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. In our projections, Southern Ocean surface waters will begin to become undersaturated with respect to aragonite, a metastable form of calcium carbonate, by the year 2050. By 2100, this undersaturation could extend throughout the entire Southern Ocean and into the subarctic Pacific Ocean. When live pteropods were exposed to our predicted level of undersaturation during a two-day shipboard experiment, their aragonite shells showed notable dissolution.

Our findings indicate that conditions detrimental to high-latitude ecosystems could develop within decades, not centuries as suggested previously

Cross your fingers & wish for good luck!
"Recent field and laboratory studies reveal that the carbonate chemistry of seawater has a profound negative impact on the calcification rates of individual species and communities in both planktonic (floating) and ocean bottom organisms."

Who needs calcium-secreting species of plankton anyway? As if our existence is connected to the wee critters!

Acid baths
Please, by all means read the Scientific American article for a detailed discussion of how CO2 reacts with ocean chemistry.

But to your point about carbonic acid build-up -- there is a limit as to how much CO2 can be absorbed by the oceans in a given time period. Should the input of CO2 exceed the absorbtion rate, then an inbalance occurs and thus a build-up. If you can afford to wait several thousand years, nature will recalibrate.

By the way, what is the life expetency of your family members?

"... could develop within decades, not centuries as suggested previously..."

How definitive!

Post-emptive Doctrine
Oh I get it, you need absolute proof. I must apologize -- you see there has been much talk about a doctrine of pre-emptive action, and I assumed you to be a supporter of such talk.

Personally, I need a substantial amount of evidence before acting pre-emptively, like rising CO2 levels, disappearing glaciers, melting arctic sea ice, increased pH levels in the oceans, etc. So when I see leaders in industry and commerce voluntarily business practices on the advice of science, well, that's something I do consider.

Yo, RH, decaf !
(Decreased pH, RH, decreased.) You need to study the party line more closely, tsk, tsk. Tho, we've gotta admire such persistence in the face of the manifast contrary evidence. Globalwarmmongers, after of decades of demonstrated lack of "global warming" and noncatatrophes, converted to the dreaded "Climate Change" which presumably includes global cooling, when that doesn't cut it, they switch to "lowered pH". What's next? Some folks are never happy unless they're miserable. Sorta remids one of those crooks who keep making up aliases as they ruin name after name, or those religious nuts who keep unsuccessfuly predicting the end of the earth.

Oh those communist coal miners...
Xstrata and Other Coal Miners to Invest A$300 Mln in Green Fund
Bloomberg, March 16, 2006

Xstrata Plc, Rio Tinto Group and BHP Billiton and other coal producers in Australia will provide up to A$300 million ($222 million) in funding for projects that have cleaner ways of generating electricity from coal.

The projects being studied include storing of carbon dioxide in the ground, refitting of power stations, and oxy-fuel combustion technology, the Australian Coal Association said today in an e-mailed statement...

"To meet the twin challenges of climate change and growing energy demand, major reductions in emissions from the use of existing energy sources are necessary," said Mark O'Neill, executive director of the Australian Coal Association...

...and Blame Bush too!
Texas to offer two sites for power plant
AP, March 15, 2006

Texas will recommend two sites to the U.S. Energy Department, with lawmakers and civic leaders hoping that one will be home to the world's first NEAR-ZERO-EMISSIONS COAL POWER PLANT, Gov. Rick Perry announced Tuesday.

The state wants to land the $1 billion project known as FUTUREGEN, an initiative led by the Energy Department and a consortium of nine companies from the United States, China, the United Kingdom and Australia...

...PRESIDENT BUSH ANNOUNCED THE NEED FOR FUTUREGEN IN 2003 TO COMBAT GLOBAL WARMING, blamed by scientists on the burning of fossil fuels...


What would you say if your doctor told you that a set of tests indicated that you could have an serious disease?

1. ignore the advice and go on about your business.
2. ask for more tests and become concerned?

not "or," but "and": adivce to the ostrich
The other problems are still very much there. It's one more. Stick head further down into sand doesn't change this.

Dr. Spencer's great gift
No matter what the scientific news, he can always find a reason to ignore it or complain about coverage of it.

Is there a pattern here?

Change is good
How are you going to stop the ice caps from melting?
How are you going to remove 50% of the CO2 from the atm, NOW?
Or, since all the catastrophic events aren't predicted for 50 to 100 years, you have enough time for a few more studies and a few more reseach projects?

H pylori
"The bacterium was rediscovered in 1982 by two Australian scientists Robin Warren and Barry Marshall; they isolated the organisms from mucosal specimens from human stomachs and were the first to successfully culture them[4]. In their original paper, Warren and Marshall contended that most stomach ulcers and gastritis were caused by colonization with this bacterium, not by stress or spicy food as had been assumed before[5]."
"In 1994, the National Institutes of Health published an opinion stating that most recurrent gastric ulcers were caused by H. pylori, and recommended that antibiotics be included in the treatment regimen[6]. In 2005, Warren and Marshall were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for their work on H. pylori[7]."

The point is Warren and Marshal bucked consensus. Consensus did not occur for nearly 10 years.
It is interesting they most Nobel prizes are awarded to individuals, usually years after the consensus finally figured out what they were doing.

Second Opinion
There is a reason it is called 'practicing' medicine.
Doctors routinely tell people they have 6 months to live and they are continuly proven wrong by years.

The key word in so many reports of GW is 'could'.
Why is no one attching an uncertainty value to thier 'coulds' and 'mays'?
There is definite evidence that the earth has been hit by significant meteors. And that risk has been quantified.
One can quatify the risks of rising sea levels, however, what is the quantified percentages of occurance?

Still rubbish
It's nothing more than computer modeling, and the article produces no direct evidence of implied loss of ocean buffering or that the oceans are anywhere approaching any such absorption limit.

Your third paragraph is beneath contempt. This discussion is supposed to be about issues.

The world is as you are
This is the wise expression of a wise man.

What each one of us is inside our hearts, minds, egos and intellect, determines how we react to events.

There are pessimists and optimists. Complainers and doers. Mexicans and Mexican'ts (to use a phrase from a lousy movie).

AGW is a rallying point for those of the pessimistic bent. There's no persuading them. Just sit back and enjoy their fear.

Don_Vandervelde has it right: these types just shift from looming catastrophe to another. "It's what's inside that counts" though.

My Uncle
When my uncle was young he had knee surgery. He was told he would never run again (he was heavily into track at the time) and would walk with a limp the rest of his life.

One year later he broke the high school record for the 440.

I suppose he should have listened to his doctor.

I see: all change is good. Interesting
as for the speciifics -- the first step is to go beyond denial and admit you have a problem. The three step defense you've set up: 1. no problem, maybe not happening; 2. if it does happen, it's no problem, 3, there's nothing we can do about it really doesn't sound productive.

>Or, since all the catastrophic events aren't predicted for 50 to 100 years,

that's not the case. please read:

More denial
OK, you get a second, third and fourth opinon who agree you're sick. Are you going to shop around until you find a doctor who says you're in perfect health??

1. why are you sure this is true in this case? Warren & Marshall had research, which contradicted other beliefs -- but it was checked, and rechecked and found to be true.

Where's the analogy here? You're totally whistling past the graveyard, hoping something will turn up. Is that the way you manage your personal finances, or your health?

To Do
How are you going to stop the ice caps from melting?

Again, the definitive word is could have, not does have.

You postulated could have, not did have.

Which is the language used by those inspiring you.

Words have meaning. 'Could' does not mean 'will' usless 'could' has a probability of 100%.

and regarding Dr. Spencer's research
Dr. Spencer is identified with research claiming to find wide differences in temperature measurements by satellite and by earth-based instruments. This discrepancy has now been pretty clearly resolved -- and not in Spencer's favor.

But you say they're not melting.
so why worry?
How many ways do you want to have it?

A second article
Based on the same falicious study, and Rhampton actually thinks he has made a point.

Only expands your horizons when you go out of your way to read things that are true, and disagree with what you already believe.

In your case, neither situation applies.

I'm still waiting
To find out haw a (at max) 0.5 degree C increase in temperature is going to melt the icecaps, when they average 20 to 30 degrees C below the freezing point.

I love the way eric translates, finds massive problems with, into ignores.

Is there a pattern here?
Yes, eric will use any lie in order to ignore the truth.

No such thing as 100 percent probability
Not in anything. Particularly not in medicine. As you've noted when you were talking about people given 6 months to live sometimes surviving.

The question is: feeling lucky?

Really. Why go to a doctor at all?
What do they know about anything?

stop the personal attacks please
make an on-topic point or shut up Mark.

Impending Doom
What's it worth to you?
Are you so convinced that you will change your lifesytle to accomodate the impending doom?

It's not my decision alone
Nor yours. But if you ignore the science, you're just flying blind.

A good article
It would be nice if the science could tell us something the average joe doesn't know. It is like many of the liberals here posting about the horrible global warming. I'm tired of showing the evidence that there is no proof that man's activities are causing GW. Instead I will just say sure, it's all our fault; and i hope it continues beyond the foreseeable future. I don't much care about an additional 300 ft. rise in sea level, the tradeoff will be more trees, plants and diversity. More things to build with, less need for heating, more crops, longer growing seasons; bring it on!

I much perfer the warming to the alternative; cooling and the eventual return of the Ice Age. The history of the earth provides little middle ground; the earth is either cooling or warming; which would you perfer?

Like it or not, the next ice age is coming sometime within the next 4,000 years (probably less than 2,000 if the historic record of the past 2 million to four million years is any indication.) and there is little we can do about it. If we are causing additional warming, we need to do more to stave off the worst of the oncoming glacial advance for as long as possible.
Why? Am I insane?
Because, if you remember freshman earth science at all, you know an Ice Age is the most difficult of times to live in. More severe desertification, short growing seasons, long severe winters, major worldwide drought. The historic records show all of this is part of an Ice age; never part of an interglacial period. With that in mind, I would perfer my children learn to cope in a world that is 5 degrees C warmer rather than a world that is 3 degrees C colder.
For those who don't remember studying this stuff try:
or anyone of a hundred other sight that discuss past ice ages and climate. Your local library is also a good resource.

A few facts from these sites:
•During ice ages our planet is cold, dry, and inhospitable-- supporting few forests but plenty of glaciers and deserts. Like a spread of collosal bulldozers, glaciers have scraped and pulverized vast stretches of Earth's surface and completely destroyed entire regional ecosystems not once, but several times. During Ice Ages winters were longer and more severe and ice sheets grew to tremendous size, accumulating to thicknesses of up to 8,000 feet!. They moved slowly from higher elevations to lower-- driven by gravity and their tremendous weight. They left in their wake altered river courses, flattened landscapes, and along the margins of their farthest advance, great piles of glacial debris.
During the last 3 million years glaciers have at one time or another covered about 29% of Earth's land surface or about 17.14 million square miles (44.38 million sq. km.) . What did not lay beneath ice was a largely cold and desolate desert landscape, due in large part to the colder, less-humid atmospheric conditions that prevailed.
During the Ice Age summers were short and winters were brutal. Animal life and especially plant life had a very tough time of it. Thanks to global warming, that has all now changed, at least temporarily.

•Periods of Earth warming and cooling occur in cycles. This is well understood, as is the fact that small-scale cycles of about 40 years exist within larger-scale cycles of 400 years, which in turn exist inside still larger scale cycles of 20,000 years, and so on.

•Earth's climate was in a cool period from A.D. 1400 to about A.D. 1860, dubbed the "Little Ice Age." This period was characterized by harsh winters, shorter growing seasons, and a drier climate. The decline in global temperatures was a modest 1/2° C, but the effects of this global cooling cycle were more pronounced in the higher latitudes. The Little Ice Age has been blamed for a host of human suffering including crop failures like the "Irish Potato Famine" and the demise of the medieval Viking colonies in Greenland.
Today we enjoy global temperatures which have warmed back to levels of the so called "Medieval Warm Period," which existed from approximately A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1350.

•Global climate and temperature cycles are the result of a complex interplay between a variety of causes. Because these cycles and events overlap, sometimes compounding one another, sometimes canceling one another out, it is inaccurate to imply a statistically significant trend in climate or temperature patterns from just a few years or a few decades of data.
During the last 100 years there have been two general cycles of warming and cooling recorded in the U.S. We are currently in the second warming cycle. Overall, U.S. temperatures show no significant warming trend over the last 100 years (1). This has been well - established but not well - publicized.

•1. The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before human's invented industrial pollution.
2. CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks. Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases.
As illustrated in this chart of Ice Core data from the Soviet Station Vostok in Antarctica, CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere move with temperature. Both temperatures and CO2 have been steadily increasing for 18,000 years. Ignoring these 18,000 years of data "global warming activists" contend recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are unnatural and are the result of only 200 years or so of human pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.
Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward.
3. Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect". Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% .
Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.
4. If global warming is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere then does CO2 also cause increased sun activity too?
Put another way, rising Earth temperatures and increasing CO2 may be "effects" and our own sun the "cause".

If you understand the history, how can you attribute man with any part of global warming or cooling.
here's a bit more on that:
•In the 1970's concerned environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age due to manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun.
Since about 1940 the global climate did in fact appear to be cooling. Then a funny thing happened-- sometime in the late 1970's temperature declines slowed to a halt and ground-based re

near-surface temperatures. Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to "global warming,"-- the cited cause: manmade atmospheric pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.

P.S. The reported global tempature trend for 2000-2004 is steadly downward from a high in 1999. Is the tempature heading back down? Don't know, the next 10 years will tell.

TCS Daily Archives