Global Warming…Comment and Reply.
An esteemed reader left a comment on the Vostok ice core (illustrated above,) and seeing how global warming is a perpetually popular topic, I thought I would reply to his comment and explore this issue further. Plus I can’t think of anything else to blog about today, I have a severe case of the eebas. For the medically under informed, a case of the eebas is when a person doesn’t feel like doing anything except sitting around saying “Eeba, eeba, eeba.” Even worse, my cats are being boring, so no blog topic relief there. On the plus side, the weather is really nice and there’s no exceptionally horrible headlines in the news, so I guess I’m not complaining.
In any event, Jack commented:
You know I always have to hop on the statements about man-made global warming. I think the graph you posted gives the man-made global warming theory a complete thrashing. (Vostok or the Greenland Ice Core)
Think about it. Over 400,000 years we have seen rises in CO2 levels, notice the spike at about 400,000, between 350,000 and 300,000, 250,000 to 200,000, 150,000 to 100,000 and 50,000 and 0. Notice the cyclical nature of these rises and also the shape of the spikes. Looks like they happen ever 50,000 or so, and of course we are right in the path of the latest spike.
Now, a quick question. What man-made anomalies caused the rest of those spikes? Peat fires? In all reality, this is the elephant in the man-made global warming theorists living room, and the reason that most of the “scientists” promoting mm gw avoid it like the plague. I have used the Greenland Ice Core for years to debunk the theory of man-made global warming.
While my comments are directed at this question, they are actually meant for any readers who agree with Jack. IE people that think global warming is not man made.
To start with, at least we agree in the basics of the Vostok chart. This shows that the temperature of the Earth appears to be largely dependent on how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. The Vostok chart does not show human caused global warming and was not intended to demonstrate human caused global warming. It was merely one of any number of discoveries that were predicted and then made based on the theory that CO2 is the major regulator of warmth here on Earth. A theory which everyone is on board with, nu?
Yes, the chart does show that CO2 and earth’s temperature have risen and fallen over the past 400,000 years. No one is claiming that these variations were caused by humans, in fact how the Earth manages to stay within this narrow range of temperatures and CO2 concentrations is the subject of a great deal of debate and research. The point here, is that even with natural variation, these values have stayed within the range shown above for 400,000 years. Now the end of the chart:
This is where global warming comes in. Early in the 20th century the atmospheric CO2 passed 300 parts per million and just kept on rising. In 400,000 years the natural variation never topped 300 ppm, yet in the last few decades CO2 has gone 25% above that. And amazingly enough, this rise coincides neatly with humans dumping CO2 into the atmosphere at ever increasing rates. This is human caused global warming, and this is what increasingly cannot be explained away as “natural variation.”
Or if this is natural variation, show me what natural forces are coming into play now that didn’t exist for the last 400,000 years?
As for the last part of Jack’s comment:
What do you think? Is it possible that those people who think the Iraq war was a good proposition could actually be right on the global warming issue? Or are they a related subset of each other?
Sure, somebody could come up with a good study tomorrow that explains the sudden dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 in the last century without invoking human produced CO2. As for people who still think the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, if the past four years is their idea of success, I don’t want to know what they would regard as failure. I can only guess that some people take more evidence to be convinced than others. The questions I would have for them are:
- How many more years of increasing global warmth, increasing atmospheric CO2, and increasing human CO2 production would it take to convince you that humans are a substantial part of the problem?
- In Iraq, how many more years like the last four would it take you to admit that just maybe the invasion wasn’t the best idea after all?
If you can’t quantify either number, or think of anything that might change your mind about these issues, we’ve moved into the realm of faith, not debate.
What’s scariest to me in both cases, is that there is at least some reason to believe that either situation (global warming or the War in Iraq) could get dramatically worse within the near future. World War Three or a major ice cap sliding into the sea would make this the good old days. Have a great decade and blessed be everyone!
For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Though the root thereof wax old in the earth, and the stock thereof die in the ground; Yet through the scent of water it will bud, and bring forth boughs like a plant.
(The above images are claimed as Fair Use under US copyright law. They are not being used for profit, they are central to illustrating the post, and they are historically important images.)