On Global Warming
4 Feb 2007I have to agree with Fozz in his recent post about global warming.
I remember (vaguely) when Mt. St. Hellens blew its top (we even have a jar of ash from our front yard that we kept). That one event released more “greenhouse gases” than all industrial and automotive emissions since man started industrializing. Yet, the environment overcame it (and fairly quickly, too). I read an article about a year ago about how man didn’t clean up all the ash (and the environment is still “self-cleaning”) in one valley.
Reading Fozz’s comments, the thought returned to me that any attempt to state that the quantity of greenhouse gases that man produces are responsible would require hard numbers on the total amount of energies across the spectrum that reach the Earth (reaching the upper atmosphere, penetrate partway and reach the surface). I’ve never heard or read about any good continuous measurements being taken on an ongoing basis. Maybe you have; if so, I’d love to hear about them.
In all the reading that I’ve done, I find it highly unlikely that the puny quantity of gases we produce could account for the observed changes. We just don’t have numbers going back long enough to determine whather this is just part of a normal cycle or not. We have some evidence that goes back a few hundred years that let us make some guesses, but not enough to really extrapolate a pattern with enough certainty to begin answering such questions.
In the 50’s & 60’s, there was a significant concern around the world about global cooling. It wasn’t until the mid 70’s and early 80’s that we reached the point where those fears were gone, only to be replaced with the current global warming concern.
Here’s my theory about man’s activities and global warming: I think that direct heating, thermal-punping and surfacing account for the vast majority of man’s contribution to global temperatures. Burning fuel to produce heat for the home, energy to move a car and so forth produce a lot of heat. Covering large areas with concrete drastically alters the thermodynamics of the Earth’s surface.
Another thing to remember is that almost all the data is about surface temperatures, as it should be. The temperatures at the surface are responsible for the climate that we have to live with. That’s the part we experience. Again, if there’s been a study with correlating data about temperatures aloft.
Overall, I just don’t think we have enough data or enough understanding of how the planet works to be able to properly asses the state of the Earth nor the true impact man has upon it. Scientists want to take the numbers and produce an equation that explains it all, but we can’t. We don’t have the data and even when we finally do, I think the equations will be far more complex than anyone today would ever conceive.
It seems that “global warming” is poised to become the next warm-n-fuzzy (no pun intended) political issue. I believe that we will be hearing a lot of politicians glom onto this “issue” over the next couple of years.
Actually, volcanic eruptions *lower* the overall temperature, so the Mt St. Helens claim is quite irrelevant.
”
The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect)
”
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
There is also evidence going back hundreds of thousands of years, not just hundreds – please take the time to read some of the science. The Wikipedia article on global warming has some good links within it.
@ Michael
Great comments.
You’re right about the overall lowering of the temperature from volcanic erruptions. I left that part out (and shouldn’t have) but I was feeling like the post was already getting to be too long. However, the point I was making was that the Earth itself dumps far more (so-called) “greenhouse” gases into the atmosphere than man and it didn’t have the effect of raising temperatures.
Again, you’re right. Again, I didn’t mention these things as I was feeling that the post was already too long as is. What I was trying to say is that we don’t have the kind of numbers (direct, detailed, continuous readings) going back even one hundred years (let alone several hundred or thousands) like what we have for the past 20-40 years. Most of the claims that man’s CO2 emissions are responsible for the observed temperature and climate changes are built on about 40-50 years of observed temperate changes. Basing such claims on such brief data doesn’t hold water in my book.
Regardless, this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be better stewards of this planet.
@Jason Bunting
Absolutely, I agree with you.
I simply don’t buy the rhetoric of “greenhouse gasses” == “global warming” and neither do a growing number of highly reputable scientists.
I still think reducing toxic emissions is a very good idea, if for nothing more than our own health and the health of the surrounding ecosystems, wilderness and wildlife.
You have missed some things. Like the fact that cutting down trees doesn’t emit much greenhouse gasses, but still does have a large effect on the concentration of greenhouse gases. Or the fact that cutting down forests triggers the emission of greenhouse gases from the soil. Or the fact that polluting the seas results in reduced capacity for CO2 assimilation. I urge you to read up a bit before taking a position.
The most important thing I’m missing in your post is *quantitative* arguments. Things you remember (vaquely) do not qualify as arguments in my point of view.
I suggest you start here (based on 30 seconds googling):
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/references2.html
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
Michael C. MacCracken:
“Taken together, these results indicate the the current CO2 concentration of about 370 parts per million by volume (ppmv) is about 30% above its preindustrial level of about 280 ppmv and that the present value has not been exceeded back through at least the past few glacial cycles (and likely as far back as several million years or more).”
@iwein
I suppose I should apologize for not being sufficiently comprehensive in my posting. Unfortunately, I am not an expert in the myriad number of fields of global climatology needed in order to comprehensively consider all possible variables and data sets which could contribute to the questions of global warming and/or cooling.
My post was intended to point out information from expert scientists whose opinions and findings I find highly interresting. It was not intended to be a comprehensive treatise on the subject. As such, I haven’t just “missed some things,” but entirely omitted many contributing variables. Nevertheless, I will endeavor to comment upon your particular points:
There are significantly more trees in North America and Asia than there were 150-200 years ago. There are also significantly more people and domesticated animals converting O2 into CO2 than there were 150-200 years ago. Yes, there are regions of the world like the Amazon Jungles, the Florida Everglades and along the Mississippi and Nile rivers that have seen a massive decline in total forrested area, Yes, I feel that these areas need to be preserved and allowed to regrow.
I have not found (in only mere minutes of searching the Internet) any hard numbers showing a comparison of the world’s oceans capacity to “assimilate CO2“. It makes sense and I did find references, just no numbers to substatiate the implication that there has been a sufficient change to contribute in any significant way to the global climate. There are many other ways in which the oceans are affected that probably have a much larger total impact.
You are, of course, referring to this clip from my post:
Notice that I never tried to claim that my recollection of this particular volcanic event, which happened near my home when I was a child, was in any way an argument. I even linked to articles with extensive details about Mt. St. Hellens and that particular event, some of which isn’t related to the point the rest of that paragraph was making, but much does. Did you take the time to follow those links?
Interresting reading. Thank you. It might have been better, however, to include links from sites that are not so obviously biased one way or another for just such general references. A large part of the main point that both Fozz and I were making is that there is a lot of good, unbiased science out there which contradicts the notion that man is either a major contributor or the major contributor to global warming.
I was also trying to point out that we don’t have the numbers to support all the claims some are making that it is man’s fault, mainly because we haven’t had direct observation records (or the technology to make and keep them) that are sufficiently comprehensive and going back far enough to be used as a platform to make such claims. Yes, we can look at the geological record and take polar core samples and learn a lot. My argument is that I don’t put much stock in the conclusions being drawn by those who are using just the daily temperatures over the past 30-40 years as their only data source to claim that it must be man.
I need to do some more digging on this, but my initial examination seems to indicate that his synopsis is based on data from disparate locations; the historical numbers come from polar core samples and the modern readings are from within industrialized areas. Of course the numbers are higher near industry centers. Frankly, I marvel that such a comparison only showed a 30% difference. Again, though, I need to dig more to make sure that I know where he’s getting his numbers.
Wow. That was a very cool set of comments you gave me. Thanks for the invigorating dialogue.