Fun with Global Warming
Jim Shannon has been making some interesting arguments in the comments to a post that I did a little earlier. I thought that I would bring it up to the top with another post so Jim, J, and I could continue the debate. The chart below is a longer scale chart that shows a natural 100,000-125,000 year cycle of ice ages and warm periods. This chart is the one that critics point to when they try to debunk global warming. Critics of global warming claim that the current warming trend is part of this cycle.
My contention is that the cycle in this chart is 100,000 years. We are talking about a local and radical change with a span of under 100 years that doesn't even show up on the scale of this chart. In other words the critics are trying to say there are no apples by pointing to the oranges. OSC's criticism of the slanted statistics of Global Warming, that Shannon linked to, are not a critique of the science so much as a critique of the scientists. It reeks of Ad Hominem arguments. Card argues the politics of Global Warming and knows nothing about the science. (how's that for ad hominem!)
I think it is common sense to think that the huge amount of greenhouse gases that industries pour into the atmosphere combined with the drastic losses of the rain forests and die-backs of ocean plankton has an impact on the earth. The degree of impact is the question that is under argument and the overwhelming majority of climatologists feel that global warming is real and dangerous. The vocal minority of dissidents are usually arguing politics rather than science.
Temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 400 000 years
Notes: This post references Jim Shannon's Blog, J Alan Erwine's Blog, Neal Asher's Blog and an entry on Orson Scott Card's blog. Let's here it guys!
My contention is that the cycle in this chart is 100,000 years. We are talking about a local and radical change with a span of under 100 years that doesn't even show up on the scale of this chart. In other words the critics are trying to say there are no apples by pointing to the oranges. OSC's criticism of the slanted statistics of Global Warming, that Shannon linked to, are not a critique of the science so much as a critique of the scientists. It reeks of Ad Hominem arguments. Card argues the politics of Global Warming and knows nothing about the science. (how's that for ad hominem!)
I think it is common sense to think that the huge amount of greenhouse gases that industries pour into the atmosphere combined with the drastic losses of the rain forests and die-backs of ocean plankton has an impact on the earth. The degree of impact is the question that is under argument and the overwhelming majority of climatologists feel that global warming is real and dangerous. The vocal minority of dissidents are usually arguing politics rather than science.
Temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 400 000 years
Notes: This post references Jim Shannon's Blog, J Alan Erwine's Blog, Neal Asher's Blog and an entry on Orson Scott Card's blog. Let's here it guys!
4 Comments:
Graphs are always interesting, because with most of them, you can set the scale up to argue on either side of an issue.
I think the most important thing to think of is does it really matter whether or not it's humaity's fault? If there's any chance that it is, shouldn't we be trying to change things instead of arguing who or what is to blame?
Also, if we get away from using oil, that would stabilize the world in other ways as well. Let's face it, the money we're spending on oil is helping to fund terrorism in one way or another...maybe not directly, but some of that money gets to them. Also, we're beginning to see that renewable energy is a real possibility. Wouldn't it be nice to clean up the air, whether or not global warming is real or not?
You bring up a good point, though. We can see raw data about the recent sharp increase in CO2 and temperature, but can we attribute it to man's effects on the environment? All the charts show the trend continuing, but in the future we can't be sure, maybe it's just a blip.
I assume that the CO2 occurs because of emissions and loss of biomass to recycle the CO2 back to O2. That's just an assumption.
It will take a few hundred years to be sure. If we do nothing and the trend just keeps on going up, our grandchildren will be living under water, except for Denver, of course.
If we take charge and implement drastic cuts in emissions and it turns out the blip in warming was only temporary, then better safe than sorry. The oil companies will make marginally less profit for a few years, but we'll live in a cleaner world with fewer cancers and children with asthma.
Thanks
I think the American economy would have easily survived Kyoto had we not gotten involved in the quagmire of Vietnam...sorry, Iraq. We have major companies in America, including oil companies, that are asking Bush to put into place some of what Kyoto would have required. The only reason they don't do it themselves is because their rivals wouldn't have to, which would put their companies into financial difficulties.
In my completely uneducated opinion, the reason Canada is having problems is because they're trying to follow the moronic policies of their neighbors to the south...
Post a Comment
<< Home