CO2 emissions DEBUNKED as source of global warming?

[bamachem]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275267,00.html


Junk Science: Hot Air Study Melts Global Warming Theory

Thursday, May 24, 2007

By Steven Milloy


Global warming alarmists may want to expedite their efforts to hamstring the global economy with greenhouse gas regulation. A new study touted as showing that we’re not sufficiently panicky about manmade carbon dioxide emissions actually supports the exact opposite conclusion.

“Warnings about global warming may not be dire enough, according to a climate study that describes a runaway-train acceleration of industrial carbon dioxide emissions,” USA Today shrieked this week.

The study authors reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that the rate of manmade carbon dioxide emissions was three times greater during 2000 to 2004 than during the 1990s.

Since increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels allegedly are causing global warming, the new study must mean that global temperatures are soaring even faster now than they did during the 1990s, right?

Wrong, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Climatic Data Center.

By overlaying the atmospheric carbon dioxide trend onto graphs of near-surface temperatures, surface temperatures and ocean temperatures, it is readily apparent that ever-changing global temperatures aren’t keeping pace with ever-increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

The bottom line is that while we may be burning more fossil fuels than ever before — relatively inexpensive coal, oil and gas are facilitating steady global economic expansion — that activity isn’t having any sort of discernible or proportionate impact on global temperatures.

Not surprisingly, the study authors don’t seem to want you to know that fact since nowhere in their study do they even mention the word “temperature,” let alone do they present a graph comparing trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide with global temperature.

Are such increasing rates of carbon dioxide emissions grounds for future worry?

Study author Michael Raupach of the Center for Marine and Atmospheric Research in Canberra, Australia, told the Orange County Register that, “If emissions continue to increase at the rate of 3.1 percent a year, carbon dioxide concentration would rise to 560 parts per million in 2050 and soar to 1,390 parts per million in 2100.”

That sure sounds scary, but what would such increases really mean for global temperatures?

No one knows for sure. But it could easily be a non-event and there’s no scientific basis for pressing the panic-button.

First, despite all the carbon dioxide emitted by man since the industrial revolution, manmade carbon dioxide is an exceedingly small part of the total greenhouse effect — on the order of about 0.11 percent.

Remember that we’re talking about atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in parts per million. You may choose to believe that a 3 percent annual increase in manmade carbon dioxide emissions — releases that represent way less than 1 percent of total carbon dioxide emissions — is something to worry about, but the numbers seem to speak for themselves.

Next, we’re not even really sure of the true relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature. While the alarmists want us to believe that rising carbon dioxide levels necessarily increase global temperatures, scientific data from Antarctic ice cores indicate the exact opposite — increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide appear hundreds of years after increases in global temperature.

If the temperature-carbon dioxide relationship indicated by the ice cores is correct, then Raupach’s concern is entirely backwards and misplaced.

On the other hand, even if it were true that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels discernibly increased global temperatures, temperatures wouldn’t likely increase by very much.

Based on the physics of the greenhouse effect, a doubling of carbon dioxide levels from the pre-industrial period (supposedly around 280 parts per million) to 560 parts per million (about 48 percent higher than present levels), might lead to an increase in average global temperature on the order of less than 1 degree centigrade — and we’ve already experienced about 60 percent of that increase.

A further doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide to 1,120 parts per million would result in even less of an increase in temperature because of the energy absorption properties of carbon dioxide.

Essentially, the Earth only radiates so much energy back into the atmosphere that is available to be absorbed by carbon dioxide. Once all that energy is absorbed, superfluous carbon dioxide will not add to the greenhouse effect.

Study author Chris Field of the Carnegie Institution made the bizarre comment in the press release that we must “shift more of the economy toward activities like service industries and information technology” — as if the ever-expanding global population won’t require even more goods like food, energy, housing, clothing and transportation in the future.

We should, of course, strive for energy efficiency and new energy technologies to an extent that’s reasonable. But we shouldn’t condemn conventional energy sources based on dubious reasoning, risk harming the global economy for no good reason and deprive poor nations of their right to develop — all in the misguided hope of manually adjusting the global thermostat.




here's the USA today article that this writer is referencing LINKY (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2007-05-21-carbon-dioxide-emissions_N.htm?csp=34)

[MTL_4runner]

You gotta love the wikipedia on that guy. :rofl:

"Steven J. Milloy is the "Junk Science" commentator for FoxNews.com and runs the website Junkscience.com, which is dedicated to debunking what he alleges to be false claims regarding global warming, DDT, breast implants, passive smoking, ozone depletion, and mad cow disease, among other topics. Milloy also runs CSRWatch.com, which is focused on attacking the corporate social responsibility movement. He is the author of the book "Junk Science Judo: Self-defense Against Health Scares and Scams." From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, which hosted the Junk Science website. He is currently an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Milloy is also head of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, a mutual fund he runs with former tobacco executive Tom Borelli. Milloy operates the Advancement of Sound Science Center, a non-profit organization which is critical of environmental science, from his home in Potomac, Maryland.

Milloy has been criticized for making misleading and false claims, for a variety of unethical actions and statements, and for presenting himself as an impartial journalist on health and environmental matters while accepting funding and editorial input from tobacco and oil companies."

Sorry, but that guy is not a scientist or even a journalist.....he's just your average registered political lobbyist.

[AxleIke]

Huh.

Well, i guess if fox news says its so, then it must be.

Since CO2 is no longer a risk, I'm going out back and lighting off some barrels of crude oil, since fox news told me that isn't running out either.

I will now also leave all of my lights on 24-7, and quit recycling.

HOORAY!

[BruceTS]

All this BS about global warming........ news flash we are still comming out of an ice age!

[gilby4runner]

All this BS about global warming........ news flash we are still comming out of an ice age!


Finally someone see it the way i do!!!

[AxleIke]

All this BS about global warming........ news flash we are still comming out of an ice age!


Exactly. That is why i choose to differntiate between the media BS and the scientific observations.

Global Warming- Bull shit media creation fueled by idiot college students and wannbe hippies.

global warming- scientific observation that the globe has gotten warmer by a degree to a few degrees. There are theories as to what is causing it, but no one can say for certain. In truth, we are likely in a climatic cycle of warming. Pollution probably isn't helping it, but it isn't going to kill us all tommorow.

[oly884]

Axleike, my views exactly.

We really don't know why the globe is warming. Could it be humans? Sure, and in fact, I'm sure we contribute to it. How much is the question. Many people feel we are the only/largest cause of this warming. I do not agree.

Humans have a life span of 70-80 years in the USA, in that time people WILL notice a change in the weather and since it's not the same as when they were 10 as it is when they are 50 they get uncomfortable. But let's look back, oh, 10,000 years and see how much the weather changed over that time frame.

People have a VERY narrow view on the world and when they try to apply their narrow view to a MUCH larger system, you get a lot of questions and fear. When this is combined with politicized science, you get people funded by environmental companies knowing that if they don't come back with some "proof" of global warming, funding is cut. Same goes for the oil industry as well, not saying they are excluded. Money is what makes the world turn. I'm sure that these said scientists really do believe in this stuff, but when your life revolves around these things, who wouldn't?

Read Michael Crichton's book "State of Fear" the book is amazing.

[ecchamberlin]

I guess it is like most debatable things. People are going to argue from extreme angles on both sides to sway as many people to their cause as possible.

My opinion on it is that yes we are having an impact on the global temps. All you have to do is look at the sky over LA at 4pm on a week day to see that our human behaviors are effecting our environment. That ain't no marine layer there. How much effect? Well how bad an effect would they have to show for us to change?

On the other Hand

I also don't think it is the other extreme either like hollywood attempted to sway us into thinking that a 3 degree ocean temp increase would change the entire ocean current system and send a 40ft wave into NY city over only 5 days time.

I think it is about doing what you think is right about our families energy use. If you are wasting energy needlessly and are not making plans to change your energy behaviors, that is short sighted and very much like sticking your head in the sand.

I just became a Tread Lightly Member and they have an awesome quote of an American Indian Proverb:

'We did not inherit the earth from our ancestors. We are barrowing it from our children.'

[Texas Jim]

Watching this is some what like watching the Muslims go after Christains, Who's God is right??? Are we truly the infidels? Do we not put our pants on one leg at a time?? Do we not want our children to live a better life than we did? Do we not need food? Air to breathe? Water to drink? SEX?

I do know that this solar system has been here a lot longer than man, It will also be here a long time after man is gone!! Do I feel paniced by that, No, not at all. I will live out my life and this planet will evolve into what ever it is going to with or with out man!

It's like George Carlin says "Maybe all we were put here for was, so the Earth could have Styrofoam!!!" :thumbup: TJ

[BruceTS]

Here's a question for the non believers........ Did mans interference cause the Lake in Death Valley to dry out?

[SD4runner]

Here's a question to the non believers.... Would you stick your mouth around a tailpipe and take a deep breath?!!

The lake dried up during prehistoric time. That has absolutely nothing to do with today. Its been dry through recent glaciations over the last 1,000,000 years...so you can't use that as an argument.

Whatever the cause of global warming, weather or not it even exists, is that humans are smart enough to make cleaner, more efficient energy. Combustion engines are ridiculous. Running at less than 30% efficiency. They are not healthy for us, animals, or the air. There are several, upon several research papers on this topic. Its been proven that the emissions from cars and power plants are detrimental to our environment. How do you explain acid rain, smog, etc. The conservation laws of energy are valid. We burn stuff, it turns into air pollution...it is mined from the depths of our oceans and artificially injected into our atmosphere. Sounds a little backwards to me.

[oly884]

Here's a question to the non believers.... Would you stick your mouth around a tailpipe and take a deep breath?!!


Would you put your head over a burning log and breath in? How about a volcano?

My point is that I would do none of those. Your question seems to be one sided. Yes, it would probably make a person sick/dead if they did that to a car, but vehicles are not alone. Forest fires are started by lightening all the time, volcanoes erupt all the time, and each of these release "pollutants" into the environment all the time. Yes, their magnitudes are different. However, I would suggest to use a different argument.

[BruceTS]

The lake dried up during prehistoric time.


exactly my point...... The world has been warming up ever since, so to say man has caused a natural occurance is total BS and will continue to warm, reguardless what we do. This planet will be around long after mankind has gone extinct, now that's a fact.

[SD4runner]

I'm over trying to debate over this global warming crap. I definetly am not going to change anyone's minds.

I'm more concerned about the pollution aspect. Don't you all think we should be working on establishing cleaner energy in the US?? It exists in so many ways, we just need to break free of the oil companies... and I'm not joking when I say this... The oil companies practically rule the world, so I think its up to the general public to push forward the idea of cleaner energy.

Oh and just to mention. The last few days the beaches were closed from a "small" amount of diesel fuel that had leaked from a boat. I went surfing today, and I could still smell the diesel!! Nasty crap. We don't need this stuff polluting our waters which we live from!

Forget the term of global warming...!

[ecchamberlin]

I am with you on this SD4Runner.

How bad does it have to get before we say "man we should change our ways"? At that point we could have, would have and should have done something. My point is that time is now and we should change our ways if we have the technology now.

We used to also think that the ocean was an endless resource that we could harvest and dump into senselessly. We had the mindset that it is just too big for man to have any effect on. Wrong with that senario and wrong with Global Warming. It has taken 40 years to get San Diego Bay back into a condition that is now nearing acceptable. Imagine if they started this process 40 years earlier.

I would even concede that our effort to reduce emissions may not have a significant effect on the warming trend. But....

How much potential do you have to change something if you don't even try. None.

Lower emission is just the right thing to do.

[SD4runner]

I just cannot understand how anyone can look at the massive human population, and say that we are not effecting the earth in any way? From habitat destruction, clear cutting, mining, over fishing, and industry, we ARE changing the natural state of the globe.

We are always going to be effecting it, no matter what... but, it seems that we can make it a little better for health if we would clean it up a bit. We breath the air, drink the water, and eat the fruits. Everything stems from the earth, and if its a toxic wasteland, we wont be living too much longer. I am much more concerned about our polluting that will be destroying our welfare from the ground up.

I'm sure many people who read my comments think I am a crazy hippie guy with long hair, a bandana, purplish circle glasses, and an ashtray of joints... (only 3 of the 4 are true.. :gay: )

[BruceTS]

I just cannot understand how anyone can look at the massive human population, and say that we are not effecting the earth in any way?


now the statement above will effect only what happens the the human population on this planet. We are a parasite, eating up the surface and will eventually use up the natural resources. Once this occurs, mankind will die out, the planet will heal itself and who knows after that. We are a mear speck on the planets timeline and the rate were going, a short one at that.

global warming will occur no matter what......

[oly884]

I'm over trying to debate over this global warming crap. I definetly am not going to change anyone's minds.

I'm more concerned about the pollution aspect. Don't you all think we should be working on establishing cleaner energy in the US?? It exists in so many ways, we just need to break free of the oil companies... and I'm not joking when I say this... The oil companies practically rule the world, so I think its up to the general public to push forward the idea of cleaner energy.

Oh and just to mention. The last few days the beaches were closed from a "small" amount of diesel fuel that had leaked from a boat. I went surfing today, and I could still smell the diesel!! Nasty crap. We don't need this stuff polluting our waters which we live from!

Forget the term of global warming...!


I hope you don't think that every one thinks that we just love the oil companies.

I personally would love to not use any petroleum products, however reality says otherwise. There is a lot of miscommunication about usable fuel sources. Ethanol will never work, biodiesel has potential but mass production would be the more difficult part, hydrogen isn't going to happen till fusion reactors are up and running.

Let's not forget that solar, wind, and hydro each have their problems such as energy used to make the materials and the detrimental effect to animal life and the environment.

I'm not trying to make the excuse that we should say screw the environment. I love the environment quite a bit, it keeps me alive and i like spending time in it. What I am saying is that it's going to take a lot of research, and time, to find a better energy source.

[SD4runner]

I completely agree with both of your last comments.

One, yes, the earth will, no matter what, will keep evolving after we are gone. From a humanistic standpoint, we should be concerned about our own health in present day.

Yes, we do have some issues with alternative energies. However, we have quite a bit of issues with the current! Any step in the right direction is a progression that we are in need of. The Tesla roadster runs off of laptop batteries, which is in turn pretty toxic stuff to produce. However, its running 90%+ efficiency!!! Hardly any energy is lost to heat/friction!! Once we learn to recycle all the batteries, or learn to make them safer, right there, is a possible cure to our addiction to oil....

Well I am in the midst of my environmental engineering major, so you can just imagine how fired up I am about all this stuff. I hear a lot about the good aspects, and it makes me horny. :drool:

[AxleIke]

SD,

I am happy to see that you are fired up about it. However, keep in mind that a lot of what you hear today is often not accurate.

The amount of garbage i see in the news, and even in the classrooms by scietists who should know better, is prolific.

I will say this. The globe is warming. It is a fact. And regardless of what that warming means for the future, we need to work on reducing our pollution now.

You are in San Diego, so i know you've seen this, but for people who think we can keep polluting, i invite you to take a look at the air over Los Angeles sometime, and think about what breathing that crap has to be like for people's health.

I think that the "debate" over global warming is preposterous. there is no debate, it is happening. But not on the scale that the Media talks about it. Really, the Media has picked this up because someone said that it could be disasterous, and disaster sells papers/gets viewers/makes them money.

[SD4runner]

Well, I still think its funny that people are constantly denouncing those "silly scientists...what do they know anyways" after science has brought us 100% of the things we use on a daily basis. Why all of a sudden are these scientists wrong? Of course, we are always trying to disprove science, to come up with a better theory...um, but, no one has actually proved that global warming caused by humans DOES NOT exist!

Also, in all my environmental targeted classes... We almost HARDLY go over anything about global warming... We are mainly talking about the direct negative influences. Global warming is mainly media hype...its something for the simple american to understand, and to get them to change their old ways and try to be more conscientious about the matter.

I avoid LA at all costs, but, yeah, its pretty bad. I go to the beach everyday and pick up trash. I'm down there everyday since I am surfing, but, like I said earlier, we just had a bad diesel spill, and today I must have seen 5-10 pieces of trash floating in the water with me. Its frigging nasty... and pisses me off that people are so ignorant.

[MTL_4runner]

I avoid LA at all costs, but, yeah, its pretty bad. I go to the beach everyday and pick up trash. I'm down there everyday since I am surfing, but, like I said earlier, we just had a bad diesel spill, and today I must have seen 5-10 pieces of trash floating in the water with me. Its frigging nasty... and pisses me off that people are so ignorant.


Nothing like a good diesel spill to work as a shark repellent while surfing. :spit:

Seriously though, alot of the cities built in a valley are having smog problems, just look at Phoenix (they predict it will be as bad or worse than LA eventually). Whether global warming is caused by emissions or some other factor is really irrelevant because common sense would tell you that with the number of people on the earth today, it is everyone's responsibility to reduce their "footprint" on this planet. The irony is that most people, despite disagreeing about the cause of global warming, will agree with that statement.

[BruceTS]

SD4runner, you weren't around in the early 70's when smog was so bad your eyes would burn, and all the scientist were remarking by the year 2K everybody would have to wear some sort of resparator. Over the years I've seen them swing from one thing or another. The air in the SFV has improved steadily over the years and the days of brown hued skies and burning eyes, are a thing of the past. Then the claim CO was causing the ozone layer to weaken, now they are trying to claim CO2 is causing ozone depleation.... all THEORIES.

As long as there is an increase in population, there will be a decrease in natural resources and the only way to prevent this is to reduce the worlds population to a level that the earth can sustain, this is not going to happen, so all our efforts are just simply gonna slow down the inevitable. By earths timeline, it wouldn't even be noticable. It's easy to see, simply make a graph on the human population growth over the past 1000 years, then project it for the next 1000.....

This thread is about Global Warming, not about how to fix the planet...............

[SD4runner]

Well, I've never heard of CO2 causing ozone depletion before... :headscratch: You sure you're not mixing that up with CFC's? A lot of people thing global warming and ozone depletion is the same thing.

The thread is on global warming, yes, but, it was the argument that humans do not play a role in it. I was using other examples on how we do. The possibility is there.

Nope, I wasn't there in the 70's. My dad has told me this before, about the smog being more prevalent...also how there was much more tar on the beaches. Well, if we can clean up things like that within a lifetime, I want to see what we can do in another lifetime. Cleaning our ways, so if indeed 100% instead of 90% of climatologists agreed that global warming was being (at least in part) caused by humans, we could have already started the healing process for our grandchildren.

[Stevo3]

I just farted, think its causing a depleation of the ozone? :flipoff:

[BruceTS]

oops my mistake CO2 is being blamed for Global Warming.... gettin it mixed up with lower ozone causing the same effect.