The Global Warming Myth

Hi,I was referred to a website recently of a NZ chap who disputes that humans have contributed to global warming (and also seems to dispute global warming at times). Predict Weather - the home of long range weather I read what he had to say and don't agree with pretty much any of the content and spent some time researching his "facts" and wrote up my own critique. But, because my line of work is in conservation and my ecology studies are part time (and still in the basic realm) I wonder if my search for evidence is myopic.What I would like to hear are your views on his assertions. Global warming is still a contentious issue, and as stated above, I'm open to the fact I could be missing something obvious.I would quote him on his assertions here but for the copyright on his website.So here is a break down of some of his ideas and my thoughts. For the sake of brevity in this post, I will keep my thoughts minimal but am happy to expand on them:1. The planet is cooling.I disagree, evidence shows that the average global temperatures are rising, such as that presented in this site: Information Sheet 1 redirection2. There would be no adverse effects if the CO2 content of the atmosphere was doubled.Not so sure about this one. I became lost in the gigatonne ratios and formulas, etc...3. CO2 does not rise because of its molecular weight. It sinks, so therefore cannot enter the atmosphere. The CO2 that is up there is blasted heavenward by volcanoes, not from our burning of fossil fuels.What the ...? I would have thought that CO2 gases given off from combustion would rise. Isn't that why smoke detectors are installed up high?4. 71% of CO2 is dissolved in the oceans, so not much is kept in the atmosphere.Wouldn't a large portion of that be evaporated back into the atmosphere? Also, doesn't "dissolved" CO2 form carbonic acid, lowering the pH levels in the oceans and pose problems to marine life?5. Scientists do not understand exactly how CO2 "gets" from the oceans to the trees.The Water Cycle?6. If CO2 really did contribute to global warming then Mars would be a lot hotter than it is.I thought it did have a warming effect, even given its weak atmosphere.
Mars Facts | Temperature, Surface, Information, History & Definition7. We should really cut down all the forests and plant saplings as they absorb more carbon than mature trees.I am especially interested in this one - in regards to the absorption rates of young vs mature trees as this seems to be a contentious issue. As for the felling of all forests - that strikes me as rather *loony*8. Because we only inhabit 1.4% of the Earth's surface it is human vanity to imagine that we could contribute this much to global warming.I'm not sure if he's factoring in the amount of space we impact on. Perhaps it's human ignorance to assume we couldn't contribute this much?9. (My favourite) Why invent global warming? Scientists want all the lucrative research funds.Come on guys, you're exposed now, 'fess up.This is just a sample of his assertions. Out of all of his "facts", only one has a source attached and he waves the rest off as "school science".Any thoughts welcome.Kakarikibtw: He also promotes his weather prediction books (based on lunar cycles). Don't write that off too quickly, he does have supporting evidence based on a spinning pot lid and "lunar cultures"

lol. this guy must have his head stuck up his ass or something.point one of his is definetly wrong, but there is an interesting twist to this--we may actually be setting of a new ice age phase. This has to do with the effect of the artic fresh water being released into the ocean and screwing up the current currents. I'm not sure how much research has been done on this hypothesis, but last I heard, it was somewhat a reasonable one.point two--he might like to take a look at era's where there was more CO₂ in the atmosphere (try around the time of the dinos). If that doesn't do it, may as well let him be on venus--hey, after all, none of the CO₂ there is having an adverse affect, right?point three. I don't know about the smoke detectors, but he should take that statement back. The molecular weight of a gas doesn't matter--it's how hot that gas is. For that matter, CO₂ weighs 44 grams per mole. the heaviest gas in the atmosphere is ozone--O₃, which wieghs 48 grams per mole. Wanna get him to answer how the hell we have an ozone layer is carbon dioxide can't rise?point 4. irrelevant. the CO₂ in the ocean isn't contribuiting to global warming, so long as it is in the ocean. And you're right, it does form carbonic acid, which is a problem for fishies. still irrelevant to global warming, though.point 5. he should be shot for that. we understand the carbon cycle, which inludes the movement of CO₂.point 6. I can't comment. What I do know, is that at it's hottest, mars is 70 degrees farenhiet. at it's coldest, well, go live in antarctica for a taste. So there is some global warming going on there, but most of the heat is from the sun. I'll check out the sight later.point 7. another reason he should be shot (or we can be creative--ciment shoiz). without plant life, we'd be hard pressed to find oxygen, which we need.point 8. the land consumption of each person is something like 1.4 hectacres--how much land we each need to just survive. The US uses much more land than this, and there isn't enough good land for the whole world to use land like that. Maybe he's talking about the amount of space we each use while standing--one square foot. And he must remember, 70% of the earth's surface already goes to the ocean.point 9. another conspiracy theorist, he is. run him over?

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Totally unacceptable comment. Take a short break.

---

Thanks for your thoughts Kuresu, sorry that his "facts" raised your ire! I saw red when browsing his website too. Yes I have heard this theory too, that an Ice Age is preceded by warmer weather - something to do with our orbit around the sun?? Nothing to do with the moon that I have heard anyway. Thanks for that, have you checked out the "Ozone Depletion Myth" on the website, lol! Scientists are a crafy bunch - it's another conspiracy! Yes, I think he has used the figures to suit his message (go buy another SUV, everything's AOK).He actually featured on NZ's National Radio Program. I don't mind the fact that he has his own thoughts on the issue, but to be disseminating information like this, seemingly not backed up is reckless. I'm sure he knows that he is appealing to the people who are resistant to lifestyle changes, and the rest.Kakariki

With reference to the ecological footprint (i.e., ecological impact) of humans, your friend is way off. Here's a simplified calculation I did awhile back. The ecological footprint of the average American - using us as the standard for “developed world” - as keresu noted is approx. 1.5 ha (3.5 acres) per person at a minimum. For this simplified calculation, ecological footprint only considers food and forest product consumption, and the inevitable degradation due to waste, living accommodations, etc. I’ve read estimates up to 10 ha (24.5 acres), but let’s go with the low number. If we were to raise the developing world to US consumption standards (assuming a current population of 6 billion, zero population growth, etc), that would mean we would require 9 billion ha (22.05 billion acres) of combined prime agricultural land, pasture, and forest. The Earth currently has approx. 8.9 billion ha (21.9 billion acres) of ecologically productive land - much of it marginal. IOW, even if we exploited every single available hectare of land, the Earth simply can’t support a planet-wide developed world with the ecological footprint of an average American (figures derived from Palmer AR 1999, Ecological Footprint and Carrying Capacity). Note that this calculation doesn’t even address the environmental costs except in the abstract. I don't know where he got the 1.4% figure, but that's way off. The US alone accounts for the gross output of almost 5% of the earth's primary productivity. Add in the industrialized nations of Western Europe, and we are looking at approximately 19% already - without factoring in the other 5 billion inhabitants.Translating that into CO₂ emission is problematic. Actually, CO₂ emission is only part of possible anthropogenic input into atmospheric change - we need to factor in the much more damaging methane emissions (from factories, coal burning, cow flatulence - not joking, all those hamburgers McDonalds sells have an ecological cost), as well as the net change in the Earth's albedo from deforestation (which would have the opposite effect of global warming).

Mars actually is hotter than it's supposed to be, for that exact reason. Venus, too.

That would go with being loony. Fuitcake loony. Yes, virginia, you can "copyright" anything, even profound self documented ignorance. Unfortunately that won't keep other people from making the same mistakes. CO₂ is a gas at normal earth surface temperatures and pressures, it disperses in the atmosphere depending on it's partial pressure, which is - in part - a function of it's molecular weight (also temperature). Hot gases never rise from car exhaust eh? Gases never mix eh? ... how silly people are who do not understand science. And anyone who says "scientists do not understand" actually do not understand the science ... as demonstrated by his sinking CO₂ comment.Not worth the bandwidth, imh(ysa)o.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Once again, kuresu is correct. One of the potential problems with global warming is the possibility that an influx of cold, fresh water from melting polar caps could disrupt the "Atlantic conveyor". In a nutshell, normally cold, dense water from the North Polar icecap flows southwest along the Atlantic coast of North America. It slowly warms as it approaches the tropics. There is an inversion that occurs near the equator as the now warmer water rises and due to the coriolis effect of the Earth's rotation, begins to flow eastward (here it is known as the Gulf Stream). This warm tropical water strikes the European landmass, and flows north along the surface. The current is one of the key climate modifiers for Western Europe, including the UK. Fresh water is less dense than salt, so the concern is that a massive influx of cold, fresh water may disrupt this current at its northern inversion zone, either pushing it southward or even disrupting it completely (something that has apparently happened in the past). If that happens, some extreme predictions indicate that the average temperature in northwestern Europe (including the UK, France, etc), may drop as much as 10C. These are approximately the same temperatures that were prevalent at the Last Glacial Maxima 18-20,000 years ago. North American temperatures will drop a bit less (they already get cold winters). In short, Scotland and Ireland may become uninhabitable, and the UK and northern France would have a climate similar to Labrador or even Greenland.Not a pretty thing to contemplate - especially since it could happen relatively rapidly (decades, not centuries). The concensus seems to be that there is a threshold beyond which things will snowball (sorry, couldn't resist). Some of the more alarmist modelers are saying that it may already be happening (a "slow down" in the conveyor by ~30% between 1957 and 2004 was recently reported in Nature - Bryden, H.L., et al., 2005, "Slowing of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation at 25N", Nature, 438:655-657).

Hi Quetzal,Thanks for your replies. I thought you would come up with some interesting facts I looked around for quite some time on that figure and couldn't verify it at all. Perhaps he did some 'lunar calculations'? Yucky stuff. I can't stand those fastfood places, they are awful places, ecologically, ethically and aesthetically.But the methane issue is still a contentious one, at least among farmers here (wonder why). I attended a public lecture last week on climate change, and a very feisty farmer stood up and said that methane did not contribute to the greenhouse effect. The other farmers there voiced their agreement.Not long ago the government proposed a methane tax for farmers, as a means to help meet the ever increasing Kyoto deficit we're facing. This proposal was met with so much dissent by the farmers it had to be dropped. An MP from the opposition party actually drove a tractor up the steps of parliament (must have been election year). It all comes down to balance, doesn't it. I quite like James Lovelock's Gaia theory to explain cause and effect in the environment.Kakariki

Hi crash, Well yeah, the first search I ran came up with a very simple rundown of Mars' atmosphere and explained the greenhouse effect CO2 has there. He didn't even check this most basic fact.I find it so strange that this guy will happily face the media with this crazy stuff.Kakariki

Hi RAZD! Oh really! Maybe I should copyright a long rambling speel on my website debunking his lunar/weather theory because the moon really is made of cheese (scientists are yet to catch up on this) and therefore actually has a huge influence on milk quality in freisan cows and all goats. Hehe! And he waves it off as school science. I wonder what school he went to?Kakariki

Does anyone know what the difference (if any) is between the CO2 absorption rates between growing saplings and mature trees?There seems to be a trend in thinking that the younger trees take in more carbon, so therefore they should be harvested when the growth slows and then more trees planted.My thoughts are that mature trees will have more photosynthesising foliage and therefore she should continue to function as an effective CO2 'sink'. Also, established forests play so many important roles in the environment. Although any decomposing trees will release greenhouse-causing gases, the overall benefit of a forest (IMO) should outweight this.Whatsmore the continued felling and planting of CO2 'sinks' would surely create problems of its own, soil 'sterility', adverse impacts of fertilisers, and the energy involved in processing the harvested timber, etc.Kakariki

The question is not how much carbon per tree but how much carbon per acre is taken up by the ecosystem as a whole.Consider that a sapling in a field has optimum growing conditions for the sapling, every leaf gets sunlight, it isn't even big enough to shade itself from sunlight. Growth rings show wider rings for younger years, but this is also in part because of reduced diameter concentrating the same amount of growth.The amount of atmosphere a tree can convert to carbon (used) and oxygen (released) depends on the numbers of leaves that get sunlight.In a mature forest every part of an acre is covered with trees and every beam of sunlight hits a leaf and is converted. The forest floor is dark and cool.In a clear cut forest and replanted acre there are a few saplings surrounded by bare ground, ground that quickly supports weed growth due to the available sunlight going to waste between the saplings. Some still gets through and hits the dirt. The non-forest floor is light and hot.Yeah, that'll help!Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Well, the best evidence I've seen indicates that CH₄ constitutes almost 25% of the current greenhouse effects (about 70% of current methane emissions are anthropogenic). There are two pieces of good news on this front, however. 1) Methane emissions in the developed world (North America and Western Europe) have actually declined over the last 10-15 years. In addition, there was a whopping decrease in atmospheric methane emission following the collapse of the Soviet Union. 2) Methane is relatively volitile, and breaks down after about a decade. Now for the bad news: there is roughly 3000 times the current level of methane locked up in methane hydrates - part or all of which could be released if global warming causes a melting of permafrost and/or rises in sea levels. Talk about a runaway heat wave!In any case, I'm not overly surprised your farmers in NZ were upset about the idea of taxes. In their favor, sheep farts are not considered to be a significant contributor - cattle and rice farming are the greatest culprits, followed by non-anthropogenic emissions from wetlands, and then most of the other anthropogenic sources (mining, natural gas extraction, burning biomass, waste treatment, etc).

Thanks again for your input RAZD. I see what you are getting at. I wonder however if it's a case of '6 of one, half dozen of the other'. The weeds and grass around the saplings have a shorter life cycle and would not hold the carbon for long before they die and decompose, releasing the gases straight back out. A mature forest, although perhaps not absorbing as much when established would trap the carbon for longer. Being that a mature forest also provides a plethora of benefits to the environment, would it not be all round a more logical method?Kakariki