New evidence suggests that the correlation between atmospheric carbon and warming may not be as clear as previously believed
Global warming is an extremely sensitive topic. Some ardently believe that man is pushing our planet towards global ruin, while others believe that proponents of anthropogenic warming theory are pushing the global economy towards financial ruin. Surprisingly, though, the evidence is not as black or white as either group would like you to believe.
A recent study looking at atmospheric carbon when combined with a recent summary of global atmospheric temperatures over the past 30 years sharply illustrates this uncertainty.
Why do I have a feeling Al Gore won’t be happy about this part:
With the international community puzzling over expensive climate change legislation, it is important to consider carefully what landmarks by which to gauge “success” amid the uncertainty of cyclic variation. Furthermore, critics and proponents aside, the wisest approach seems to be to avoid schemes that throw money into the wind, such as carbon trading or carbon sequestration.
The Copenhagen talks are going nowhere.
Global Climate Warming Change has taken on the traits of a religion rather than a science.
Al Gore is the prophet of record.
Anyone who doesn’t believe is a blasphemer.
Gee whats that saying? Correlation does not imply causation? THINK I LEARNED THAT IN COLLEGE STAT AL GORE!
And to think, CA doesn’t have to implement that “TV Power Reduction Scheme” on behalf of PG&E now.
You have it wrong man. There is a lag between the rise of carbon and the rise in temperature.
It is like rainfall. Even it is raining really hard, the water in the river may not be that high. It takes a bit of time for the water to flow to the river.
So, with the climate, it takes some time for the temperatures to react. That is the biggest danger with global warming. Even if we fix our mistakes right this moment, there is still that chance that it is too late, because the consequences of our actions have not fully played out yet.
I go to a well respected university, and there is not a single professor that has taught me that does not believe that climate change is real. There is no debate on this people. There is no debate.
It is not about global warming. It is about controlling your life. You can’t have a pick-up, big TV, or nice home. You can’t eat the foods you want. You can’t turn your thermostat to the level you want. Why? Not to control global warming, but just to say you can’t.
Al Gore will make billions on cap and tax because his company makes all the carbon credits. It is nothing but fraud pure and simple.
But if you use this to say global temperatures aren’t going up, you’re completely wrong. Sorry to say but global warming is real and continuing. Any verbal obfuscation won’t change this such as the implication that global warming isn’t occurring because it isn’t “soaring,” whatever you define that to be. It’s still going up at an alarming rate.
I’d rather not have carbon trading because without specific rules preventing big companies from buying all the carbon credits they want and keeping small companies from doing just that, that’s what will happen. Then all the big companies will continue to pollute while the small ones will be stuck with high rates. I understand the idea but it would be much more fair to simply legislate clean air policies on the large companies first with no chance to buy their way out of it. Then, start putting the rules into affect on smaller companies. This will also have the benefit of maturing the technology used to do this and increasing the amount of that technology too so that it is cheaper to implement. As always, if you want to be a big corporation, you should face harsher laws and regulations while the smaller you are, the less you should have to face.
Bengamin, you are just wrong. The government makes the credits.
@gmknobl
Why not just tax carbon? Super simple. Emissions are already monitored. So just tax at a flat rate. It just seems like the easier solutions.
Let’s put this a different way. World oil production peaked about 6 years ago. Even if everyone goes crazy ass drilling now it would take more than a decade just to reverse the decline in production. (Private companies couldn’t raise enough capital to do this, but that’s another matter). The US could cover about 20-30% of it’s oil trade deficit if all the potential reserves were drilled now and came online in a year (yes I know that’s impossible). Oil from the Alberta Tar Sands will cost you $80-$100 a barrel -if you’re really lucky.
The US trade deficit is continuing to rise mainly due to oil prices – even with the offsetting drop in consumption over the last eight months. Oil is only going to get more expensive and less available. The US is going to be forced to cut back on it’s oil addiction whether it likes it or not.
So the US can either lead the world in efficient energy technologies and thereby create a whole new industry (not unlike the computer revolution) or it can be a follower and pay through the nose for help from India, China, and the EU.
It’s your choice. Right now you’re on course to become a failed super power and a bankrupt second rate nation.
#5 Amen brother Bean!
Of course our earthly Father, Lord Gore, has spread his divine wisdom and charitable grants to all the Stately universities. Without His divine providence, we wouldn’t be able to enjoy His kingdom on earth.
I see your university has rightfully developed your skeptical thinking. Amen to that!
Least not we forget that to be fruitfully multipling, respects our earthly Father, and as we do unto the planet, the planet will do unto us. So go fourth in our shiny new pious Prius, and adjust down our carbon footprint by 5% cumulatively, because an annual world population growth of 5% per annum, compounded in the ways of our Forefathers, and adjusted for a world standard of living growth of 5% per annum, accelerates the magnitude of our repercussions.
Wow, that was close!
Let’s keep collecting any good news that everything is fine, put it in a big pile and badabing badaboom – problem gone!
I’m not a rocket scientist but the chart heading this thread shows global warming increasing AND the rate of increase increasing also. I guess the OPPOSITE of this and the headline is explained in the link?
Also relevant, the “proven” close link between burning carbon, atmospheric carbon, and water acidification is real and well established.
How big a turd do you allow in your punch bowl while continuing to drink out of it?
I propose a new index of ‘quality of life’ that is independant of money.
Take the mass of items a population consumes, divide that by the personal body mass of that population, and multiply the result by the amount of energy the population consumes in nonexport activity, divided by the number of people in the population.
Quality of life seems to be indicated by how much energy and stuff people use, not how much “money” people spend.
#4 – exactly right – “There is a lag between the rise of carbon and the rise in temperature.”
BUT exactly backwards too – Al Gore’s own 100,000 year chart from An Inconvenient Truth actually showed that the “lag” shown was that carbon increased after the temperature rose. And the scale of Al Gore’s chart was such that the “lag” was 100s of years.
There is not a cause and effect here. There is a correlation.
Note: dumping even more tons of carbon into the atmosphere is helping anyone, so how about we stick to:
1. Increasing energy efficiency.
2. Reducing energy waste.
3. Reducing dependence on a single energy source (oil).
Whether you believe in the Global Warming/Climate Change cult or not, following these steps will be good in the long run.
Doesn’t buying carbon offsets from the third world send money to the third world? And wouldn’t the third world use the money they receive from carbon offsets to buy things made with energy and matter?
Wouldn’t the pratice of paying carbon offsets ito the third world increase the total world use of energy and matter because we would be giving the third world the resources to buy a better standard of living?
Father said,
“Global Climate Warming Change has taken on the traits of a religion rather than a science. ”
(silence for a moment)
Witch!
Witch!
Burn Him!
Burn Him!
Not sure when they said that temperatures have to increase every single year in their theory.
Another study came out lately that showed that even as CO2 was increasing in the atmosphere, the total percentage being retained is the same. The same percentage of new carbon every year is being absorbed by the carbon sinks in the ground. They are not being saturated, yet.
This issue is really aggravating. Using the atmosphere as a land fill is something common sense says we need to not be doing. But these Global Warming religious fanatics need to shut the fuck up, they make dumping trash in our air look like a good idea by lying.
this was covered very nicely on Ars.
@#7 “But if you use this to say global temperatures aren’t going up, you’re completely wrong. Sorry to say but global warming is real and continuing. Any verbal obfuscation won’t change this such as the implication that global warming isn’t occurring because it isn’t “soaring,” whatever you define that to be. It’s still going up at an alarming rate.” – But due to what cause? Proper scientific papers have been published (by best Solar scientist around who has no links to any industry) establishing perfect correlation between Solar activity (simplified: how much energy Sun sends this way) and Earth temperatures. It is natural occurrence and unless you have a good idea how to regulate Sun output, we can’t do anything about it but ADAPT like our ancestors did (in historical times there were long periods both significantly warmer and colder than now, we thrived …).
@#19 “Not sure when they said that temperatures have to increase every single year in their theory.” – If CO2 is rising and they claim it is the main cause of warming, raising CO2 must correlate with rising temperature. Every single year if CO2 rises. Otherwise, there must be some OTHER heat source activity of which overwhelms effects of CO2 (hence, CO2 is no longer the main cause …). Now compare that to the above mentioned Solar activity data science. In years when it have risen, Earth temperature have risen. When it slowed down (like last few years) – Earth temps’ went down fast… Wow, behaving exactly as the main source of Earth temperature changes.
1, Father, You now can claim religious protection in the UK if you have green beliefs.
5, Jim Beam, Whether or not climate change is real, there is nothing I have come across that is conclusive that climate change is in fact man-made. Have those same professors of yours from your well respected university scientifically disqualified the Sun as the major source of global warming on our planet?
14, Bobbo,CO2 levels ‘stable since 1850’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cambridge_Bay.jpg
theres a link to Cambridge Bay in the Artic Circle, about halfway threw the Northwest Passage with supposed mean temperatures that barely get ever into the teens, see any snow on the ground anywhere?
Photographic Surveys,Drilling Surveys, Wild life and Iceburg studies all say the pack ice is receding and melting at a fairly alarming rate.Ice bergs into the shipping lanes is not an unknown hazard. Still want to maintain we don’t have a global warming problem?
The oil companies will spend all sorts of money to convince you we do not have a problem because they really want to see that 200.oo dollar a barrel come through before we give it up.We are near past the 50 percent level of remaining oil and that parabolic curve is going to get far more drastic when the world armed forces start demanding of their governments that millions of barrels have to be held in reserve because the next wars will be fought over who runs out first.Of coarse the real winners will be the countries that have converted over to green electric first. Those that have the high charge capacitors and raw hydrogen.Shut off the oil our DOD comes to a screeching halt.Germany is nearly at twenty percent.Unz you zink zes iz because zey are tree huggers?
#24–Guyver==Co2 levels stable IN THE ATMOSPHERE, but your link confirms just what I said==lakes and oceans becoming more acidic, corals wasting, jellyfish taking over, total collapse of the food chain===not studied.
Thank you.
Like Jackquack said, there is a lag. Glaciers, polar ice caps, permafrost (with trapped methane), all slow down or obscure temperature changes (I’m sure I’m missing some processes).
All of which mean, that the chart (which shows an accelerating trend line) is one very scary illustration. If you have kids, you can really wonder what sort of legacy we are leaving them.
I just shut off the space heater in my office because every ounce (okay joule) of energy we save is going to help.
I’m not sure but I think in my lifetime any fuel that is based on the fossil record will be banned and energy will be based on biofuels and a hydrogen/renewable energy economy.
At the winter Olympics in Whistler there will be twenty hydrogen fuel cell buses on the road. More will follow.
“Deniers of Global Climate Warming Change has taken on the traits of a religion rather than a science. ”
(silence for a moment)
Witch!
Witch!
Burn Him!
Burn Him!
Sorry, have to balance stupid with stupid to keep things fairs and balanced.
#24 Your ye3527k link has this: “the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has remained steady at just over 50 percent, despite the massive increase in output.” (emphasis mine). An amount in percent? The author Andrew Thomas of Tech Generation shows a profound (deep, like pit) lack of understanding, or a Major League capacity to spin. Or both.
I don’t understand how anyone sees these graphs and does not see soaring temperatures? Someone please explain the disconnect to me.
Here’s an article where a bunch of statisticians were given numbers that represented the current temperature trend without telling them what the numbers represented. All saw the trend as increasing.
Further, regarding economic collapse, it’s rather silly to say it, but the countries we’d expect to be collapsing because they are taking action on climate change are not collapsing. We are.
#16, chucky,
BUT exactly backwards too –
I think you better go back and read that over again. Jack is entirely correct.
The ditto heads like to spout the nonsense from idiot trolls like Limbaugh and Beck. Of course they will tell you bullshit, they are on record as wanting America to fail.
Very true that when 98.5% of published scientists are in agreement does not make it a fact. It does make for a convincing argument though. But you can believe them or assholes that want America to fail.
25, Certainly stuff worthy of investigation. This goes to show how modeling the Earth’s climate is not an easy task.
27, That’s fair. But hopefully “Deniers of Global Climate Warming Change” are not the same as “Deniers of Man-Made Global Climate Warming Change” which is not the same as “Skeptics of Man-Made Global Climate Warming Change” in your book.