Why global warming is not caused by man, but by the sun

[Draconishinobi]

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFoss ... _ages.html

Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.

These three graphs say it all:



Note that solar wind correlates almost perfectly with temperature and CO2.

Based on the analysis of entrapped air from ice cores extracted from permanent glaciers from various regions around the globe, it has been demonstrated that global warming began 18,000 years ago, accompanied by a steady rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. What caused this phenomena is a matter of ongoing debate. Clearly, though, global warming and rising CO2 levels in Earth's atmosphere started long before the industrial revolution.

NOTE: "Human additions" represent such a small percentage of the total Greenhouse Effect (0.28%) that they are barely visible in this "pie chart" at the scale represented.

Atmospheric concentrations of the various greenhouse gases have been adjusted for heat retention potential of each. For example, the global warming potential (GWP) of various man-made chloroflourocarbons (CFC's) range between 1,300 and 9,300 times greater potency as greenhouse gases than CO2. Methane has a GWP of about 21 and nitrous oxide a GWP of about 310.

Comparing greenhouse gases by strict concentration only, the total human component is somewhere between 0.1% and 0.2%, depending on whose numbers you use. Adjusted for GWP, the total human contribution to Earth's overall greenhouse effect is about 0.28%.

I think it's clear isn't it. Now, pollution is a problem, but for a different reason ... our health, rather than that of an entire planet.

[xeen]

I did a huge research paper on this back in May and learned the following:
- nobody knows for certain whether global warming is man made, natural, or both
- there is substantial evidence to believe that it is natural
- if it is in fact natural, then it's also quite likely that human activity adds a little bit to it, but not much

[Laukev7]

I read about that theory on alternative sites, too. It looks like it's not just the oil business elite that doubts that global warming is being caused by man.

[Draconishinobi]

I'm mainly arguing against this as an argument against pollution. The real argument against pollution is because it's bad for the health of animals, humans, plants, etc. Not so much for the planet. It's foolish to think that human activity could have such a huge impact on an entire planet, especially when all data suggests that global warming is a normal part of the cycle:



and that it began 18,000 years ago, and that human input to this is negligible in all circumstances.

[orethrius]

The problem isn't that the world won't survive another Ice Age.  

[American Bastard]

Ice ages are an inneviatble reality. One which like many other problems, should be planned for. Hopefully, by the time the next one happens, national borders won't be an issue.

There is one thing that is certain, regardless of your views on Global Warming...No matter what humans do to the planet, the planet will heal itself eventually. The problem is part of that healing could exterminate the human race...and then Cock Roaches can have their turn.

[Draconishinobi]

Roaches have had their turn for a billion years ... and soon a billion more Why ? Cuz they're tough motherfuckers. Once, scientists were experimenting with them, then to kill them they sprayed them with lots of insecticide and poisons, irradiated them with massive amounts of radiation, and sealed them in a bag and a box and threw them away. Well, they escaped and went on breeding happily without problems ... and became a problem for the neighborhood around the lab ... I believe they were giant African roaches.

Really, roaches are indestructible.

[mobrien_12]

It's foolish to think that human activity could have such a huge impact on an entire planet....

What you mean like putting a giant ass hole in the ozone layer?

[Draconishinobi]

yeah, actually. How do you know there wasn't one there 18,000 years ago ?

[mobrien_12]

yeah, actually. How do you know there wasn't one there 18,000 years ago ?

Actually, I did a rather in depth class project many years ago on the ozone layer and it used to be much much thicker at the poles, which was to be expected due to centripetal forces.  

The reason it's thin now is the CFC's which conglomerated at the poles for the same reason the ozone did.  UV cracks apart the normally very-stable CFCs releasing free fluorine ions at the same place where the ozone is.

  Unfortunately the flourine ions have a catalytic reaction which destroys ozone, meaning they destroy ozone, and in the process, are regenerated so they can destroy more ozone, ad infinitum.  The man who first realized this could happen totally freaked out and called one of his colleages in the middle of the night because he thought he discovered the end of the world.


So yeah, I do know there wasn't one 18000 years ago.

[Draconishinobi]

Did you know that ~0.5 % of CFCs are produced by humans ? The rest (99.5 %) are by sea kelp, forest fires, volcanoes, etc.

[mobrien_12]

I believe you are confusing Fluorocarbons with the more generic class of Halocarbons.  Halocarbon compounds can include Bromine and Chlorine and can be naturally produced.

Bromine and Chlorine have similar effects on ozone.  

That is not the issue.

The problem is that CFC's which are synthetic are too stable.  They simply don't break apart in the atmosphere until they get bombarded with very intense ultraviolet rays.  If they were less stable, they would break up somewhere on the way, and the highly reactive fluorine ions would combine with something else.

[Draconishinobi]

Check out table 1 and 2 here (all the tables compare the data in a different way trying to account for all ways points of view ... either way you look at it, human contribution to global warming is negligible):
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFoss ... _data.html

[mobrien_12]

My brain is too fuzzy to digest that now, so I can't comment on the global warming article at this time.

However your statement

It's foolish to think that human activity could have such a huge impact on an entire planet....

Is clearly false.  Human activity has had a huge impact on the entire planet in terms of the ozone layer via synthetic CFCs.  As such, whether or not the global warming claim you put forth is correct or not, such a generalization is terribly hasty.

[worker201]

For more proof of human impact on the planet, take a look at satellite photos of Brazil, compare the limits of the current Sahara desert with those of 10 years ago, go to the beach in New Jersey, swim in Lake Erie, go cave-diving in West Virginia, try to walk down a public street in India, try to find a vacant lot in Japan, etc, etc.  It adds up.

Global warming would be more of a "hmm, that's weird" issue if it didn't match quite nicely with deforestation rates, species loss rates, urban expansion rates, population expansion rates, and pollutive output rates.  One correlation is a coincidence, 2 correlations is a conspiracy theory, and 3 correlations is a cause for concern.