Global Warming Arguments
One of the major arguments between the global warming supporters and skeptics is about whether the temperature change of the earth is being mostly caused by human caused CO2 emissions or by Solar cycles. Much is made of the fact that the carbon dioxide levels come after the temperature increases, not before.

Curiously enough, in reading up on the recent attempt by global warming scientists to restrict free speech, I found this response by Carl Wunsch, who complains he was duped into being a part of the film. His response seems to be mostly a complaint that he was taken out of context, but there is a gem in there that is worth noting.

In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon.

So, when the Earth warms up, carbon dioxide is expelled from the oceans. This matches the data and explains why carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration increases after the temperature increases. This also matches the theory that solar cycles drive climate change, especially since Mars, jupiter and other planets are all experiencing similar temperature increases. Thanks for the insight Carl.

Also, a well-informed poster has left a rather long comment on my post about how the global warming on Mars seems to match quite well the pattern of global warming here on Earth. I'll assume the commentator is the author of this article, otherwise he has simply plagiarised, word for word apart from a few additions/replacements/deletions.

At first read, it may sound intimidating and authoritative, but once again, investigation shows things are not so clear cut. I don't want to go into a blow by blow with the commentators post (as that would be way too much effort and boring...and I am boring enough as it is).

Just remember that there is no scientific consensus on global warming, and anyone who says there is, is dishonest. The first reason not to trust them. The other thing to remember is to ask for the studies which predicted the observed results (for instance, predicting the ratio of carbon 13 to carbon 12). Often, the claims are just an ad hoc addition, not a prediction, which is a much weaker line of evidence. Additionally, remember that whilst observations are fairly solid, the hypothesis explaining why that observed phenomena happened is often up for debate (e.g. the commentator tries to claim that the ratio change of carbon 13/carbon 12 is due to human activity, but this claim is disputed in the scientific literature. Or if you are really mathy, you can try and use the numbers and work out the possible effect of human activity on the ratio and notice how ridiculously large the margin's of error become when you factor in the large unknowns of natural carbon exchange)

Finally, even accepting that the Carbon dioxide increases are man-made, there are other explanations for why the temperature is increasing, and so the extent or significance of the man-made impact is not easily known.

Bluster, claims of heresy, silencing the opposition. These aren't the tools of a strong scientific argument, they are the tools of an authoritarian religion.

Labels: global warming

- posted by Alan Grey @ Friday, April 27, 2007