The UN has a new report describing the dangers of unmitigated global warming, including the warning (as summarized by the NYT) that, “melting ice sheets that could lead to a rapid rise in sea levels and the extinction of large numbers of species brought about by even moderate amounts of warming.”
Well that sounds pretty serious and raises a few questions, such as has the Earth ever been this warm or warmer? And if so, what were the effects? What is the long-term history of global temperatures? How much carbon dioxide (CO2) are humans putting into the atmosphere as a percentage? And what could be the likely result of reducing our CO2 emissions?
As it turns out, the Earth has several cycles of global warming and cooling and, historically speaking, it’s rather bizarre to expect the climate to remain static. For example, in relatively recent time, the Earth was warmer in 1300 A.D. and 1100 B.C. than it is right now:
Did a third of species die out either of those times? Did industrialization cause those “global warming” periods? No, I don’t think so. There appears to be some evidence that variations solar radiation (i.e., solar winds) has a direct link to global temperature variations:
Rather than rehash what others have done, I will point to what they’ve done, the excellent, very readable, and well documented paper, “Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective,” by Monte Hieb and Harrison Hieb in particular.
The paper by Hieb and Hieb is not without criticism. This site attacks their credentials while refusing to point out any errors, while this one focuses on semantics and is wholly unconvincing.
I urge you to read the paper by Hieb and Hieb and check their sources to see if they have been taken out of context; I don’t think they have, and their argument is very convincing. Decide for yourself, but do read it before condemning it.
Is the Earth warming? Yes, it is! But it’s nothing new, and when the evidence is weighed it really does not appear that humans are the primary cause, and our ability to slow or reverse such warming is less than negligible. But some people have found a cause or religion in the issue, and that’s the tone of climate change hysterics.
Update: NASA on Artic Ocean circulation:
A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.
[…]
“Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,” said Morison.
Update 2: Yes, it is a religion, of sorts.
Yes indeed. The truly scientific (objective) view shows that the world is warming, but it has (in context) several times during its history and will eventually get colder and then get warmer again without human intervention. There are cycles, and variables (sun, volcanoes, methane release from the ocean) that cannot be manipulated by man. Now, I agree that we should start investing in alternative energy sources beyond fossil fuel for the simple fact that it will run out in the near future (20-50 years?). Is the hysteria warranted? Possibly the effects on your environment, yes, but not the cause. The human race cannot easily be attrubited for it, but we should be concerned with the consequences of a warming climate.