TED Conversations

Jake Maddox

Field Service Engineer,

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed.

Global Warming Caused by Human Impact is Negligible

Global warming. The term evokes visions of scorching global temperatures, droughts of biblical proportions, deserts forming on an epic scale, and death for mankind. And yet synonymous with the term is that humans are solely responsible for this cataclysm. But is this really the case? The fact is, most people are simply not well enough informed on the subject or have not looked closely at the historical evidence. They are simply left to being persuaded by the negative dogma surrounding the subject that is being perpetuated by those with their own political agendas.....sorry Mr. Gore. The earth is a very dynamic planet, sure it may seem very static and unwavering, but you must think beyond your frame of reference. Our short lives are very insignificant compared to the life cycle of the earth. Ice core data taken from Antarctica reveal that for as long as the records go back, nearly 800,000 years, that the earth has experienced a cyclic pattern or warming and cooling that revolves on a 100,000 year cycle. We are currently in what is known as an interglacial period which is why the glaciers are receeding. In fact, they have been receeding for at least the last 15,000 years, well before human influence and the burning of fossil fuels. Accordng to the latest core samples taken from the sea floor under the Antarctic ice shelf, the glaciers have to melt much more to return to levels that were seen in previous interglacial periods. In February 2013, global warming activists were stunned by the retreat of one of their former UN scientists. Top Swedish Climate Scientist Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of the UN IPCC, declared CO2”s “heating effect is logarithmic: the higher the concentration is, the smaller the effect of a further increase.” So let us try and mitigate our influence upon the earth the best we can, but most importantly, we need to accept that the earth's climate does and will change. Let us prepare for how we will deal with these natural changes when they occur

Topics: global warming
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jul 1 2013: I have learned that this issue cannot be discussed intelligently without citing actual research.

    Opinion abounds - please give us references to the research you base your assertions on.

    If you cannot do that, you cannot elevate the discussion beyond politics.
    • thumb
      Jul 1 2013: I might do that Mitch when I have some time. What I've come to learn though is that once people hold a position or opinion, it is very difficult to change their views, even with abounding evidence. They'll always find away to discredit it. Like those strong in religious faith that deny the validity of carbon dating and all other sciences for that matter.
      • thumb
        Jul 1 2013: Very true Jake.

        There is a huge problem going on in humanity right now .. and it's not being noticed properly.
        The only reason I know about it was from reading a DeBono book a while back (DeBono "I am Right/You are wrong" Penguin ISBN 0-14-012678-3).
        The problem is this: Humans cannot know the truth - they can only know their perceptions.
        During the 90's politicians and media personalities quietly acknowledged this .. it made a lot of pennies drop and allowed them to fully comprehend what Edward Bernays was on about with public relations.
        THis was a total ground-shift .. leaders and marketeers stopped worrying about the truth - there was no point if you could simply adjust perceptions.

        The climate debate has been almost totally drowned in this .. spin and manipulation thickly covers the reality.
        To actually cut through this snowstorm of manipulation, you need to go to the actual scientific papers and read them.
        These are the closest we can get to truth - they record the data, the methods and the models.
        These are the only things that can be debated if your objective is to move closer to truth.
        If you do anything else, it is just more spin and manipulation.
        De Bono was right, but we need to acknowledge our weakness in this area and make the effort - if, and only if, the truth matters to us at all.
      • thumb
        Jul 24 2013: You realize that what you're saying about those close-minded people is exactly the same thing that those close-minded people are saying about you. All of you are sharing the exact same, overwhelmingly convincing sense of certainty regarding the correctness of your views and you see quite clearly where the flaw is in the other person and their staunchly entrenched views. Isn't that a least a little bit striking? Doesn't it make some tiny voice in your head wonder if you might be as well be talking about yourself? You wrote:

        "I might do that Mitch when I have some time. What I've come to learn though is that once people hold a position or opinion, it is very difficult to change their views, even with abounding evidence. They'll always find away to discredit it. Like those strong in religious faith that deny the validity of carbon dating and all other sciences for that matter."

        You might as well have written:

        "I might do that Mitch when I have some time. What I've come to learn though is that once I hold a position or opinion, it is very difficult to change my views, even with abounding evidence. I'll always find away to discredit it. Like those strong in religious faith that deny the validity of carbon dating and all other sciences for that matter."
    • thumb
      Jul 1 2013: So here are some technical papers, research, and articles to help validate my opinion.

      Milankovitch Cycles - This Information is a good demonstration of how the earth's climate is very dynamic, moving from glacial periods to interglacial periods and back again.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

      Laurentide Ice Sheet - This will give you an idea of just how much glacial ice has melted since the end of the Younger Dryas period circa 15,000 years ago. Glacial ice has been melting and is continuing to melt.

      http://polarmet.osu.edu/PolarMet/paleonwp.html

      Albedo Effect - There is evidence to support that deglaciation is happening faster now than before the industrial revolution, which many point to increasing CO2. Although CO2 is no doubt a factor, the albedo effect may be a more influencial force on the warming climate.

      http://www.universetoday.com/39937/albedo-effect/

      CO2 Lags Temperature, Not Leads - So yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus does contribute to warming, question is how much. Historically, whenever earth's temperatures have risen, so has CO2, however CO2 lags temperature. Interesting. So the earth also releases CO2 gas, not just humans?

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/

      New Evidence Reveals CO2 Levels at 425ppm circa 12,750 Years Ago - We're currently at 390ppm, which is 100ppm higher than we typically see for an interglacial period, at least as far as the ice records reveal, about 800,000 years. But looks as though there were peroids without human impact that may have been just as high as today.

      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/03/new-paper-finds-co2-levels-were-higher.html
    • thumb
      Jul 1 2013: Ice Age at 2000ppm - There was an ice age in the Carboniferous Peroid at 2000ppm circa 450 million years ago. Even one in the late Ordovician Period around 4000ppm. Clearly other factors regulate glabal temperature besides CO2 levels.

      http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/ice-age-at-2000-ppm-co2/

      ANDRILL Provides Insight - This drill is sitting on the McMurdo Ice Shelf and bores through the ice and sea water to recover core samples from the sea floor. The cores are layered, revealing sections of rocky deposits, followed by sediment layers, and back to rocky, and so on. These rocky layers are formed when the ice shelf is present, as rocks carried by the glaciers melt off the ice and are deposited on the sea floor. Layers of fine sediment indicate no glacial shelf was present. These periods coincide with the Milankovitch Cycles and according to the data, the glacial ice at this site must completely melt away in order to reach previous interglacial periods (I should mention that we are in an interglacial peroid now and should still have 10,000 years or so before cooling should begin).

      http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-07-03/news/0707030116_1_antarctic-geological-drilling-project-andrill-biggest-scientific-undertakings

      Sea Levels Higher Than Today in Past InterGlacial Periods - Shows that we still have some melting to do.

      http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

      So I think people should understand that the earth is in a natural state of warming. As I have said, we should reduce our dependancy on fossil fuels, not only because of air pollution and possible climate effects of prolonged heavy burning, but because it's not sustainable. We humans have roughly 250,000 more mouths to feed on a daily basis, so population increase will demand huge amounts of energy, in as little as 25 years.

      Humans will find a way to adapt to changing earth climates and temperatures. A .01 percent increase (100ppm) in atmospheric CO2 levels will not drive us to extinction.
      • thumb
        Jul 3 2013: Hi Jake,

        Many thanks for the links - they are helpful.

        Here's something that might also help threading it all together:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3PzYU1N7A

        What I find fascinating about all this is that we get distracted from the bedrock assumption. That is that C02 absorbs and re-emits infra red radiation. The net affect being that it warms the air - i.e. elevates the equilibrium energetic state of the air - i.e. average temperature.
        The whole greenhouse debate was initiated on this observation. When measurements were taken to see if it was observable in our atmosphere .. it is.

        I've taken the time to read Lennart Bengtsson's article. And, although it is more of a policy statement than a scientific observation, I agree with him wholeheartedly.
        The subject of anthropogenic climate change has become intractably politicised. I have seen it before .. it's just part of how humans seem to operate.
        Whenever there is a clear crisis, it gets exploited to the maximum .. change is always like that. So what happens is that the actual issue gets completely left behind as agendas get developed to exploit it. Once an agenda is set, it gets defended by those who stand to benefit - either by "fluffing-up" the problem or by denying it.

        Here's where my personal view resides:
        AGW is proven to my satisfaction.
        The pause in temperature rise over the last decade indicates that we have missed something.
        My understanding of physics leads me to suspect - that the energy rise expected, has somehow translated into kinetic form instead of thermal form. But I'm not all that surprised .. when you look at how non-linear/chaotic systems operate, they get into phases of infinite fractal recursion .. you can see it in fluid dynamics. Such infinite regression cannot be supported by physics beyond the quantum limits, so it has to go somewhere else. My early intuition was that it would manifest in faster, more energetic expressions of ocean oscillations - El Nino, etc. Seems right.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.