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
    Jun 26 2013: The only bit that was copied was that regarding Dr. Bengtesson. It is a natural phenomenon. Look up the Milankovitch Cycles. There are many climatologist that agree our current warming trend is normal and part of our current interglacial period. The problem is that when they share their opinions on the subject they are attacked and badgered by the 97 percent you speak of. It's a problem scientist face in all fields of science (i.e. the Solutrean Hypothesis). CO2 levels are close to 390ppm this is true, but not the highest since mankind. 12,700 years ago CO2 was around 425ppm. Looking at total earth history, current CO2 levels are extremely low. Ice ages have been seen in as high as 2000ppm. Periods of the Triassic and Jurassic have been as high as 8000 ppm. Don't ignore the hard data, do the real research. Use your own judgement, and you will find what is common sense, not what is so-called "common knowledge" regarding global warming.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jun 26 2013: Never said high CO2 causes an ice age. New data does reveal a spike over 425ppm. http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/03/20/new-paper-finds-co2-spiked-to-levels-higher-than-the-present-during-termination-of-last-ice-age-paper-published-in-quaternary-science-reviews/

        Doesn't surprise me you're misinformed. If CO2 is such a dangerous greenhouse gas, then how was there an ice age 450 million years ago at 2000ppm. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/ice-age-at-2000-ppm-co2/

        You're being fed partial and false truths my friend. Just a year ago, I too shared the same beliefs as you. The evidence is just too powerful to ignore.
      • thumb
        Jun 26 2013: I don't read RW blogs, although it's abundantly clear by how passionate you are about the subject that you are left. I don't follow politics, I prefer to draw my own conclusions, not be told by my party affiliation what is fact or fiction, right or wrong. Did you even read the paper in the link? Yes it was 12,750 years ago. Don't be so obtuse. Instead of trying to debunk the data, look into it. Don't find a way to discount it based on your personal pride or ego to "win" the debate. Research the data, ask yourself questions, and provide yourself honest answers, regardless of what you "want" to believe.
      • thumb
        Jun 26 2013: My post is not a copy LaMar. I'm fairly good at articulating and expressing my thoughts and conveying my points and ideas, although not professing to be a "writing virtuoso". I have been a member of TED for quite awhile and have submitted questions and debates on a wide range of topics. I enjoy watching TED Talks on youtube in my spare time. In fact, my idea of fun and entertainment is watching a program about super string theory, world history, pre-history....anything that stimulates the mind with fascination and wonder. I'm not by any means pushing an "agenda" as you suggest, and quite honestly have never heard of a denier blog. I sincerely emplore you to continue your research and draw your own conclusions. I think that mainstream scientist and historians have it right 99 percent of the time. However, sometimes they get it wrong. They laughed at those who challenged the truth, Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, Hubble, Alfred Wegener and the like. I am simply a curious mind and have drawn my own conclusions based on real tangible data, and I'm not alone in my reasoning, but definitely the minority. I looked at the earth's history and saw evidence of deglaciation in past interglacial periods. I looked at CO2 levels throughout earth's history and saw that life flourished in many different levels. I noticed that temperature rise preceded CO2 rise according to the ice core data. I noticed how the Laurentide Ice Shelf was immense and how much had melted, surely the melting was continuing. I started thinking, are we really having an impact on CO2, and if so, how detrimental is it to our planet. Can an extra 100 or 200 or 300 parts out of Million really cause climate to change to the point of wiping out our species? Think about ppm. An extra 100ppm is a .01 percent increase in CO2. I respect your opinion LaMar, truly. I just happen to believe a different theory. However, I am for clean energy and reduction of our dependency on fossil fuels.
      • thumb
        Jun 26 2013: Agreed, we should make every possible attempt to decrease our dependency. I just think that we should be prepared for more climate change, because looking at history, it's going to get hotter, CO2 or not.
      • thumb
        Jun 26 2013: Yes. My debate is not "to burn fossil fuels or not to burn". My view is that CO2 will not and does not have the affects that are predicted. Everyone can't deny that temperature is increasing, climste changing and sea levels rising. What people are uneducated about is the warming trend that has been occurring for the last 50,000 years and the deglaciation that is cyclic and will continue. Sea levels have risen almost 300 feet in 25,000 years, enough to inundate millions of square miles of land. People show a picture of a glacier in 1800, then in 2000 and say "See! 1800 was the beginning of the industrial revolution when we started burning fossil fuels, and look how much it has receded! Obviously it is having an effect." My response is, show me a picture of the glacier in 1700 and 1600 and a thousand years before that. The glaciers have been receding for at least 25,000 years! And data reveals that according to the cyclic patterns of warming and cooling, we will see much more melting of glaciers and polar ice. But I do think that we humans have a responsibility to mitigate our influence on the earth. Just because the affects may be minimal doesn't mean we should just trash the planet and ignore pollution.
      • thumb
        Jul 1 2013: Lamar Alexander,
        Thank you for your comment that begins: "Well, I will have to take your word for it . . . " You sum up my thoughts exactly. To " 'err on the side of caution" is part of what it takes to successfully live in this world sometimes.

        And what do you think of our 'X-ray guy' here on TED? Has he earned his own TEDtalk yet? Might he do that some day? Or is he worth even the opinion space? This guy is obviously looking for a challenge. So let's give him one. And make that a meaningful challenge while we are at it.
    • thumb
      Jul 1 2013: Jake Maddox, you say
      "The problem is that when they share their opinions on the subject they are attacked and badgered by the 97 percent you speak of."

      Yes, & that is how science works. Your citation of the Solutrean Hypothesis is a very good illustration of that. The key here is that the Solutrean Hypothesis can NOT be dismissed out of hand. The hypothesis does a good job explaining some (but not all) of the data. Once Stanford & Bradley introduced that theory in 1998, it got a lot of attention. And today, hundreds of graduate students are looking at data & evaluating what they see in light of the Solutrean Hypothesis vs the alternatives. More questions. More research.

      Einstein was treated pretty poorly early on. But when people examined his data closely, many were persuaded. Then additional evidence on multiple occasions proved Einstein right! Charles Darwin faced the same thing w/his theory of Natural Selection. In the 150 years since The Origin of Species was published - Darwin has also been proven more right than wrong. But that debate is for another thread.

      Wanna' be a Climate Scientist, Jake? No joke here. You ask great questions and make telling points. If you are in college, have you considered graduate school? You are obviously looking for the data. You've read widely (Solutrean hypothesis . . . ? Yes!). You ask all the right questions. Keep asking them! Go study with some real Climate Scientists at UofColorado in Boulder or Denver. Find those answers for us. There might be a PhD in it for 'ya - Doctor Maddox. Jake Maddox, PhD? THAT could happen in my lifetime. Choking on CO2 from global warming or getting flooded out of my home due to sea level rise? Not-so-much. The risk is real, but not so much when compared to a PhD for Professor Jake Maddox. You deserve a voice in the Big Debate, not-so-much for us amateurs here on these threads.
      • thumb
        Jul 1 2013: You're a cool and eccentric guy Juan. I can tell that you keep an open mind and base your opinions on your own judgement and reasoning, not letting youself be influenced by the meandering heard of self-proclaimed intellects
        • thumb
          Jul 1 2013: And yes, that's one of the nicest things anyone has said to me today. Thank you.

          I have two answers to your statement. It's been a while back for me, but I once had the privilege of calling myself a Teacher. I was responsible for a classroom full of 4th graders. That was hard. But every now & then I had the opportunity to expand the possibilities for 'small minds' - & they believed! Those 9 & 10 y/o kids had a very pragmatic view that most adults lose. They never forgot that they were 'just kids.' They were all in it together (w/me trying desperately to teach them). They were always together. But for a child, the real possibilities really ARE endless. And when they SEE that, it is awesome. My own 'small mind' found that quite rewarding.

          I make no judgement as to 'mind size' in Jake Maddox. You don't do that to other adults. Generally it's considered disrespectful. You are NOT a 4th grader. And your capacity for thought has clearly earned my respect. That kind of 'encouragement' is just something that Teachers do when they do it right. It's just a responsibility that 'we teachers' have. What you do with that is up to you. So I'll make it a request:

          Please don't leave TED. And another. Please don't die an X-ray guy. Unless you really LOVE your job, & find great fulfillment there - please don't die an X-ray guy.

          If you spend the next 60 years as an "X-ray guy," you will always have my respect. You've earned that. Let TED continue to challenge you. And when you hear one of those "large minds" on a TED talk 'hit-you-between-the-eyes-w/a-problem-you-know-that-you-can-fix." Do it. Go get educated. Go do the science. And give us old guys some hope for the future. We 'Old Guys' think about that while we sit around 'shriveling' & waiting to die.
          Good luck & work hard, Mr. X-ray guy. l;).

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.