7 replies to this topic

[jbgreen]

I've recently taken an interest in environmental activism and have begun to educate myself on the issues of pollution and environmental exploitation. I believe that one should educate oneself before taking a firm stance because I've observed a lot of ignorant radicalism as of late, which only disempowers any legitimate claims a cause might have.

I came across the Manhattan Institute's Energy and the Environment: Facts and Myths webpage. On this webpage, the author contests ten widely accepted notions concerning pollution and global warming. It was myth ten that caught my particular interest, which states that humans are not the main cause of the greenhouse affect which is responsible for global warming. The author sited David Mackay, a Cambridge University professor, to make the claim that human activities account for a very small portion of the CO2 emissions, and that a vast majority of CO2 emissions occur naturally. The author also cites the warming of planets such as Pluto and Mars, which warm without the influence of factories, cars, ect. At first I thought it was just conservative propaganda, but then it actually made sense!

This claim really conflicts with a lot of the contemporary environmentalist thought that I've come across, which states that humans play a significant role in the CO2 produced in the atmosphere.

Could some of you more seasoned environmentalist help me make sense of this? Here's a link to the article: http://www.manhattan...yths/myth10.htm

[still learning]

Quote

.... I've observed a lot of ignorant radicalism as of late, which only disempowers any legitimate claims a cause might have.

I came across the Manhattan Institute's Energy and the Environment: Facts and Myths webpage. On this webpage, the author contests ten widely accepted notions concerning pollution and global warming. It was myth ten that caught my particular interest, which states that humans are not the main cause of the greenhouse affect which is responsible for global warming. The author sited David Mackay, a Cambridge University professor, to make the claim that human activities account for a very small portion of the CO2 emissions, and that a vast majority of CO2 emissions occur naturally. The author also cites the warming of planets such as Pluto and Mars.......This claim really conflicts with a lot of the contemporary environmentalist thought that I've come across, which states that humans play a significant role in the CO2 produced in the atmosphere....: http://www.manhattan...yths/myth10.htm

Most of what's in that myths article you linked to is true.  Not all of it, but most.  You have to read it carefully though and not assume things not being said.   The author, Drew Thornley apparently, doesn't actually say that humans aren't causing global warming.  He is trying to mislead though.

Most of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere isn't from human sources  True.  Most of the greenhouse effect is natural.  True.
The recent increase in armospheric CO2 from 285 parts per million to more than 390 ppm is human caused though.  We are increasing the greenhouse effect, more rapidly than almost all climate scientists think is safe.

If you look at the pie chart diagram on the Thornley piece the human part of CO2 looks minor.  Trouble is, that 3.27% is mostly being added to the atmosphere, accumulating year after year, while the natural sources are well balanced by natural removal, which the pie chart doesn't show.  Take a look at the carbon cycle diagram here: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Carbon_cycle.  Shows the same stuff as that pie chart and way lots more, puts the information in better context.

We're not the main cause of the greenhouse effect, just as Thornley wrote.  We're responsible for the recent and future increase in the greenhouse effect.  Without any greenhouse effect the Earth's average temperature would be below freezing (It 'd be -18 degrees Celsus according to http://en.wikipedia....eenhouse_effect.)

Whether or not Mars and Pluto are warming or not is irrelevant to our climate.  It's been shown that the Sun isn't doing anything unusual.  There is the eleven year cycle where the Sun brightens and dims a tiny bit, but nothing unusual there.

The author uses some misleading words: "Though a causal link between human carbon-dioxide emissions and accelerated warming has not been proved."  Proved?  A word not often used in science.  A word found in courtrooms.  Lawyers use it.  Scientists don't much. Climate scientists ues phases like 95% certain, or even 99% certain to begin with, then let subsequent experience "prove" matters or not.

Want to find out more about climate change?  Might try http://www.realclima.../05/start-here/  

Regarding the motivations of Thornley, the website masthead of the Manhattan Institute that he writes for includes "The mission of the Manhattan Institute is to develop and dessiminate new ideas that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility."  See also http://sourcewatch.o...Policy_Research

[jbgreen]

Thank you for your perspective. After reading the article about the Manhattan Institute, I can see now that this article is just conservative propaganda! Though clever articulated....

I did notice after reading it again that slant he put on the topic with the comment: "Though a causal link between human carbon-dioxide emissions and accelerated warming has not been proved." There's obvious evidence that the atmosphere is being influenced by human activity which is adding to global warming and to deny that at this point would be pure ignorance!

I also noticed after reading your comment that Thornley cited David Mackay with the comment: “  'Burning fossil fuels, in contrast,' writes MacKay, 'creates a new flow of carbon that, though small, is not cancelled.' ” But Thornley fails to expound on the effects that this small amount of uncancelled carbon emission could have on the environment after a long period of time, the effects of which we are experiencing now.

I do disagree that the warming of other planets are irrelevant. Observing the warming of other planets could help us decide how much of the warming occurring on our planet is natural, but that's just my opinion.

[still learning]

jbgreen, on 16 December 2011 - 07:36 AM, said:

............I do disagree that the warming of other planets are irrelevant. Observing the warming of other planets could help us decide how much of the warming occurring on our planet is natural, but that's just my opinion.

Don't think we disagree on anything important regarding climate change.

The reasons that my view on the purported warming of Mars and Pluto is that it's irrelevant are pretty well explained here: http://www.grist.org...are-warming-too

[jbgreen]

Okay, you've converted me. After reviewing you link it totally makes sense why the warming of other planets is irrelevant. Hats off to you Sir/Madam

[sculptor]

still learning, on 16 December 2011 - 09:34 AM, said:

Don't think we disagree on anything important regarding climate change.

The reasons that my view on the purported warming of Mars and Pluto is that it's irrelevant are pretty well explained here: http://www.grist.org...are-warming-too

funny SL, but your link had the opposite effect on me
--trained as an archaeologist -one datum point is quite often all you have, and to dismiss it and the sun's(all our heat energy comes from the sun) effect so cavalierly seems like the howling of wolves

if more of the sun's satellites are showing warming, then understanding the extent and percentage of those changes would be a boon to filling out our knowledge base as/re climate here on our earth.

curiouser and curiouser:
red flag time
Coby essentially said
"Don't look behind the curtain"
is bigotry too ugly a word?

look at the data from our own earth, and you'll see that we ain't yet reached the temperature maximums of the previous interglacial
and
can you help but to wonder
WHY?

I cannot

to borrow an old expression
we may have eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge
but
sooner or later
we gotta learn about the whole tree and it's ecosystem

[joeldgreat]

Really???But I doubt that we humans are not the main culprit of green house effect and global warming. We've been here too long enough that anything we do will have a direct impact to the environment. All of these small things that we do will naturally grows up to be a bigger treat to Mother Earth. The thing that we dump to our rivers, lakes and oceans. The things that with get from nature. The destruction of natural habitat had always had something to do with humans.

[still learning]

sculptor, on 23 December 2011 - 10:37 AM, said:

funny SL, but your link had the opposite effect on me.......to dismiss it and the sun's(all our heat energy comes from the sun) effect so cavalierly...,,,

.....look at the data from our own earth, and you'll see that we ain't yet reached the temperature maximums of the previous interglacial and can you help but to wonder WHY? I cannot

to borrow an old expression...we may have eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge but sooner or later we gotta learn about the whole tree and it's ecosystem

Regarding what the Sun's doing: nothing unusual.  See http://en.wikipedia....Solar_variation
Lots more than one data point.
Don't want to ignore what's going on climatewise other places in our solar system, but the data is way too scant so far to conclude much.  

As to why the global average temperature during the present interglacial isn't (yet) one degree C higher as it was during the last interglacial roughly 100,000 years ago, I don't know.  I guess Milankovich factors combined with vegetation caused albedo changes is the leading hypothesis http://www.skeptical.../LIG2-1906.html

"learn about the whole tree?"
Lots of people are trying.  Quite a few researchers learning about different pieces.  Lots of journal articles written.
Just about all of those who are trying to learn more are concerned about too rapid climate change and human influence on the rate of climate change.

Learn it all though?  Not in our lifetime.