Despite Al Gore’s contention that the CO2 in the atmosphere is approaching dangerous levels, scientists tell us that CO2 levels have been as high as 15 times the current level of about 380 parts per million (ppm) and levels of about 5 times the current level were common.
In Al Gore’s environmental tome and movie, An Inconvenient Truth, he claims that anthropogenic (human-caused) activity will cause irreversible damage to the planet. The basis of this claim is that by using carbon-based fuels (oil, gas, coal, wood) to produce energy, we will increase the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere and cause global warming. According to Gore, this global warming will cause glaciers to melt, causing the oceans to rise thereby flooding all the coastal communities. Of course, the poor, minorities, women, and children will die first.
Gore erroneously assumes that current conditions on earth are the natural state. Even a cursory study of the earth would reveal that nothing related to the earth is constant. Continents move, the oceans rise and fall, glaciers advance and retreat, the magnetic poles have moved and reversed, the composition of the atmosphere has varied and the earth’s temperature has warmed and cooled. All of these events occurred without any human influence.
The earth’s tectonic plates constantly move. The continents have moved thousands of miles. The clash of these tectonic plates has created massive mountain ranges. Earthquakes are the result of the movement of these tectonic plates.
Fossilized kelp and fossils of ocean creatures have been found at altitudes over 5,000 feet above the current sea level. We know the kelp and sea creatures lived in the oceans so either the land was pushed up or the oceans receded. Either scenario makes the global warming doomsday predictions laughable. The sea level changes predicted by these global warming zealots are dwarfed by previous variations of sea level changes.
Ice cores have established the existence of at least 17 Ice Age Cycles in just the past 2 million years. During those Ice Ages Cycles, glaciers several thousand feet thick came as far south as the mid-U.S. Each Ice Age Cycle lasted about 100,000 years separated by an interglacial warming period of about 10,000 years. We are in an interglacial period now, so another Ice Age is a safe bet.
The north and south magnetic poles wander independently and it been theorized that the north and south magnetic poles have reversed numerous times. The last reversal occurred about 740,000 years ago. Evidence of these reversals is recorded in the magnetism of ancient rocks. The sun also reverses poles but on a more predictable cycle. The next reversal of the sun’s magnetic poles will be in 2012. The earth’s pole reversals are unpredictable and many scientists feel another magnetic pole reversal is overdue. A reversal of the earth’s magnetic poles would be far more serious than the predicted rise in the earth's temperature of 2 degrees Celsius over the next 100 years.
Despite Al Gore’s contention that the CO2 in the atmosphere is approaching dangerous levels, scientists tell us that CO2 levels have been as high as 15 times the current level of about 380 parts per million (ppm) and levels of about 5 times the current level were common. The current level of 380 ppm is like comparing the contents of an eye dropper to a swimming pool. Plants thrived at the higher CO2 levels and varying CO2 levels aren’t harmful to plants, animals, or humans.
Dr. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist from the University of Virginia, summed up these Inconvenient Truths this way. Singer said, “We have to remember that the climate has always been changing ever since we have records, and we have geologic records going back millions and millions of years. We know that there have been huge climate changes on the earth long before human beings actually came into existence.”
On December 13th, over 100 prominent international scientists released an open letter to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The letter in part states, “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.” An analogy for this futile effort could be draining the ocean with a spoon. The Washington Post also noted that the number of global warming skeptics “appear to be expanding rather than shrinking. Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears bite the dust.”
Will Al Gore and fellow Gorons recognize these Inconvenient Truths or will they continue to perpetuate this global warming fraud?
quixote@covad.net
Read more articles by Jack Ward
Q: "Will Al Gore and fellow Gorons recognize these Inconvenient Truths or will they continue to perpetuate this global warming fraud?"
A: Continue to perpetuate, as it is either in their financial interest to do so, or a result of their Useful Idiocy.
Comment by GriffithLea | January 3, 2008
You aren't under the impression that the climate was the same when the carbon dioxide levels were notably higher, are you?
Comment by freelunch | January 3, 2008
The climate is never "the same."
Comment by Mountain Man | January 3, 2008
"You aren’t under the impression that the climate was the same when the carbon dioxide levels were notably higher, are you?"
I don't think that's the case, based on the author's observation that:
"Continents move, the oceans rise and fall, glaciers advance and retreat, the magnetic poles have moved and reversed, the composition of the atmosphere has varied and the earth’s temperature has warmed and cooled."
"The continents have moved thousands of miles. The clash of these tectonic plates has created massive mountain ranges. Earthquakes are the result of the movement of these tectonic plates. "
"Each Ice Age Cycle lasted about 100,000 years separated by an interglacial warming period of about 10,000 years. "
I think the central thesis of this article is that: No, the climate was not the same then as it is today. It is dynamic. It changes. It is changing. It will change in the future. Then again, I actually read the article and not just the header, so deciphering the cryptic message was a bit easier for me…
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 4, 2008
The reason I asked the question is that Mr. Ward called this a 'global warming fraud', even though the evidence about the way carbon dioxide affects the atmosphere shows that it does affect the climate as climatologists say. There is a legitimate question about how we as humanity should best respond to the anthropogenic causes of climate change, but I don't see how calling that a fraud is useful.
Comment by freelunch | January 4, 2008
Mr Ward
Exactly where did you get this tidbit:
"scientists tell us that CO2 levels have been as high as 15 times the current level of about 380 parts per million (ppm) and levels of about 5 times the current level were common."
I am an atmospheric scientist with a degree and Masters in that field. In all my years of school and in my profession, I have never heard such an absurd claim. Just so you know, I beleive that global warming (GW) is occuring, but I question man's contribution to GW based on my scepticism of long-term climate models to accuartly predict everything. I await your response.
Comment by Paul_Bovis | January 4, 2008
"The reason I asked the question is that Mr. Ward called this a ‘global warming fraud’, even though the evidence about the way carbon dioxide affects the atmosphere shows that it does affect the climate as climatologists say. "
As long as you can trust the climate models that are constructed to reflect that. Aside from such models, there's not a lot of evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide causes increases in atmospheric or surface temperatures. In fact, it's been suggested by many scientists that, historically, atmospheric Co2 levels tend to increase FOLLOWING a warming period.
Paul,
A cursory Google search turned up this in the top 3 results:
"…the eon known as the Phanerozoic, a lengthy span from the present to 550 million years ago, the dawn of complex life, typically bore concentrations of carbon dioxide that were up to 18 times the levels present in the short reign of Homo sapiens. "
http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=63408
That site is not exactly a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy holding either. It's very decidedly pro-anthropogenic global warming. I don't have a Master's in whatever field "atmospheric scientists" get Masters' in though, so I don't know…
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 5, 2008
In fact, it’s been suggested by many scientists that, historically, atmospheric Co2 levels tend to increase FOLLOWING a warming period.
Do you have a source on this? I am interested in that. The journal abstract would be good.
Comment by freelunch | January 5, 2008
I'll tell ya what, I'll make you a deal. You provide me with your professed unequivocal proof (that means proof by experimentation that is repeatable and is objectively verifiable) that anthropogenic global warming with carbon dioxide emissions from humans as its mechanism "does affect the climate as climatologists say", with journal abstracts, and I'll do the same for you.
If you're actually interested in that information, and not just trying with the meager resources you have to make a clever point, Google is a fine resource. For example, a search of the terms "CO2 rise follow warming" produced this as the first search result:
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
There's about 90,000 more results, so I'm sure you can do even better if you click on more than one of them.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | January 5, 2008
Do you know what a science journal is, Patrick?
Did you read any of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report?
Reid Bryson is well known in climatology. His work was well-respected, but he is not the first scientist who has fought against discoveries that go beyond what he had understood. He is not doing scientific research in climatology today. I expect him to occupy the same position that Louis Agassiz played after the discovery of evolution, a good scientist who could not manage to understand and accept new ideas that were shown to be correct.
Comment by freelunch | January 6, 2008