« Back to Home Page

Global Warming, What Global Warming?

| Tuesday January 1st, 2008 | 6 Comments

ppp023-main_walrus_portrait.jpg It’s easy to forget that many of what scientists and many laypersons now take as scientific givens – a heliocentric solar system, plate tectonics, evolution – initially faced fierce and strident opposition that persisted over decades if not centuries – and to this day remain outside the world view of large numbers of people. Such is the case when it comes to global warming and climate change, which has taken several decades – and sharp spikes in fossil fuels and commodities– to win the minds and hearts of what James Lovelock terms “scientific middle management” as well as a broader public.
That’s certainly not to say that there is unanimity in the scientific community or the broad population – as can be seen in some reader comments– when it comes to acknowledging that we are on the brink, or perhaps in the early stages of a global warming period and that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is the primary accelerant. And it remains very much in doubt as to whether or not governments, industry, NGOs, local communities and individuals can respond as widely or as urgently as may be necessary to even at least ameliorate the adverse effects.


A Useful Graphic
It’s only natural, indeed healthy, that there is debate, some controversy, skepticism and critical analysis when it comes to do with the general acceptance of any new scientific theory. And it’s incumbent on each individual who cares to form an opinion to gather and sort out the facts as best they can.
So I have been keeping on eye out for a particular chart that makes, or at least strongly suggests, the connection between man-made CO2 emissions and global warming. Fortuitously I came across it again the other day – courtesy of the U.S. Dept. of Energy – in a piece of investment research to do with the coal industry, clean technology and related U.S. legislation put out by Natexis Bleichroeder in March, 2007.
ppp023-co2emissions.JPG
Now I realize that any good scientist or analyst should err very much on the side of caution when saying anything about causality, and would delve into the sources and quality of the raw data used to construct this graph. Coming from the U.S. DOE, however, gives me sufficient initial assurance that it is probably the best available. More to the point, I would think that the period depicted – beginning with 1850, acknowledged as the beginning of the Industrial Age – and the corresponding humongous increase in CO2 emissions would lead even the most skeptical or hard-headed to posit, or at least acknowledge, the strong possibility of a link between man-made CO2 emissions and any indications of global warming that may exist.
I’ll be keeping an eye out for hard, graphical evidence of the latter for subsequent posting, but off the top of my head I should think that the rather drastic shrinking of the perennial polar ice caps offers stark evidence of global warming.
END


▼▼▼      6 Comments     ▼▼▼

Newsletter Signup
  • Dr Coles

    U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007.
    http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz

  • http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog Tom

    Regarding that senate report (from notorious denialist James Inhofe)- not-so-prominent scientists, and some not scientists at all:
    http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2007/12/26/senator-inhofe-busts-open-the-climate-change-debate/

  • lrbinfrisco

    Don’t see how this chart is much evidence since global average teampatures haven’t uniformly increased in lockstep with the graph on the chart. Such as 1934 being the warmest year in the 20th century or the 1930s-1940s being as warm or warmer as the any part of the 20th century. Or that the period between 1950 and 1970 being one of the coldest if not the coldest in the 20th century. I would say that the chart above is more in evidence that man made C02 emmissions are not the majority factor in climate change. Doesn’t mean that man made CO2 has no impact, but doesn’t mean that it does either.

  • http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog Tom

    We need to make sure we’re not confusing Global average temperatures with avg. US temps – RE: ’34 being the warmest year on record – only in the US.

  • ab

    How else do you account for the huge increases in CO2 emissions…and it’s effects as a greenhouse gas?

  • http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog Tom

    Regarding the graph here in this post, it isn’t even displaying properly for anyone to make a comment on (at least in my browser). Anyway, all common skeptic arguments and a scientific and rational response is available from grist.org:
    “How to Talk to a Skeptic”
    http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics