I know global warming is real, I just don't know how to refute this...?

Question

Global warming is not caused by humans. Climatologist may not fully understand what causes the cycles of the earth’s weather patterns; however, they do know that the earth has a continuing cycle of rising and cooling temperatures. As a matter of fact, the public should be worried if the globe’s temperature was constant. However, people are frightened by change, and the problem in this case is that the change is not bad; it is natural. First, CO2 from humans is not a major factor in rising global temperatures.186 billion tons of CO2 enters earth’s atmosphere annually.90 billion tons is from biological activity in the oceans, and another 90 billion tons is emitted from volcanoes and decaying land plants. That leaves 6 billion tons to be collectively from humans mostly from the respritory procees of releasing CO2 as a waste product.

For example, when a volcano erupts it gives off as much CO2 in a couple of days as it takes humans to emit in a couple of decades. Why then in the aftermath of a volcano is the world’s climate and ecosystems not in total anarchy? The reasoning is that the earth is resilient and is use to fluctuating amounts of CO2. When the volcano Mt. St. Helen erupted, the result was a 1 degree drop in average temperatures around the world. That means that billions of tons of CO2 were emitted into the atmosphere in a matter of days and had absolutely no effect on climate.the main reason for this is because CO2 is not as great of a heat insulator as many people believe it to be. Other atmospheric gases such as methane and nitric oxide are much better at insolating heat. Nitric oxide is 310 times betterthan CO2 and meathane is 51 times better.
Overall, in the last 100 years the average temperature has raised by 1 degree F while the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has raised by 25%. the number just do

By 'real,' I suppose I meant caused by humans. And this claptrap was sent to me by my conservative friend.

Answer 1

Not to worry, it's easy to refute as your conservative friend has made some very basic errors and there are glaring omissions.

This is going to be a long answer, I’ll quote each part of your question then add my bit after…


● “Global warming is not caused by humans.”

Not all of it, there’s an underlying natural warming trend that has been ongoing for 18,000 years. For the last 10,000 years the natural warming has been very slow – just 1°C, by contrast temps are now rising 177 times as fast. Going right back through the 542 million years of climate data there’s never been a time when temps have been known to be rising as fast as they are now.


● “Climatologist may not fully understand what causes the cycles of the earth’s weather patterns”

True. We have a reasonably good idea what causes the cycles but the important thing in terms of the climate isn’t what causes the cycles but what effect they have and to this end we have a very good understanding.

There may be some cycles we haven’t discovered but these (if there are any) will be very long term (hundreds of thousands of years or more) and their short term effects will be very small indeed.


● “however, they do know that the earth has a continuing cycle of rising and cooling temperatures.”

True. There are many cycles that both the Sun and Earth go through, some cause warming and some cause cooling. They interact and the net effect can be either warming or cooling but never static.


● “As a matter of fact, the public should be worried if the globe’s temperature was constant.”

True. Climate is dynamic and in a constant state of flux, always has been and always will be.


● “However, people are frightened by change, and the problem in this case is that the change is not bad; it is natural.”

Some aspects of climate change are good – better crop yields in some places, less deaths and illnesses from cold related conditions, more conducive environments for certain species of fauna and flora, agricultural land made available from melting permafrost etc.

However, these are far outweighed by the negative consequences. For each of the advantages I mentioned there is a corresponding disadvantage in that there is a net loss in crop yields, more people die from heat related conditions than cold related etc.


● “First, CO2 from humans is not a major factor in rising global temperatures.”

Wrong, rising CO2 levels is the number one factor in rising global temps, accounting for 72% of anthropogenic global warming and approx 60% of all warming.


● “186 billion tons of CO2 enters earth’s atmosphere annually”

That figure is out a bit – it’s approx 220 billion tons naturally and 30 billion tons from humans.


● “90 billion tons is from biological activity in the oceans, and another 90 billion tons is emitted from volcanoes and decaying land plants.”

The oceans release 88 bn tons of CO2 each year but what your friend omitted to mention is that they absorb 90 bn tons each year as part of the natural carbon cycle.

Biomass absorbs 120 bn tons annually and releases 119 bn tons.

In 2006 humans released 29 bn tons of CO2 but of course, don’t absorb any of this.

Nature recycles all the CO2 it produces each year and has a surplus capacity for an additional 3 bn tons. The humans contribution of 29 bn tons far exceeds anything nature is capable of handling.

As for volcanoes, your friend has fallen for one of the many mistruths propagated by the opponents of global warming. Each year we (humans) produce 150 times as much CO2 as all the volcanoes on the planet do. CO2 is only released in comparatively small amounts when a volcano erupts, the most important gas in relation to the climate is sulphur dioxide (SO2).

Following major eruptions levels of atmospheric SO2 rise, this gas has a reflective property which prevents solar radiation (sunlight) reaching Earth’s surface. In the wake of major volcanic eruptions global temperatures fall, we saw this most recently following the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo.


● “That leaves 6 billion tons to be collectively from humans mostly from the respritory procees of releasing CO2 as a waste product.”

The figure of 6 billion has no relevance, it’s the number arrived at by your friend in order to make his numbers balance but his numbers are wrong.

The correct figure is 29 bn tons of CO2 emissions from humans (2006 figure, it will be about 31 bn tons this year) on top of this there’s the equivalent of a further 11 bn tons of CO2 released in the form of other greenhouse gases (primarily methane and nitrous oxide).

Just for interest, human respiration produces a little under 2 bn tons of CO2 per year.


● “For example, when a volcano erupts it gives off as much CO2 in a couple of days as it takes humans to emit in a couple of decades.”

Wrong – see above.


● “Why then in the aftermath of a volcano is the world’s climate and ecosystems not in total anarchy?”

It is, temps can fall by as much as 1°C in just a few months for the reasons explained above. If that were to happen over any period of time we’d see temp changes of 20°C in a decade.

The biggest volcanic eruption in recent history occurred in 1815 when Tambora erupted, there are no precise global temp records for that period but in 1816 there was crop failure on a massive scale and the year became known forever after as ‘the year without a summer’.

● “The reasoning is that the earth is resilient and is use to fluctuating amounts of CO2.”

CO2 levels are always changing. They’re measured in parts per million by volume of the atmosphere (ppmv) and in all the time humans have been on the planet they’ve fluctuated between 190 and 280ppmv. They’re now at 384ppmv. In a few short decades we’ve increased CO2 levels by the same amount that it took nature millions of years achieve.

● “When the volcano Mt. St. Helen erupted, the result was a 1 degree drop in average temperatures around the world. That means that billions of tons of CO2 were emitted into the atmosphere in a matter of days and had absolutely no effect on climate”

That’s a contradictory statement. If temps fell by 1°C then there was an effect on climate.

Mt St Helen’s was a comparatively small volcano compared to the others I’ve already mentioned, the effect it had on the climate was a small one (don’t know the figure off the top of my head, probably 0.1 or 0.2°C). As already mentioned, SO2 is far more important and is produced in greater amounts than CO2.


● “the main reason for this is because CO2 is not as great of a heat insulator as many people believe it to be.”

CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas but exists in far greater concentrations than the other GHG’s. There are 365,000 parts per billion of CO2 in the atmosphere, the next most prevalent GHG is methane with 1745 ppbv. There’s 1800 times as much CO2 as all other GHG’s combined.


● “Other atmospheric gases such as methane and nitric oxide are much better at insolating heat.”

Yes they are, the only gas of significance that is a worse insulator than CO2 is water vapour. Water vapour is a very ineffective greenhouse gas, it exists in large amounts (between 0 and 4% of the atmosphere, average 1%) but forms part of a short lived natural cycle (the role of water vapour is another matter, suffice to say it forms part of a natural cycle and has almost no effect at all in respect of anthropogenic global warming).

Stupid Yahoo Answers with their limits on the lengths of answers, the rest of the response is online here - http://profend.com/temporary/cory.html

Answer 2

It is more of a law of averages, I think. This year, California's summer seems a little cold. We have had maybe two days where we have gotten 90-degree weather. Maybe about a thrid of those days, we get mid to upper seventies, and the rest of the time, it has been about the mid 80s. This is not last year's summer when temps were much hotter. We have a lot of wind coming off the water in the East Bay area, and it seems to blow constantly, giving us much cooler weather. I do acknoledge that temps inland in some places are reporting hotter weather. So far, everything Al Gore predicted is happening as the polar opposite of what he said. Is global warming really man-made? Or is global warming really Al Gore-made? Given the cool summer, I am inclined to go with the second statement. Global warming is baloney.

Answer 3

You can state this:

Natural disasters cause far more deaths every year than murderers do, would a murderer be set free if he states that defense in front of a jury? Of course not. Why? Because we believe murder is an unnecessary act that causes great damage to our society.. We do now that natural processes release CO2 into the atmosphere, but we also know that CO2 causes global warming, so we should try to stop all human caused activities that release unnecessary CO2 into the atmosphere, just like we try to stop people from committing murder.

One more argument is that CO2 is only one of the gases released, there are other gases that nature does not produce in the amounts we do or that are not even produced naturally at all, and they are very dangerous gases, such as CFCs and NOx.

Hope this helps...

Answer 4

I was actually watching cspan the other day and they were discussing this, according to the scientists on there when the earth's natural chemicals are depleted it will refill itself to around the same levels before the depletion, such as oxygen, iron-ore to an extent, Co2, and water. They said it is possible that humans have an effect on climate however it is so small it isnt really an issue. Not saying that we shouldnt try to be less dependent on the earth or try to cut back on pollutants, but we arent the primary cause. And that even through ice ages and extreme heat there were always habitable areas. The changes could be bad for certain parts of the world and good for others, but the human race has even survived some of these extreme drops and hikes in temps by adapting and migrating. Also they pointed out it would take a very long time for it to effect us so severely we'd have to do drastic things.

Answer 5

Well, whether humans are causing global warming or not is really inconsequential since we should be concerned about the welfare of our environment anyway. Disbelief in anthropogenic global warming is no excuse not to make an effort in reducing pollution.

EDIT: I found a perfect example in the answer to another question:

"I'm part of the problem and proud of it. My 4 wheel drive truck get lousy gas mileage and I don't care. My boat pollutes the bay and I don't care. My 2 stroke dirt bike rips up the land and pollutes the air and I don't care. I burn cut up trees in my fireplace and I don't care. I don't recycle a dam thing and I don't care. Guess what ? I DON'T CARE !!!!!!!!!! "

Now, I ask you, what is the point of being that way? Even if global warming turns out to be just a made-up bunch of crap, does that help anything?

Answer 6

The biggest factor that drives the weather here on Earth is...the SUN!

No kidding -- there are extensive studies of the Sun's activity, particularly the effects of such things as solar flares on the Earth's magnetic fields, among other things. I don't have a specific website, but there are videos on Google (under "educational") which go into quite a bit of detail re: the SOHO mission, and other studies.

There are studies being done also on the effect of cosmic rays, which are high energy emissions from such places as the Crab Nebula, on the Earth's weather, particularly cloud formation.

And, by the way, you are right in what you assert about the role of the oceans and volcanoes.

The weather is also affected in the very long term, by vast astronomical cycles, including the precession of the Earth on its axis, as well as the position of the entire solar system in our own Milky Way galaxy. These cycles of Ice Ages and warming trends have been ongoing for millions of years; long before mankind came on the scene. There is evidence that we are, in fact, in an "in-between" phase, and the Earth is actually heading towards a new Ice Age period (it's still a LONG ways off.....).

Some people seem to forget that life on this planet is "carbon-based", so if you want to "reduce CO2 output", the end result will be millions of human beings dying from starvation. Try telling people in the so-called Third World, to do without hospitals, vaccines, electricity with which to cook, etc. ! On the other hand, plants, especially TREES, LOVE Co2.....so, why not plant more trees?

Go nuclear! Nuclear energy is the way out!

Answer 7

the question is not whether or not it is manmade.

the question is how much man adds to natural cycles.
I give a flying poop on the difference between 20% or
50% then - if only cognition of OUR very obvious part
of responsibility leads to action finally istead of mucking
about until the warmongerers get their perpetual greed
accomodated even more by the water wars that will come.

are you part of the faux tv spam ? conveniently cutting
the diagrams in the 80s when solar phase of naturally
increased radiation reverted ? or are you just lazy ?

Answer 8

All you need to refure these arguments are scientific facts.

The idea that volcanoes emit more than man is completely ridiculous. Proof:

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

About man made carbon dioxide:

There are a great many natural sources and sinks for carbon dioxide. But the present global warming is (mostly) the result of man made CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

There is a natural "carbon cycle" that recycles CO2. But it's a delicate balance and we're messing it up.

Look at this graph.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mlo_record.html

The little squiggles are nature doing its' thing. CO2 falls a bit during summer when plants are active, and rises during the winter. The huge increase is us, burning fossil fuels. The scientists can actually show that the increased CO2 in the air comes from burning fossil fuels by using "isotopic ratios" to identify that CO2. The natural carbon cycle buried carbon in fossil fuels over a very long time, little bit by little bit. We dig them up and burn them, real fast. That's a problem.

Man is upsetting the balance of nature. We need to fix that.

More here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 9

Just say that. Volcanoes and other natural occurences are not something we as humans can interfer with. Our own actions are what we can act on, that because of that, we are responsible for global warming.

Answer 10

What an ubituquotous number of websites you cite.

Since it's on the intarweb, it MUST be true!