The Lord told the first man to take care of the earth he made for him (Moses 3:15). Therefore, it seems important that Latter-day Saints be mindful of the planet they are given to dwell on. But what of all this discussion about Global Warming? Much in the way of doom and gloom is presented to the public for the future of our planet, and Global Warming has become a hot topic (pardon the pun). There’s no question that it is happening, but exactly what is causing it and whether it is something to fret over is debatable. To ask, “Is Global Warming real?” is not the proper question, but rather, “Is Global Warming caused by mankind?”

The popular notion is that Global Warming is caused by greenhouse gases which trap heat in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases form approximately 3% of the atmosphere, 95% of which is water vapor from clouds.[1] Water vapor is “by far the most important [i.e. atmospherically influential] greenhouse gas.”[2] The remainder of the greenhouse gases are CO2, CH4, Ozone, and N2O, but the most common of these is CO2.[3] CO2 is made out to be the big villain, yet it absolutely pales in comparison to the greenhouse contribution of water vapor (clouds). CO2 is not as major of a contributor to the greenhouse effect as probably most people think.

The truth is, CO2 accounts for 0.037 % of the atmosphere of the earth,[5] and only a small fraction of that is caused by human activity. CO2 from human activity is “a small fraction in the single digits percentage-wise” of the total planetary output of CO2.[6] The vast majority of the CO2 put into the atmosphere is actually from natural sources (so is the earth killing itself?). This is an important point because it suggests that even if all human activity were to completely cease, it would still have a very negligible affect on the overall amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I remember hearing on the radio some time ago an environmentalist saying that the death of trees from the Mountain Pine Beetle infestation in British Columbia released more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the entire transportation industry of Canada that year. Surprisingly, he did not see the futility in trying to fix this situation, but instead proposed a very expensive idea in which the dead trees would be quickly removed and replaced with new trees in order to help “fight climate change.”

It should be very plainly stated that CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring molecule. In fact, plants require CO2 for photosynthesis. Anti-CO2 environmentalists talk about “being green,” but if you want to see green, then we need CO2! CO2 is necessary for plant life, which is the staff of life for the rest of the planet, so its presence has an indirect beneficial effect for the entire earth. Warmer temperatures are helpful, too, and an increase in temperature is projected to be “beneficial to human health.”[4]

What if Global Warming is bad, though? And what if it is caused by the CO2? If you stop to think about it a moment, if greenhouse gases are really the problem when it comes to Global Warming, then really your very existence is a threat to the planet, since every time you exhale you expel CO2 and water vapor, two key greenhouse gases! While this would only be a miniscule contribution, it would nonetheless be true. But it should be noted that the Lord is seemingly not concerned about that, since his command to multiply and replenish the earth “remains in force” (The Family: A Proclamation to the World).

There is more data that shows the inconsistency of carbon dioxide as a cause for climate change. Scientific analysis shows that CO2 levels increase or decrease after an increase or decrease in temperature, not the other way around. This indicates that CO2 does not drive climate change, but it is actually the product of climate change.[7] Based on this data, it appears the anti-CO2 environmentalists have it backwards.

The temperature of our planet has been in fluctuation throughout its history. This is normal. In the middle ages, the earth experienced a warming period in which Vikings farmed Greenland.[8] This warm era in the earth’s history is associated with prosperity, wealth, and progress for mankind, not devastation.[9] Following this medieval warming period, a global cooling set in which lasted for hundreds of years. We are currently coming out of a long cooling phase in the earth’s temperature cycles.

Consider the above graph, which compares temperature, CO2 levels, and the Sun’s radiation. You will notice that during the post WWII era, when industrialization - and therefore CO2 levels - were likely at an all-time high, temperatures dropped. Between about 1945 and 1975, temperature and CO2 moved in opposite directions (on the graph)! That’s the opposite of what was supposed to happen if you think CO2 is the culprit. Temperatures dropped so much during this time of unprecedented industrialization, in fact, that there was fear that the earth was heading into another ice age. Some of the readers of this blog may themselves be old enough to remember the ice age scare of the 60’s and 70’s. Does any of this scare frenzy seem familiar to our own time?

The true source of Global Warming, that is, the thing that is making the earth warmer, appears to be – brace yourself – the Sun! The Sun is the proverbial “elephant in the room,” being unduly ignored in this issue. Fluctuation in the Sun’s radiation matches extremely well with the data compiled of temperature highs and lows in the past.

Perhaps the biggest problem with information about Global Warming is that it has become highly politicized (after all, scare tactics regarding it were popularized by a certain ex-vice president). The media has chosen the side of the apocalyptic, doom-filled view, and made it appear as though all credible scientists feel that way. But “Literally tens of thousands of scientists have signed the Leipzig, Heidelberg and Oregon declarations/statements/petitions protesting the abuse of the science and the politicised goings-on” surrounding this issue and the UN’s stance on it.[10]

In truth, the warming phenomenon that the earth is experiencing is a natural cyclical occurrence that people should not be alarmed about, least of all Latter-day Saints who enjoy a unique perspective on the future of the earth. We might as well enjoy the warm weather while it lasts, because it won’t last forever.

(Editor's Note: Can we retract the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize from the spin doctor of manmade global warming, Al Gore?)

[1]http://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Weather%20and%20climate.pdf on Dec. 20, 2008.
[2] Prof. John Christy, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, on The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary.
[3] http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3 on Dec. 18, 2008.
[4]http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html on Dec. 18, 2008.
[5] http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3 on Dec. 18, 2008.
[6] Prof. John Christy, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, on The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary.
[7] http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3 on Dec. 18, 2008.
[8] http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=120 on Dec. 20, 2008.
[9] The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary.
[10] http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=120 on Dec. 20, 2008.

 


Comments

Jared*

Mon, 29 Dec 2008 3:49:12 pm

<i>New Scientist</i> has a treatment of climate change myths that I would recommend. Although contrary to a number of your arguments, I don't think you will find them to be alarmist.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

 

Jack

Tue, 30 Dec 2008 1:12:02 pm

I'm waiting for a climatologist to show up and tell us that that's not the way it really works. But then the real problem begins--and that's: What do we do about what so many other climatologists are saying? The ones who agree with the author of this post?

 

Dave

Tue, 30 Dec 2008 7:38:45 pm

Ryan,

An interesting and timely post. Politicians in Utah like Gov. Huntsman have gotten on the manmade global warming bandwagon. There are so many politicians on the bandwagon nowadays that I am afraid that we are going to see some asinine regultations that will adversely impact industries and ultimately have a detrimental effect on the economy.

That said, I will be the first person to stand up and say that Salt Lake and Utah counties have awful bouts of stinky and unhealthy air days. Coming from Canada where the air is mostly clear and healthy, I find Utah inversions revolting. A group of doctors from Intermountain healthcare where I work have set up a coalition to do something about the air, and I support their efforts.

So why don't I support regulations aimed at "manmade global warming"? Because I think it is based on shotty science and I don't see convincing evidence pointing an accusing finger at mankind. In fact, as Ryan has pointed out, I am pointing a finger at the sun right now.

I support tougher regional standards in areas with occasional filthy air like Utah. Of course this should be done in the name of making the air fit to breath.

I do not support tougher countrywide regulations in the name of what appears to be a "save the earth from manmade global warming" hoax.

 

Clark Goble

Wed, 31 Dec 2008 2:33:29 pm

Just out of curiosity did you both looking up the answers to points you raise such as the lag/lead in CO2 vs. temperature? There are pretty good explanations.

Regarding what to do about climatologists, if 95% of climatologist agree and there are a few — often not publishing in current peer reviewed journals — is it really a difficult question? It's kind of like the question of what to do about biologists because you can find a handful who think evolution is wrong.

 

Jack

Wed, 31 Dec 2008 4:38:20 pm

I don't know, Clark. There's just too much disagreement. Even the petitions, with whatever weaknesses they may have, have been supported by a large enough number of informed people (ferreting out those who are truly unqualified) that one can't possibly ignore a growing trend of division. Plus, I think there can be a big difference between what organizations endorse and what individual scientists really believe.

 

kristine N

Fri, 02 Jan 2009 8:37:47 am

Jack, if you think there's disagreement, it's because you're not talking to scientists. Those who disagree with the notion that global warming is man-made are few and pretty much on the fringe. Many of them are, as Clark suggests, not publishing in peer-reviewed journals. There's a growing trend of agreement, not division.

 

Jack

Fri, 02 Jan 2009 9:01:58 pm

Again, I don't know. It seems like a lot of skeptics are more concerned with modeling and the handling of data than they are with physical laws. Unfortunately, all too often, it can be one thing to say, "this is how things work" and quite another to say, "this is what's *really* happening."

 

SteveP

Sun, 04 Jan 2009 9:19:26 pm

This is wrong on so many levels. Start here:

'and only a small fraction of that is caused by human activity'

http://sciencebysteve.net/?p=117

kristine N said it perfectly. The people who actually study this are in agreement: it's real and human caused.

 

Jack

Tue, 06 Jan 2009 8:45:07 pm

"The people who actually study this are in agreement"

Not true. There are a lot of highly qualified people out there who disagree--people who could take any of the well informed people on these blogs to task. Unfortunately, however, those who don't side with the IPCC consensus are usually viewed as court jesters.

 

Jack

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 5:41:35 pm

Here's a list of scientists who don't agree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

Jack

Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:44:40 pm

Sorry to keep hammering on this--

I'm sure most of you are aware of the Senate Minority Report that lists 400 some-odd international scientists who dissent (for one reason or another) from the IPCC consensus on global warming. The recent Dec. 2008 update of the same report now shows at least 650 scientists dissenting from said consensus--along with bios for every one listed--many of which are quite notable.

I ask sincerely, Clark, Kristine, et al, how does this not put a dent in the scientific consensus on global warming--or at least raise a few doubts the consensus remaining fixed?

Here's the link to the report:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

 

Dave

Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:40:19 pm

Jack,

Wow! A very telling senate report. Thanks for providing the link.

Clearly this report raises serious doubts about the claim that a majority of scientists agree that global warming is manmade.

Here's an excerpt from the report:

"Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a "consensus" of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. "I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority."

 

Jack

Sat, 10 Jan 2009 1:18:04 pm

Dave,

Here's an excerpt from the opening remarks by Joseph Blast at Heartland's 2008 International Conference on Global Warming:

"Two weeks ago, Jim Martin, executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, when told of our conference, said, “You could have a convention of all the scientists who dispute climate change in a relatively small phone booth.” (Denver Post, February 12, 2008).

RealClimate.org predicted that no real scientists would show up at this conference.

Well ...

We have with us, tonight and tomorrow, more than 200 scientists and other experts on climate change, from Australia, Canada, England, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and of course the United States.

They come from the University of Alabama, Arizona State, Carleton, Central Queensland, Delaware, Durham, and Florida State University.

From George Mason, Harvard, The Institute Pasteur in Paris, James Cook, John Moores, Johns Hopkins, and the London School of Economics.

From The University of Mississippi, Monash, Nottingham, Ohio State, Oregon State, Oslo, Ottawa, Rochester, Rockefeller, and the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.

And from the Russian Academy of Sciences, Suffolk University, the University of Virginia, Westminster School of Business (in London), and the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

And I apologize if I left anyone out.

These scientists and economists have been published thousands of times in the world’s leading scientific journals and have written hundreds of books. If you call this the fringe, where’s the center?"

 

Jack

Sat, 10 Jan 2009 1:21:25 pm

Ah,

It's the "International Conference on Climate Change" -- that's the correct title. Just wanted to clarify...

 

Comments are closed.
Google Analytics