Misinformation on Global Warming

additions will be made to this soon

"The Earth warms and cools naturally": Yes, the Earth indeed does have cycles of warming and cooling periods. However, these cycles are not random. Instead, they occur for tangible, physical reasons, such as changes in solar radiation due to shifts in the Earth's orbit, changes in land mass orientation, volcanic activity, and changes in concentrations of atmospheric gases, etc. In the case of the recent period of global warming, the only major change that can be reasonably attributed to this warming is the emissions of greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide, by humans. It's important to note, too, that based on the cycle of ice ages that have dominated our climate over the past several hundred thousand years (see climate history), we should be in the midst of a return to the next ice age, so a "natural warming" at this point in history would not be expected.

"They can't even predict the weather": Predicting the weather is very different from predicting the global climate. While the weather is highly dependent on short time scales and short spatial scales (e.g. will it be raining at 5pm in Madison?), the global climate is dependent for the most part on the energy balance (amount of incoming solar radiation vs. amount of outgoing infrared radiation) of the atmosphere. Here's a simple analogy: When you boil a pot of water, you can measure how much heat you are adding and can reasonably guess that the water the near bottom will get hot faster--this is climate. Where and when will bubbles form and how high will they pop?--this is weather. They are connected to one another, but the prediction of each employs different concepts and different mathematical equations.

"Global Warming isn't occurring at all": We have direct observation (which is the most reliable of all data) and other means of indirect measurements that show obvious and dramatic increases in global average temperature over the past 150 years. The notion that Earth is getting warmer is not questioned in any reasonable way.

"The warming is an artifact of the 'Urban heat island' effect": Several studies^1,2 have been done that have demonstrated the statistical insignificance of the possible impacts of the urban heat island effect. Furthermore, official thermometers in urban areas are almost always placed in open park (or moved to one if an urban area expands too greatly around the original placement). This has in fact called some to question whether we are possibly (very) slightly underestimating global temperature trends by misrepresenting a large urban area with a thermometer placed in a non-urban environment.

"We need proof in order to act": When has this ever been the case? Pretend that you go to the doctor, and the doctor informs you that there is a lot of of evidence that your favorite food (e.g. a hamburger) will likely cause sudden death at any time while eating it in the future, but he cant say for sure. Would you really continue to eat hamburgers? Of course not, its too big a risk! Yes, you may love hamburgers, but your life is worth it to find something else to enjoy. Similarly, we are being warned about carbon dioxide emissions, but we will never be able to show 100% proof that carbon dioxide emissions are the primary cause of global warming, especially given natural climate variations on top of the anthropogenic warming. However, there is a very substantial base of evidence in support of this theory, and there is no other reasonable theory in existence. Thus, when we are dealing with the planet that sustains our existence, why would we choose to keeping eating those hamburgers?

"Warming is so small its insignificant": The significance of a warming event of a few degrees is entirely related to the rate at which the warming is occurring. In the past, the Earth has indeed warmed a couple of degrees with little consequence because the warming took place over thousands or tens of thousands of years. Today, the warming is occurring in a matter of decades or a couple of centuries. It is difficult for ecosystems to adapt to rapid changes over very short periods of time, and the primary manner in which they do so is by migration routes--many of which are now being blocked/infringed upon by cities, agriculture, and other man-made constructs. Finally, it's important to note that there is only about an 8C difference between an interglacial period (like we are in today) and an ice age (when much of North America is covered in glaciers).

"Carbon Dioxide only causes .1C warming": A pseudo-science study was performed and posted on some websites that calculates the amount of heat trapped by anthropogenic CO₂ emissions and shows that it would cause only a tiny amount of overall global warming in comparison to the much more prevalent greenhouse gas: water vapor. However, that's because it purposefully ignores land use emissions, which are equally as significant, and it more importantly does not account for the positive water vapor feedback loop caused by the warming of CO₂ (i.e. CO₂ causes some warming, which is then magnified by the increase in water vapor as a result of increased temperatures; see water vapor feedback). This is an extremely important mechanism.

"Liberal Conspiracy": I'm not sure where this idea is derived from, but regardless of the ways in which global warming science is used for political purposes, these uses do not preclude the quantitative science at the base. In other words, disdain for the manner in which certain environmental groups/politicians use the science behind global warming should not imply distrust of the science itself.

"Volcanoes emit more Carbon Dioxide": According to the USGS Volcano Hazards Program, human activities now emit 150 times as much CO₂ as volcanoes. However, long ago in the past, large-scale volcanic activity (numerous or giant volcanoes over a long time) certainly did have major impacts on global climate.

"Animal methane emissions have a bigger impact than CO₂": Check out the agriculture section of the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report. Animals do produce a fair amount of methane that does cause a small percentage of recent global warming (as discussed in the recent 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report), but it is still much smaller in comparison to anthropogenic CO₂ emissions.

"There's no way tiny little humans can change Earth's climate": Check out the "Jet Contrails" section of global dimming. After the 9/11 attacks, US airspace was completely clear, meaning that there were no contrails (long, thin, high clouds created by airplane water emissions) in the sky over those days. The data shows that these contrails play a very large role (differences of 1F) in our climate for what seem like such harmless little lines of cloud. The moral? Even small things that we do can have a very big impact.

1: Karl, T.R. et al. "Urbanization: Its Detection and Effect in the United States Climate Record" Journal of Climate, Nov 1988
2: Peterson, Thomas C. "Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found" Journal of Climate, Sep 2003