Published by on 03 Jun 2008 at 03:24 pm
We’re a long way from global-warming ‘oblivion’
Our planet is unusually cold right now; CO2 levels are unusually low
Paul MacRae,
Times Colonist, March 9, 2008
A Victoria environmental activist was quoted in the Times Colonist in January as saying he is trying to prevent “the demise of the planet” due to climate change. No less a figure than UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said, at the Bali environmental summit in December: “One path leads to a comprehensive climate change agreement, the other to oblivion. The choice is clear.”
Is it? Are we heading for the “demise” of the planet, to “oblivion,” if carbon dioxide levels go up much beyond their current level of 380 parts per million, or if the global temperature goes up three or four or five or, for that matter, 10 degrees from its current average of 12 degrees Celsius?
If this was true then the planet and all its denizens would have died out many times in the past, because levels of carbon dioxide and the global temperature have been much higher than today for most of the past 600 million years. In fact, we’re at a 250-million-year low, teetering on the brink, not of uncontrolled global warming but of a return to ice-age conditions that the planet left only 12,000 years ago.
Take a look at Figure 1 below (you can also find it at the Geocraft website). It shows carbon dioxide levels (the black line) and temperature (blue line) over the past 600 million years, which is most of the time that life has been on the planet’s surface.
Note that the average global temperature for the tens of millions of years when the dinosaurs and mammals evolved was around 22°C-10 degrees higher than today. Note that carbon dioxide levels have been up to ten times today’s levels. And yet, somehow, the plants, mammals and dinosaurs managed to survive; it took an asteroid to drive the dinosaurs into “oblivion.”
Note that, as the graph shows, carbon dioxide levels don’t have that much correlation with temperature over this time period. CO2 levels have fallen steadily for more than 150 million years, while the planetary temperature stayed at 22°C until about 30 million years ago. That’s when the planet’s temperature began its plunge into Ice Age conditions colder than anything in the past 300 million years. Our planet now is unusually cold by paleo-climatic standards, not warm. Carbon dioxide levels are unusually low, not high.
Note, too, that in 600 million years the global temperature hasn’t gone much above 22°C no matter how high the CO2 levels were. That’s because the relationship of CO2 to temperature is logarithmic: the more CO2 you put in, the less effect it has on temperature. This means there’s no need to fear “runaway” global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions.
However, most of our planet’s species (including us) would face oblivion should temperatures and/or carbon dioxide levels get too much lower. If CO2 dropped to, say, 125 ppm, there would be very little plant life and most forms of animal life would die.
Plants would thrive with more CO2
On the other hand, the plant world would thrive if carbon dioxide levels were three or four times today’s levels. That’s why hothouse growers deliberately pump carbon dioxide into their greenhouses to levels of over 1,000 ppm-the plants grow better. It’s ironic that so many “greens” oppose global warming because a world with more carbon dioxide would be a greener world, with more biodiversity, not less.
Of course, global warming does present major challenges for human beings and other species. For humans, the worst problem would probably be rising oceans, which could displace tens of millions of people. However, to say that human-generated global warming is causing the oceans to rise, as many environmental activists charge, is a simplification.
Since the last glaciation ended 12,000 years ago the oceans have risen 120 metres (400 feet), and that’s without any discernible human carbon input until the last few centuries. Ocean levels are currently rising about 4 millimetres a year (that’s a fraction of an inch).
If carbon-dioxide emissions are causing the oceans to rise, then the human contribution to this rise is a mere three per cent a year (97 per cent of carbon emissions each year are natural). So, rather than the oceans going up 40 centimetres in 100 years, which is about what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts, human carbon input will cause the same ocean rise in, say, 97 years, a mere three years earlier.
In other words, humanity has to deal with rising oceans whether we slash our carbon footprint or not, and a century (or 97 years) is plenty of time to prepare for the flooding.
So, are there are troubles ahead due to global warming? Of course there are if the planet keeps warming (although, in the 1970’s, the climate scientists’ “consensus” was that we were heading for another ice age).
But to say that global warming will lead to “oblivion,” to the planet “burning up,” to its “demise,” is not only untrue, it shows an astounding lack of knowledge of the planet’s climate history.
Jason on 18 Nov 2008 at 1:52 pm #
“It’s ironic that so many “greens” oppose global warming because a world with more carbon dioxide would be a greener world, with more biodiversity, not less.”
Just because plants may grow faster in an environment with more CO2 does not necessarily mean more “Biodiversity.”
The real danger of rising temperatures is the scarcity of freshwater. This combined with a growing human population shows the true danger of global warming.
hoopla on 12 Mar 2009 at 2:08 am #
“The real danger of rising temperatures is the scarcity of freshwater. This combined with a growing human population shows the true danger of global warming.”
Increased temperatures mean increased evaporation and increased rainfall not less rain.
John on 23 Apr 2009 at 1:16 pm #
That is correct. More water would be evaporated in the oceans and come down as rain further inland.
Emanuel Borja on 03 Feb 2010 at 10:52 pm #
While I do see that the data and the cocnlusion correspond quite well, I am still skeptical of the claim since I don’t know where any of this data is coming from. It would be nice to see a source for the information in the chart and other data in the article.
Paul MacRae on 04 Feb 2010 at 4:56 pm #
Emanuel,
The graph is a combination of two academic sources.
The temperature reconstruction is by paleogeographer C.R. Scotese; his website is http://www.scotese.com/Default.htm.
CO2 reconstruction after R.A. Berner & Z. Kothavala, “Geocarb III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time.” American Journal of Science, Vol. 301, Feb. 2001, pp. 182-204.
Hope this is helpful.
Paul
Paula on 23 Feb 2010 at 2:37 pm #
Your temperature scale is wrong. I went to the website you sourced for the climate temperature. the scale ranges from 25°C to 10°C not 22°C to 12°C.
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
I tried looking up the journal article but I am not going to pay $12 for it.
H Weiss on 22 Apr 2010 at 7:23 am #
yes, with more CO2, plants would thrive.
if it wasnt in the atmosphere where they can’t get to it and we weren’t killing them all!!
Global warming isn’t about getting hotter then ever. It’s that it’s getting hotter FASTER.
looking at climate trends, we’ve seen temperature increases in the past 40 years that have previously taken between 10,000 years and 2 million years.
You’re taking 5th grade science principles and trying to apply them to college level environmental studies, and stretching the data to match what you’re saying….
Paul MacRae on 24 Apr 2010 at 6:19 pm #
Mr. Weiss:
In fact, plants do take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. They breath CO2 in and exhale oxygen. I don’t know where you could have gotten the idea that plants only take carbon dioxide from the soil.
We aren’t killing the plants—in fact, if you get a copy of my book, False Alarm (coming out in May, available at Amazon.com), Chapter 9, you’ll see all sorts of data showing that the planet is actually greening at the moment, for two reasons.
One is that as more and more people move to the cities, forests are reclaiming what was once farmland. Second, the recent warming has lengthened growing seasons a bit but, more importantly, increased carbon dioxide has enhanced plant growth! Really! The planet is getting greener as we add more CO2.
As for today’s temperature increase being greater than the last 10,000-2 million years (I think that’s what you mean): in fact, today’s temperature increase not only isn’t faster than in the past (I’ll give examples below), but the temperature at the moment is not increasing at all—it’s actually cooling. If you don’t believe me, perhaps you’ll believe the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
If you go to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html, you’ll find a gadget that allows you calculate the temperature trend from 1895 to 2010 in the United States, which has the best temperature records of any nation. Set the menu to “annual”, put in the years “1997” and “2010”, and see what you find. Hint: cooling.
In the past 12,000 years, there have been times when the temperature rose (and fell) more quickly than today. The Younger Dryas cooling and warming of 11,000 years ago was more rapid than today—shifts of more than 5 degrees Celsius in a decade, although that’s a bit outside your 10,000 year timeline.
In Central England, which has temperature records going back several hundred years, temperature changes in the mid-1700s were much higher than anything today. For information on this, see http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/cet-temperatures.html. It’s possible that this increase, or something like it, was found across the northern hemisphere at that time. My point is that today’s warming is not particularly unusual based on what we know of past climate fluctuations.
Let me know what you think after you’ve done these two searches.
Jake on 05 Oct 2010 at 8:15 am #
Your CO2 data is based on plant stomata studies, which are pretty inaccurate. It’s impossible to study the same genus and species of plant across the 800,000 year board, and using stomata data from different species doesn’t tell us much about CO2. Just because one fossil contains high stomata amounts in one species doesn’t mean that there is an accurate correlation with CO2 levels. I mean, honestly think on that for a moment–while knowing nothing about CO2 levels in the past, we take a look at fossils and infer that they accurately represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. How can we ever support this theory without circular logic (“why are there so many stomata? because the CO2 was low. Why do you think the CO2 was low? because there are so many stomata”)?
Ice core studies also may not be perfectly accurate, but they show a vastly different picture than yours, and there is actual physical evidence of the CO2 levels. http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/co2_var.jpg According to the ice records and the current atmospheric data, CO2 levels are much higher than they’ve ever been in the past 400,000 years. Even with a large margin of error, the levels are still high.
I’d also like to link you to this article to see what you think: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618143950.htm. They used a similar method to your plant stomata (studying fossils), but came up with results more like the ice cores, showing that CO2 levels are higher than they’ve been in the past 2.1 million years. They also mention some of the hazards of high CO2 levels (such as oceanic species extinction, which I’m sure you’re already aware of).
I would also like to respond to previous comments regarding evaporation/rainfall. Yes, higher temperatures may lead to higher evaporation and higher rainfall. But you have to remember that many, many places in the world use streams and rivers for their water sources, and those streams are typically sourced by melting ice. A few extra days of rainfall will not supply populous areas all summer long. With the shift in climate will come the shift in snow fall (meaning less of it), which will mean less fresh water for those areas.
Jake on 05 Oct 2010 at 8:24 am #
Oh! And one more thing. It’s funny that you would link to the NCDC. All of those graphs show a trend of increasing temperature from 1895 to 2010. Anyone can look at two dates in the past and claim “look, temperatures are decreasing!” It’s not about comparing the temperature between A and B, it’s about the overall TREND of the temperatures. And the trend shows ~2 degree Fahrenheit increase.
Paul MacRae on 05 Oct 2010 at 12:05 pm #
Jake,
I’ve never said the planet isn’t, overall, warming. It is, because we’re in an interglacial (see the recent post on polar bears). I’m saying that there is no evidence outside of computer models that humans are radically warming the planet. Nor have I ever said that the recent rise in CO2 levels isn’t due, in large part, to human activity.
As for catastrophe: regardless of what the CO2 levels were, based on stomata, ice cores, or anything else, we do know that CO2 levels in the past 250 million years were several times today’s levels without creating a catastrophe–far from it. The Eocene (55-33 million years ago), when CO2 levels were, according to the academic sources I consulted for my book, up to eight times higher than today’s levels (that is, 3,000 ppm) and temperatures were 10-15 degrees Celsius higher, is often described as “tropical paradises.” Even arch-alarmist Tim Flannery makes this observation in this book on the geological North American continent, The Eternal Frontier.
And, at a time when CO2 levels are rising, the planet hasn’t warmed in the past decade, and perhaps longer, which is not what the IPCC models predicted. Clearly, climate isn’t as sensitive to CO2 as the IPCC claims in its models.
When I see evidence that the planet is warming in accord with the IPCC models—in other words, when I see evidence that the IPCC can actually predict the future accurately—I’ll reconsider my views. So far, that hasn’t happened and what is, I’d say, more likely to happen over the long run is that the planet will finally go into its cooling phase, which takes us back to glaciation. That’s something I worry about and would prefer to avoid.
Finally, water. The IPCC 2007 report said 1.5 billion people (I believe that is the figure) would be water-stressed in a warmer world. It didn’t say that more people than that would benefit from a warmer, wetter world. So, the water thing may be, at worst, a wash. Climate changes. Civilizations in the past have perished due to droughts brought on by climate changes but it’s worth noting that what really brings on drought is cooling, not warming. Climate change would happen whether we were here or not. Our job is to deal with it, as we will. The catastrophist stuff is, I think, religion, not science.
Joe on 01 Jan 2011 at 2:25 pm #
You didn’t mention, though, that Dr. Scotese has said that Global Warming is certainly caused by human activity and that its effects will be catastrophic. I don’t think that he could be more clear.
Joel on 06 Jan 2011 at 4:57 pm #
I would just like to thank you Paul because I have searched at least 3 dosen websites trying to research natural global warming information, and by far you are the only one to give, at least what I and some others, consider to be factual and scientific. So thank you very much!
paulmacrae on 31 Jan 2011 at 3:18 pm #
Joe,
Sorry to be so late replying to this–I lost access to the site for a week (corrupted database) and then got caught up in a new term.
There are lots of climatologists who think we’re heading for disaster. That doesn’t mean their data isn’t accurate, as I believe Scotese’s is, but having data isn’t the same as interpreting the data. So far, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that GW is mainly caused by human activity, rather than natural cycles, although human activity undoubtedly plays a small role. And there is no evidence whatsoever to believe some warming with be catastrophic. When I see some evidence that isn’t based on biased computer models, I might change my mind.
It puzzles me, though, how anyone could look at Scotese’s temperature reconstruction and conclude that 2-4°C of warming would be catastrophic, since Scotese clearly shows that for most of the past 250 million years–that is, most of the time that advanced life has existed–the planet has been much warmer than today. Why didn’t the dinosaurs and mammals “burn up”? And, as you may know, CO2 levels have also been up to eight times higher than today’s; again, the planet didn’t “burn up,” as some environmentalists claim will happen.
These fears are groundless, and it bothers me that supposedly reputable climate scientists would be deliberately trying to create fear in the public. The best explanation is, as always, follow the money: if you want a well-paid career in climate science these days, you go along with the AGW paradigm.
Trunil on 28 May 2011 at 10:39 pm #
As from the trends we accept that the their is indeed a 2 Fahrenheit increase in earth’s temperature and also that life, in general, has endured (in fact, enjoyed) much higher temperatures and much higher concentrations of CO2 in the past.
However, as humans, which lived in the era where the temperatures were cooler and CO2 levels low, we are evolved and adapted to such conditions and so are most of the contemporary animal and plant life. So, by whatever reason it may be, natural or artificial, if the temperature and CO2 level is rising, it is a threat to current life forms of which some are definitely going to adapt to changing conditions and others would be going to oblivion.
It has been happening since ever.
Most of the discussions here were probably accepting that if the trees flourish then humans flourish. However it is wrong.
Also its ridiculous to discuss ways to keep atmospheric conditions constant so that WE would survive for ever. Humans have to try though, and we will for our survival. This is what everyone’s made for– fighting to survive.
Jeff on 10 Jun 2011 at 7:24 pm #
Mr. Paul McCrae,
You are absolutely correct that the Earth is in between glacial periods. I see this chart (figure 1) being used many places and it does have a few flaws. If I may elaborate;
It is not difficult to see that CO2 and temperatures from 600 million years ago until about 800,000 years ago were not cyclic, and only in the last 800,000 years they resemble but do not match. Temperature rise generally precedes CO2 rise by 600 to 2400 +/- years, and tectonic activity is now a very likely suspect, for the temperature rising causing volcanic venting which rises atmospheric C02 levels.
At levels of 200 PPMA, photosynthesis plants growth is stifled (dormant). At levels of 180 PPMA, plants respire (Exhale CO2 in a last ditch effort to survive) and at 150 PPMA, all plants that use photosynthesis, die – which means all other life will also since plants are the base and foundation of the food chain. But no one mentions that, do they?? Look at the chart on the second publication posted and see how often CO2 has been below the 200 PPMA threshold. We need more CO2, not less.
Ice core samples are good proxy measurements, but stalactite/stalagmite carbon isotope measurements for atmospheric conditions, and deep ocean core oxygen isotope and warm creature to cold creature ratios are very good temperature proxies.
Most that promote anthropogenic global warming aka climate change, ignore many of Earth’s processes, and empirical evidence.
Three good publications are
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9016-the-global-warmingclimate-change-paradox-why-co2-has-not-is-not-nor-will-not-be-an-issue.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9044-climate-change-paradox-creating-a-nonevent-crisis
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9074-climate-change-paradox-creating-an-energy-crisis
The second publication has good accurate charts for 600 million years and 800,00 years, showing the temperature and CO2 levels. And if CO2 drives temperatures, then why were temperatures dropping when atmospheric CO2 levels were as much as 18 times today’s levels?? The temperatures should have been a hundred degrees warmer – according to the climate change proponents – but temperatures were only a few degrees warmer than current. Actually, the temperature has been dropping for the last 13,000 years. Farmers also are experiencing the highest crop yield per acre in history (for the last 3000 years or so) mostly due to the higher atmospheric CO2 level.
Also, natural emissions are 1 trillion tons annual average mean emissions (more some years, less in others), and anthropogenic (man made) emissions are 30 billion tons (3% of natural emissions). Earth has emitted much more than the anthropogenic rate. The math doesn’t add up either. If natural emissions are 1 trillion tons to equal 280 PPMA, and 3% – 30 billion tons – add 100 PPMA, then anthropogenic is 12 times more contributable to atmospheric levels than natural emissions. How does the planet know which is natural and which is man made?? There is no difference…. The planet has increased tectonic activity and is emitting more CO2 naturally in the last two centuries. Do we tax and regulate volcanoes now??
If atmospheric CO2 levels were more than doubled to 800 PPMA, there will only be a 0.05 C rise, and would only be experienced at night. And since Mr. James Hansen, NASA, stated he exaggerated (lied) about his claims two decades ago so it would not effect his book sales, and Phil Jones admitted he exaggerated his claims (East Anglia, England), and Dr. Michael Mann (PSU) was thoroughly discredited with his “Hockeystick” chart by Mr. Steve McIntyre, then all we need is for Mr. Gore to state he exaggerated at least 35 of his claims to promote buying and selling Carbon Credits through Generation Investment Management Corporation – was his movie only an infomercial then?? The answer is yes it is, and science has nothing to do with it…. One of the publications listed also show the malfunction with “The Hockeystick Chart” using an overlay of real temperatures to show the inaccuracy that is being presented as “real science” data.
The consensus is also 926 articles from an ideological environmental magazine, not a science peer reviewed publication. There are more than 31,478 scientists in the states alone, and about another 35,000 in Europe, England, Russia, and Asia, all that say Climate Change is only anecdotal or circumstantial evidence at best, as well as misrepresentations of data and more. How can there be a consensus that agree that there is Global Warming when 66,000 scientists (or more) world wide that disagree with Mr. Gore???
But no one is reporting this information. Too many have a financial interest in Climate Change schemes, and much is not being reported. Those that do speak out against the faulty claims, have death threats, cars tampered with to cause crashes, houses burned down, and families terrorized – literally.
If anyone is real, and wants to know what the truth is, then be objective and pragmatic to discover the facts, and not rely on someone else’s opinions. That is what I did. I could write a book on the claims of Climate Change, and show empirical evidence widely accepted in the global science communities that Climate Change is only an illusion by the way the information is presented.
By the way, the courts in England found Mr. Gore guilty of misrepresenting at least nine (only nine addressed because of the case load of the courts or more would have been sited) of his claims. See. Lord Christopher Monckton report on 35 inconvenient truths.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
Read the beginning of the article.
Ethan Merrill on 08 Jan 2013 at 5:01 pm #
While increased temperatures do mean increased evaporation. Increased evaporation is changing weather patterns and is causing drought in once fertile areas and flooding in those that never get much rain. As we saw with the drought in the central United States in 2012, and the flooding in eastern Australia. This is the reason for the strange weather we have been having, like most tornados in a day and, what was it, oh yea basically a hurricane in New York(it turned west, like no hurricane has ever before because of strange patterns in the jetstream).
Just look at any temperature chart of temperatures in recorded history
also 2012 was the hottest year for the United States in recorded history. This proves that the earth is not following a slow cycle, but a pattern that is noticeable in the last 150 years, nothing in geologic time.
Chris on 12 Oct 2013 at 8:29 am #
Well, this article may now be 5 years old, but it hits the nail on the head about the relationship between global temperature and Co2 levels. I have heard climate extremists calling Co2 the “God damn thermostat of the planet”. It is not. There are many drivers of global temperature and Co2 is not the biggest. It adds to it, but is by no means the main culprit. In recent days the IPCC have talked about certainty in man made climate change. 90 percent, then 95 percent certainty. And all based on a climate model – nothing more and nothing less. Yet, these climate scientists refuse to consider our temperature / Co2 relationship. As the graph demonstrates so well, there have been 3 periods in the last 600 million years when we have been so cold, now being one of them. We are cold at the moment and sooner or later our planet will return to the global average of 22 degrees. Now I know that doesn’t suit us as humans, but that is what will happen. We are also Co2 starved. Yet all the climate scientists can say is that levels have been higher than they have been for 300 million years. Anyone reading that, not knowing the full history of Co2 over the proper time frame would worry. it is cherry picking of the worst kind. The only facts are what has happened in the past. Man made climate change is now so entrenched within media circles and policy makers that it makes it impossible to argue against. So called skeptics get asked where is your evidence that it is not man made? Hello – the last 650 million years. And all that without an army of peer reviewed scientists to back my argument. Let’s save energy; I am all for that. Human Co2 is only as has been suggested a simplified contributor. And that minor contributor is merely a by product of our ever increasing population. This is the global threat; not Co2 levels. Our policy makers should be deciding how we best protect the future of our next generations, instead of talking about man made climate change. There is a very small group of people that are fighting the climate change cause on behalf of the IPCC, backed up with an army of so called evidence. They ridicule anyone that challenges the science. I even read in one of the major newspapers that the supposed ‘skeptic’ view is being given too much air time. People need to stand up to the idea of man made climate change because it is falsehood given our history. We need to concentrate on more important matters that are a threat to our existence.
Chris on 13 Oct 2013 at 1:23 am #
Left a comment yesterday, but cannot see it here?
paulmacrae on 13 Oct 2013 at 8:08 am #
It’s up now, and thanks for commenting. Paul
Chris on 04 May 2015 at 5:58 am #
A great article. It essentially addresses the issues raised by this article.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
No telling people what to think – simply referring to empirical evidence that is traceable over 600 million years. Ok, the degree of certainty as time goes further back comes into play.
Conversely, what we are being told to believe (no suggestion or “Here’s the data – make your own mind up”) that the current warming trend is attributable to humans. And this is all based on a climate model – not like Empirical evidence that has been presented here.
Further more, when you have the invention of the thermocouple as a means to measure temperature, you undoubtedly produce noise in your data. Much like when you start using satellite imagery to measure the amount of ice in the Arctic.
It is simply impossible to draw firm conclusions about temperature or ice coverage over such a small period of time.
Unfortunately, you have many sources of propaganda for climate change.
Skeptical Science is the worst one of the lot. They could sell ice to the eskimo’s.
If people want to learn about climate change look at the long term trends.
Whilst it may not suit us if the global temperature returns to the global average – it is what it is and who are we to try and change what has always existed.