26 Common Climate Myths Debunked

holy_calamity writes to mention that New Scientist is revealing the truth behind the '26 most common climate myths' used to muddy the waters in this ongoing heated debate. "Our planet's climate is anything but simple. All kinds of factors influence it, from massive events on the Sun to the growth of microscopic creatures in the oceans, and there are subtle interactions between many of these factors. Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences."

Comments

Here's the list w/o links

[flogger]

This appears to be "weather-Mongering." The only one of these that I didn;t know to be a myth was that "it is all a conspiracy"

• Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
• We can't do anything about climate change
• The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong
• Chaotic systems are not predictable
• We can't trust computer models of climate
• They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
• It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
• It's too cold where I live - warming will be great
• Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
• It's all down to cosmic rays
• CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
• The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming
• Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming
• The oceans are cooling
• The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming
• It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England
• We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age
• Warming will cause an ice age in Europe
• Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
• Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell
• Mars and Pluto are warming too
• Many leading scientists question climate change
• It's all a conspiracy
• Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming
• Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
• Polar bear numbers are increasing

#16

[benhocking]

That was the 16th myth on the list.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[bobo mahoney]

If you read any articles about Global Warming you will see that some local areas will get colder, wetter, more snowfall, and more ice accumuluation because of shifting water currents and atmospheric wind patterns. The issue is GLOBAL WARMING, not is it warmer at my house.

Re:WTF

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Then I find this article.

But you didn't check the source, apparently.

I'm unsurprised that anti-climate-change folks can find a few PhDs who will agree with them. There are a lot of scientists out there, after all. But unless Morano's "more to come" has another 10,990 scientists on it, his "converts" are still nothing compared to the number of scientists who DO buy the global warming argument.

Re:WTF

[je ne sais quoi]

Funny. I see this in TFA Myth: Many leading scientists question climate change .Then I find this article.

That article was written by Marc Morano. I'm not seriously going to consider anything written by the producer for Rush Limbaugh.

Also, in TFA, I see this: Myth: Polar bear numbers are increasing Then I see this.

Did you even read the article you linked to? Almost every scientist they interviewed about the subject said something along the lines of,

"The critical problem is, the sea ice is changing. We're looking ahead three generations, 30 to 50 years. To say that bear populations are growing in one area now is irrelevant," says Derocher." [f the World Conservation Union and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton.] "The increase in the population is not a climate-change related issue," Derocher claims. It's the result of "conservation and an increase in the harp seal population," he says."I don't think there is any question polar bears are threatened by global warming," responds Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton.

So, yes a single population of polar bears is increasing, but too bad there's 19 populations world-wide, at least two of which are decreasing.

Re: thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Black Parrot]

Eastern Canada is currently experiencing its thickest strongest ice in 30 years. Meanwhile, Antartica is melting.

Sounds like NS neglected to debunk the biggest myth of them all, namely that global warming means a uniform increase in temperature everywhere on the planet.

It seems you got your facts mixed up.

[NeutronCowboy]

Anecdote, meet data.

Re:FUD

[fyngyrz]

You want to hear from scientists? Perhaps you should go read what these scientists have to say (The scientist's comments are a little way down the page.)

Suffice it to say that the scientific community is not unanimous on the issue of anthropocentric warming.

A non-pointless method or What Can I Do?

[WillAffleckUW]

Instead of listing 26 reasons that global warming is real and caused by humans, wouldn't we all be better served by a list of 26 things that a single person can do to improve our quality of life and the health of the environment (that just so happen to also reduce global warming) that aren't prohibitively expensive or that demand levels of sacrifice that we all know Joe Blow won't make?

Exactly. In fact, if you read the article, you would have noticed a few that specifically are What Can I Do issues.

Let's break it down:

First, Primary, Big Impact: your cars, SUVs, trucks. This accounts for probably 50 percent of your lifestyle choices that impact global warming (or cataclysmic global climate change, since it oscillates like crazy when pushed).

What can you do?

A. Easy - take your vehicle(s) in for regular tuneups. Keep the tires PROPERLY inflated. Amazingly, this can affect 10 percent of your impact from vehicles.

B. Moderate - next vehicle(s) you buy, new or used, just get one that gets 5 mpg BETTER than your last.

C. Real Change - increase transit use, walking, and bicycling instead of car/SUV/truck use. Switch from a low mpg class like an SUV that you use for in-city driving to a passenger car with twice the mpg. Carpool. Move closer to where you work. Have fewer cars in your family (for example, drop the kids off en route and make them take the bus home).

Second. Flying. If you visit Europe, consider only flying to the first destination, and using their high-speed passenger rail system (same time as a jet) to travel from one city to the next, and then using local transit once you arrive. This will save you money, and sometimes time. If travelling to Germany, but wanting to see London, consider flying to London and then taking the train the rest of the way, stopping along the way to see other spots. Or use one of the new Boeing low-fuel plane models on a flight leg if you can (they use 50 percent as much jet fuel, a MAJOR impact on global warming, and it cost YOU the SAME or less to fly on it).

Third. Lightbulbs. Seriously. Just consider replacing lights as they burn out with high-quality inexpensive 4 or 6 packs of Compact Flourescent Lights (CFL) at Home Depot - usually I can get 4 for about $6 or 6 for $9. Worth a trip. This will SAVE YOU MONEY. Each lasts five to seven years, they use 1/8 as much energy. Or consider the slightly expensive LED lights - they use 1/20th the energy - new ones are WHITE light. These should be as cheap as CFLs by 2008, and will be required in most US states and all of Canada, so it's not like you have a choice anyway.

Some facts remain difficult to dispute.

[emil]

I have learned that past sky-high CO2 concentrations have been documented in peer-reviewed research journals. If we have hit peak oil, I doubt we will ever be able to reach these levels.

We find that CO2 emissions resulting from super-plume tectonics could have produced atmospheric CO2 levels from 3.7 to 14.7 times the modern pre-industrial value of 285 ppm.

This data is available from a variety of sources, with interesting commentary:

RES: Professor Robert E. Sloan, Department of Geology, University of Minnesota
JC: Dr Joe Cain, interviewer

We are talking about carbon dioxide levels 6 to 10 times the present carbon dioxide level. When you have high amounts of carbon dioxide in an atmosphere up to a certain limit, which is considerably higher than it is now, the result is green plants grow very much better... And it is precisely at this time that the recovery from the first dinosaur extinction takes place. When the super plumes come and carbon dioxide increases, and the oxygen correspondingly increases as a result of photosynthesis... And yet the super plumes did not last forever and they started to die at the end of Cretaceous.... In any event, large dinosaurs really required to be living in an oxygen tent. An atmosphere in the neighborhood of 35 percent oxygen would be considerably more compatible with large dinosaurs than one in the neighborhood of 28. And so this suggested to me that this was perhaps a significant reason for the first dinosaur extinction, and probably one of the major factors in the second, the terminal dinosaur extinction, other than the birds. It also neatly tied together all of the really bizarre features about the Cretaceous... The Cretaceous is clearly a green house period as opposed to the present ice house that we have... Well, the rich carbon dioxide of course provides for a much greater biogenic diversity.

There is a great rejection of the global warming panic in the scientific community (it is unlikely that "big oil" funds have "bribed" so many faculty members of such prestigious universities, despite a smear campaign). Because of the tremendous expense of implementing Kyoto, should we pause in global warming remediation efforts that may border on the alarmist? It is not in any way difficult to find distinguished scientists who reject all calls for panic.

Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming... If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

Re:Inconsistent argumants to debunk debunkers

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

Article 2 states "The great majority of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was put there by the developed world, with the US alone responsible for an estimated quarter of emissions since 1750" right after the first article states "It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources."

Which it is ? How can anybody know what to believe in the face of such huge inconsistencies ?

There is no inconsistency there, at most it was bad phrasing. What article to meant was that "Of all the carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere by humans, the great majority was put there by the developed world, with the US alone responsible for an estimated quarter of emissions since 1750." I admit that it was very badly stated, but anyone with the slightest reading comprehension would understand that they were talking about portions of human emissions. Especially when combined with the second half of the sentence which discussed the United States' percent of emissions.

If you have actual evidence, please bring it up. I will promise (to try) to not nit pick at typos or badly phrased sentences.

The reason Greenland was named Greenland

[benhocking]

Did someone mention Greenland yet again?

Re:The reason Greenland was named Greenland

[CorSci81]

Just to nitpick, this was my area of research in grad school. Heat transport by the Gulf Stream directly isn't the whole story, or even the major part of it. The sea surface temperatures off of England and continental Europe really aren't fantastically warmer than the west coast of North America at the same latitude, but its climate is somewhat warmer on the whole. Most of the warmth in these regions has to do with the jet stream rather than the Gulf Stream. The big storms that the north Atlantic is famous for are what actually transports a lot of heat to Europe. Now to what extent the jet stream is dependent upon the Gulf Stream is a different and much more complicated matter.

Re:Inconsistent argumants to debunk debunkers

[LadyLucky]

It's a dynamic equilibrium, with large sources and sinks of CO2. Adding more from human sources will increase the total amount, even if net production is small compared to natural sources.

Re:Inconsistent argumants to debunk debunkers

[emm-tee]

Article 2 ... states ... "The great majority of the carbon dioxide... was put there by the developed world" ... the first article ... states "It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources."

Which it is ? How can anybody know what to believe in the face of such huge inconsistencies ? Errr.. it's simple really. You're comparing a quantity with the rate of change of a quantity.

The "great majority of the carbon dioxide...[which] was put there by the developed world" is referring to the excess of carbon dioxide which is not able to be absorbed by historic processes which are fully capable of absorbing historic (comparatively very large) emissions of carbon dioxide.

Re:issues with some of the graphs

[Ambitwistor]

Okay, for one, this one is obviously skewed. I modeled this in Excel, and wow, it's way less threatening when you actually show a real scale on the Y axis, as opposed to skewing the graph for shock value. You can't tell how "threatening" a CO2 increase is until you know what baseline to compare it to, no matter what scale you plot it on. CO2 levels are now about 35% higher than average pre-industrial values, which while not huge, is nothing to sneer at either.

Besides, the point is not to make it look "threatening", but to zoom in on the region of interest.

Second. this guy is even worse. Where's the calculated effect of terrestrial water vapor, i.e., the stuff near the ground? Water vapor isn't on that chart because it is a feedback, not a forcing. It's wrapped up in a quantity known as "climate sensitivity", which is the key quantity being debated in the literature.

"Anthropogenic?" Uh, sorry, but contributing less than half a percent to that CO2 value annually doesn't make all that carbon "anthropogenic." In fact, virtually all of the ~35% increase in total CO2 levels is anthropogenic.

I really fail to see how having half the highest CO2 concentrations of the past million years is going to do anything, Why not? Do you dispute that CO2 concentrations have changed the climate in the past?

and especially with the relatively minute contribution Homo sapiens, As noted, homo sapiens has not made a "minute" contribution to CO2 levels.

would be warming the world more than having an atmosphere in the first place. Humans aren't warming the world more than having an atmosphere does. They're still warming the world. What's your point?