Carbon Dioxide: I Plead Not-Guilty

in

 graph Temperatures in the last 400,000 years have fluctuated dramatically, by more than 10 degrees (see graph). That is not due to greenhouse anomalies, but to the fact that the Earth is like a spinning top , which oscillates and changes its inclination towards the Sun while orbiting.

This phenomenon was clearly described by Copernicus and firstly understood, like many other things, by Isaac Newton (1687).

There are three different oscillations in temperature. The biggest oscillation, with a period of 100,000 years, causes variations of up to 10 degrees. In addition to that, there are two more periodical variations, one of 41,000 years, the other of 23,000 years. Click on the graph to see more.

These big fluctuations in temperature have always influenced life on Earth. At its coldest, the ice age appeared, and the rain decreased. In the last ice age, 18,000 years ago, archaeological studies show that the Nile and lake Victoria in Africa disappeared.

As more water was trapped in the ice, which covered a good part of the planet, Europe included. In addition, there was less vapour in the sky, therefore less rain and less greenhouse gas effect, and the situation got worse.

In the last 18,000 years the temperatures on Earth have increased, and so have the number of human beings - they had just collapsed during the last ice age. The picture shows that we could "geologically soon" (2-3,000 thousand years) enter a cooling period. And in the history of humanity, cold periods have always been bad, as many archaeological studies have shown.

Temperature and CO2


In the last 400,000 years, temperature and CO2 concentration have gone up and down, like an old couple. They are intricately linked, as Al Gore says in his documentary An Inconvenient Truth. But in a different way to what Gore thinks. Indeed, some scientists think that when temperatures increase, CO2 goes the same way, with a time delay of about 600 years.

Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni and Bruce Deck, in their article Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 around the Last Three Glacial Terminations, for the Science magazine, write that "high-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations."

Some others, think that the huge movements in temperature are known to be caused by anastronomical effect. That means that the 100,000, 41,000 and 23,000 periods in the Earth's temperature oscillations do not originate from greenhouse gases.


There are, then, some points that are hardly mentioned in the news. The environment in the past has been more human-friendly during warm periods than during cold periods. Carbon dioxide may amplify the effect, but warming in the past has originated by other causes than CO2 increase. In addition to that, the molecule of water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas (see the previous article).

Should we then burn as much petrol as we like? Not at all. Why? This should be the issue of the next article.

[1] H. Fisher et al., Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 around the Last Three Glacial Terminations, Science, 12 March 1999.

Graph: scientists took a long sample of ice in some thousands of years old glaciers, and measured the quantity of CO2 dissolved in it. Measuring the different types -isotopes- of Hydrogen they could also guess the temperature. Source: United Nations Environment Programme/GRID-Arenda. Picture published according to the licence.

 

Comments

response

The oscillations you mention instigate the heating/cooling but are not sufficient to explain the full range of temperature change. In the case of a warming phase, it is believed that initial warming is caused by such an oscillation. This warming causes carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to increase (for various reasons, e.g. oceans unable to store as much in solution when warmer), sustaining and amplifying the warming (by means of the greenhouse effect, to which you acknowledge – and is physically demonstrated to be the case -- CO2 is a contributor). So your remaining argument is that water vapour is so much more important than CO2 that it renders the effects of C02 insignificant. Water vapour clearly plays a very large role in the greenhouse effect. However, while CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for many decades, water vapour has a turnover time of days. It is the long-term build-up of CO2 that drives global warming, while the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere responds to this (increasing and reinforcing the warming – a positive feedback). The cooling that occurred in the middle years of the last century was due to the extremely high levels of particulates in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels (and volcanic activity) blocking solar radiation. The introduction of clean air regulations reduced the amounts of particulates, and the warming began again. Sorry if my drawing parallels between your arguments and those of a holocaust denier offended you. But the problem is that too many people have the view that a little warming is no bad thing – more time lying on the beach! This may well be the case in rich countries able to subsidize the adaptation which will be necessary. The fact remains that poorer nations will not be as well able to adapt – whether this means funding water infrastructure in areas where droughts become more common, or constructing appropriate defenses where flooding will become an issue. So ultimately it comes down to how far you value the lives and opportunities of people living in poorer countries, or in the future. When you get into discussions about the capability of people to survive in a climate others (i.e. we) are creating it clearly becomes a moral issue. I do however agree with you on the petrol point.

Re: responses

Just to make it clear: my impression is that poorer coutries are paying already for the climate change, in terms of no access to the fossil fuels they have, for instance.
Yemen, to make on example, sells gas to EU and US. With the money received buys eolic farms to produce "clean energy" (we burn their gas).
Kenya is criticised "by the environmentalist" (so says the Economist) because its development could increase CO2 emission.
India is, again, criticised "by the environmentalist" because Tata will produce a $2,500 car, and that will increase CO2 emission.
Still, in my opinion, developed countries should really decrease consumption of petrol. Access to energy sources has become a great cause of political instability (internal and geopolitical). But it would be fair to give developingcountries the same opportunity we had.
It looks to me that poorer countries should, finally, be free to choose their politics, without "the smartest guys" telling them what they have to do.
Criticising China for its CO2 emission, after having emitted trillion of tons of CO2, does not appear fair to me... but all that is made in the name of global warming.
As Vaclav Klaus wrote on the Financial Times, sometimes seems that Freedom, not climate, is at risk.

Back to top