Challenges the conventional wisdom that global warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, and discusses other possible causes. It also explores why low carbon dioxide concentrations are often blamed for warming, and the possibility of natural factors such as solar activity. In doing so, it reflexively examines the discrepancies between popular perceptions of warming and scientific research, and urges caution.
“Rapid global warming is alarming. It changes our way of life, affects vegetation and ecosystems. Infectious diseases and other diseases are also unprecedented. All sectors of society need to deal with these changes properly,” reads an excerpt from a recent newspaper article. From a young age, we have been taught that the earth is warming due to greenhouse gases emitted by humans, and that we need to do something about it. The newspaper article above also points out that human behavior is the cause of warming and calls for action. But is human impact the only problem? Environmental issues are complex and multilayered, and it is difficult to attribute warming to a single cause.
Every time I come across an article like this, I ask myself, “Can a warming of 0.6°C per year really be caused by greenhouse gas emissions from human activities alone? After watching the Channel 4 program “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and reading the book “Don’t Be Fooled by Global Warming,” I realized that global warming is not just a problem caused by human actions as the media conveys, and that carbon dioxide may not be the main culprit. In the following, I’ll take a look at some of the gaps in our knowledge and facts about global warming and where they might be problematic.
First of all, greenhouse gases are not the main cause of global warming. We’ve all heard scientists blame carbon dioxide for global warming in the popular media. Their logic is that when the Earth receives energy from space, especially the sun, and tries to use some of it and export the rest out of the Earth, greenhouse gases trap some of that energy, causing global warming. These greenhouse gases include not only carbon dioxide, but also freon, methane, and other gases that have a greater greenhouse effect per molecule than carbon dioxide, but the argument is that carbon dioxide is the main culprit because it is in much larger quantities than the others.
However, in order for this shielding effect to occur, the concentration of carbon dioxide would need to be at least 15%, and the actual concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only about 0.054%. Therefore, the proportion of gases in the atmosphere that have a greenhouse effect is very low, and carbon dioxide is not expected to have a significant impact on global warming. As an example of the other side of this question, we should also look at natural factors. The Earth has gone through several cooling and warming periods over the past few hundred million years, and these are likely the result of a combination of factors, including volcanic eruptions, changes in ocean currents, and changes in the Sun’s cyclical activity.
The discrepancy between the timing of rising carbon dioxide emissions and rising global temperatures also suggests that carbon dioxide is not the main culprit. If we look at the distribution of global temperature, it starts to rise in the late 19th century, stops rising in the 1940s, and then actually decreases for about 30 years before starting to rise again in 1975. This is because the 1940s through the post-World War II “post-war economic boom” was a period of high greenhouse gas emissions, but the temperature actually decreased, indicating that carbon dioxide did not have a significant impact. Furthermore, the rise in temperatures starting in the late 19th century predates the invention of the automobile and airplane, thus contradicting the claim that carbon dioxide is the main cause of global warming.
Other skeptics argue that carbon dioxide emissions did not cause global warming, but rather that global warming caused carbon dioxide emissions to increase. By analyzing glaciers from Antarctic stations, they found that changes in global temperatures and changes in carbon dioxide levels over the past few hundred thousand years have exactly coincided, meaning that the Earth was warmer when there was more carbon dioxide. However, further analysis showed that the rise in global temperature preceded the rise in carbon dioxide by about 600 years, meaning that the rise in temperature was followed by a rise in carbon dioxide as the ocean surface heated up and released the carbon dioxide that had been locked in it. Based on this evidence, it’s hard to say that greenhouse gases are the main cause of global warming.
But even if carbon dioxide isn’t the main culprit, the planet’s temperature has been steadily rising over the past few years. So how can this be explained?
One of the most popular theories is that periodic changes in the sun’s activity cause periodic warm periods on Earth. In fact, the sun goes through peaks and valleys of activity in about a 12-year cycle, punctuated by sunspot flares. It has already been demonstrated that global temperatures change during sunspot peaks and troughs in the 12-year cycle, and there is a compelling argument that the sun’s activity over a period of 1500 years is likely to affect global temperatures. It would be more plausible to theorize that global warming is caused by a small concentration of human-emitted carbon dioxide in the vastness of the Earth’s atmosphere than by the activity of a more massive sun.
But of course, the theory that the warming is caused by solar activity needs more evidence. On the other hand, the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic glaciers and the increasing frequency of natural disasters around the globe argue that efforts to protect the environment and transition to sustainable energy are essential. While there is a view that human activity may have a limited impact on warming, we need to be prepared to respond to climate change.
So why have we come to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is the main cause of global warming, even though there is no hard evidence that it is? In 1988, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) established an intergovernmental panel called the IPCC to identify the dangers of rising global temperatures and take action. Then, in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was established to reduce greenhouse gas emissions among countries to set and enforce targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Throughout its reports, the IPCC has emphasized the seriousness of global warming and the need for global action to address it.
However, there are many interests and political connections behind the organization, and we shouldn’t blindly believe its warnings about global warming. For example, scientists have included experimental results in IPCC reports that were based on inaccurate data in order to get funding for their research. The IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for raising awareness of climate change by claiming in its report that “glaciers in the Himalayas are very likely to disappear by 2035,” but in 2010, this claim was proven wrong. The year 2035, when the Himalayan glaciers were expected to melt, was actually a transposition of the 2350 number from a Russian research paper, and the area of the Himalayan glaciers was also found to be greatly inflated. The statement that “about 55% of the Dutch national territory is below sea level” was also an exaggeration, with the Dutch government stating that only about 26% is actually below sea level.
Finally, the exact reason for global warming, whether it is a man-made catastrophe or a cyclical phenomenon caused by nature, is still a matter of debate. Rather than blindly believing in one or the other, we should be critical of the evidence supporting the two theories, the interests behind them, and the purpose for which they are presented. Also, as we can see from the example of global warming, we should reflect on whether we have been uncritically conforming to issues in our society that we have taken for granted due to the influence of the media.
