Nearly every day, we hear or read in the news about global warming and its dire consequences. Global warming is a polarizing, politically charged topic that often breeds strong emotional responses even among those in the scientific community. In many countries and firms, it has mobilized global efforts in an attempt to lower carbon dioxide emissions. Because this topic is highly controversial, I would like to look at global warming from an objective standpoint.
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) reports that the most respected scientific communities including the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) state that global warming is a real phenomenon and it is linked to burning fossil fuels and deforestation. As further evidence of warming, the EDF reports that sea levels rose 7” in the 20th century after showing little change over the prior two millennia. Figure 1 shows the warming trend. [1]
Figure 1: global temperature departure over the last 160 years.
Three potential causes of warming are posed: sun activity, the Earth’s reflectivity, and greenhouse gasses. The IPCC estimates that the sun has contributed little to global warming since 1750. They further suggest that human generated particulate pollution and deforestation would have had a cooling effect on the planet by increasing solar reflectivity, leaving greenhouse gasses as the cause. Figure 2 shows the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels going back 800,000 years and further shows the upward break in the trend line in recent history due to the burning of fossil fuels. The EDF claims that worldwide temperatures may increase from 2 to 11.5oF in the next century, “devastating our livelihoods and the natural world we cherish.” [2]
Figure 2: Carbon dioxide levels over the past 800,000 years in parts per million.
The EDF reports that damage has already occurred due to global warming. 70,000 square miles of forest has been lost in the Rocky Mountains due to insects. According to the World Health Organization, 150,000 extra deaths from disease spreading insects have occurred due to the warmer temperatures. Further dire consequences are predicted: rising seas, risk of extinction of at least 20% of all species of life including diminishing polar bear and coral reef populations, stronger storms, more diseases, devastating heat waves, and worsening air quality. [3] The New York Times, reporting scientist feedback on an alarming recent increase in open water in the Arctic Ocean, said that they were “…becoming convinced that the system is heading toward a new, more watery state, and that human-caused global warming is playing a significant role.” [4]
As reported by Kerry Sheridan, Richard Muller, who is director of the Berkley Earth Service Temperature Project, went from being a skeptic to a supporter of global warming by confirming the findings of the IPCC. Quoting Muller’s congressional testimony: “In my mind, humans have contributed to climate change. The real issue is how much?” [5] Ben Santer, a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, reported that after considering a host of different factors, “…natural causation alone cannot explain the changes we see. People sometimes incorrectly say, 'You climate scientists never consider alternate hypotheses, alternate plausible explanations…' That is not true…We routinely…try and determine whether they fit the available observations. They do not.” [6]
Global warming skeptics are quick to counter these arguments, saying that they are focusing on a small time scale (800,000 years) as opposed to the overall time scale of the planet. As reported by Matt Patterson in the Washington Examiner: “Six hundred and forty million years ago, the entire globe was covered in ice…while 200 million years ago, the whole planet was warm and ice free even at the poles.” He further reports that work conducted at CERN, Europe’s high-energy physics laboratory, finds tentative evidence that the interaction of cosmic rays and the sun’s magnetic field may contribute most of the observed climate changes. [7] Dr. John Everett, a systems analyst, constructed a web site to provide objective information on global warming and presents the following facts and issues: [8]
· As reported by NOAA, the Earth was much warmer in the time of the dinosaurs, when carbon dioxide levels were 2 – 4 times greater than today.
· The effect of higher carbon dioxide levels on sea life: “The science actually indicates plants, crustaceans, and shelled algae plankton will be more successful…since they (crustaceans) eat algae, which also respond favorably to CO2 increases (and warmer temperatures), it is likely there will be increased food in the sea. With no laboratory or observational evidence of biological disruption, we see no economic disruption of commercial and recreational fisheries, nor harm to marine mammals, sea turtles or any other protected species. Open-minded research is needed to sort it out.”
· As reported by the U. of Illinois, while that Arctic ice was at its 30 year low in 2007, Antarctic ice was at a record high.
· The IPCC reports a temperature increase of 0.8oF (0.4oC) over the next two decades and, based on widely varying models, 1.1 – 7.2oF (0.6-4.0oC) over the next century.
· The “Urban Heat Island Effect,” or the fact that cities are warming as the result of increased urban activity, is considered the key component of observed temperature rise.
· The IPCC also reports that sea levels are increasing by 3.1 mm/yr (0.2”/yr), but Dr. Everett learned that the data was manipulated; the actual rate is 1.6 mm/yr.
· As fossil fuel reserves dwindle, so will the effects of carbon dioxide emissions.
· The IPCC suggests that the oceans will become more acidic by 0.14 – 0.35 pH units; hurricanes, although fewer, will become stronger, and there will be significant changes in precipitation patterns.
· “The Earth's ability to absorb CO2 has apparently been underestimated and the climate models need revision per the 31 December 2009 validation of work by Wolfgang Knorr that shows ‘No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years.’”
He further goes on to say that the recent rise in global temperatures is trivial when compared to the Earth’s natural temperature variations. “…to suggest the rise will accelerate five-fold (IPCC best estimate) this century is incredible.” He further goes on to support the stand of critics that this is a natural rise following the Little Ice Age of 1500-1900, where temperatures were the coldest in 8000 years. [9]In looking at the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming: “The consensus scientists believe their models can replicate reasonably enough the contribution of human-caused greenhouse gases and thus they can be used to estimate future warming. The other scientists believe this is not the case….CO2…pales in its abilities to impact temperature compared to water vapor and solar variability [not just radiation but also magnetic flux (which controls cosmic radiation and cloudiness) and orbital mechanics]. Additional factors that some skeptics believe are not adequately considered are the natural contributions of CO2 and other gases that dwarf the human component and the impact of cosmic radiation on the formation of clouds. Also, it is not clear to some scientists whether CO2 increases lead to warming or whether warming leads to CO2 increases. To many skeptics, the over valuation of CO2 as a causative agent, particularly in light of it having a logarithmic function that decreases impact with the amount of CO2, is an indication of a policy agenda meant to deter the use of fossil fuels, not understand climate change.” [10]
Dr. Everett is actually more concerned about global COOLING due to the potential for mass starvation. “Throughout the history of human life, the Earth's livability has always been better when the climate has been warmer than cooler…Whether it is a fish in the ocean, a shrimp in an aquaculture pond, or a bean on a vine, it will grow faster when it is warmer, all things being equal. Humans will be quick to take advantage of a warmer climate and to adjust if it gets too warm in an area. More crops grow where it is warm or hot than in frozen ground, and CO2 is a primary food of plants. Even now, NASA satellites show that the Earth has become 6% greener as the world has warmed over the past 20 years. [11]
Regardless of the magnitude of climate change, Dr. Everett concludes “We should respond prudently to the threats from climate change. These actions should include things that make sense in their own right and which will be important whether the Earth warms or cools in the near future…If we are concerned about global warming, a guiding principle is to do things that yield a cost savings or are neutral. Overall, we should aim to reduce our cost of goods sold and, at the consumer level, our living expenses, while at the same time ‘cleaning up our act.’” [12]
As we sort through the information coming out on global warming, we need to analyze it objectively and attempt to squelch out the hype, fear tactics, and rhetoric in making our decisions. We should continue to conserve energy and resources because it makes economic and environmental sense, whether it would be for carbon dioxide reduction, pollution reduction, or resource extension. We need to continue to look for alternative energy sources that have environmentally and/or economically positive impact when compared to fossil fuels. It is critical that high level policy decisions as well as personal decisions be based on the facts to maximize the actual positive impact on the Earth and humanity. The most important consideration should be the condition in which we leave our planet behind for our children.
References:
1. http://www.edf.org/climate/global-warming-facts, an Environmental Defense Fund web site.
2. Ibid.
3. See [1].
5. Kerry Sheridan, “Ex Skeptic Tells U.S. Congress Climate Change is Real, http://news.yahoo.com/ex-skeptic-tells-us-congress-climate-change-real-220221850.html
6. Ibid.
7. Matt Patterson, http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/09/new-climate-science-vindicates-global-warming-skeptics
8. Dr. John Everett, http://climatechangefacts.info/9. Ibid.
10. See [8].
11. See [8].
12. See [8].
No comments:
Post a Comment