If you think newspaper headlines are
terrible today, imagine how bad they could easily be in 50 to 100 years. They
might read, “Third Super-Hurricane of Year Strikes Mid-Atlantic,” “Drought
Continues in Nebraska and Iowa,” “30% of Florida’s Land Has Disappeared in Last
30 Years.” They could reflect exactly those happenings if climate change keeps
going as it has been for the last century, and especially in the last 50 years.
A wealth of information is available to inform us regarding this topic. The
responsibility now lies with each of us to form strong opinions and take strong
positions regarding the future of our planet.
A lot of debate centers around the
topic of global warming, partly because it means that a lot of sacrifices will
have to be made. Some have said that the Earth is just going through its normal
cycles of warmer and then colder. Others claim that it’s just increased sunspot
activity and nothing to worry about. It requires effort and research to discern
the truth is about global warming.
“Just a theory” is what some claim. But
that’s misleading. In science, a theory is a set of principles that explain
something. Established theories have been tested and retested by many
scientists in many ways over a long period of time. It’s not the kind of thing
that laboratory experiments can help much with. Richard Wolfson, climatologist,
says “We cannot experiment with Earth’s
climate, but nature can – in the form of volcanic eruptions that inject enough
dust into the atmosphere to affect the global climate.” (21).
Skeptics attempt to cast doubt on
data and conclusions that point to climate change. They have said that the
predictions of continuing climate change are based on flawed models or that
what we’ve seen isn’t the result of human activity. But those who deny climate
change are in the small minority. As Stuart Jordan, Senior Staff Scientist at
NASA points out, ““So how is it that a comparatively tiny community of trained
scientists and a much larger community of nonscientists (unfortunately often
identified as scientists) are able to persistently argue against the
near-consensus, stating--incorrectly--that there's a substantial scientific
controversy over the main issues, often dredging up long-discredited scientific
arguments against climate science, and most recently
attacking individual scientists and even science itself with arguments that
reveal a pathetic misunderstanding of how it actually works?” (17).
One of the most prominent attacks
came from John Coleman who gained fame as the original meteorologist for ABC’s Good Morning America during the 1960’s
and early 1970’s. He then went on to found The
Weather Channel. In 2007 he penned a scathing blog declaring that “Global
Warming is the biggest hoax in history.” (Colman) He was immediately given opportunities
to present his opinions on The Glen Beck
Show and with Rush Limbaugh. But he had no facts to back up his remarks,
only a feeling that all of the scientists claiming to have data were merely trying
to get funding and were being helped by their fellow cronies. He spoke
belittlingly of meteorologists with Ph.D.s pushing this false science. The
important issue is that climatologists, not meteorologists, are the scientists
espousing Global Warming. A meteorologist opinion about climate change would be
no more valid than a climatologist prediction of next week’s weather. The two
fields are vastly different. The American Meteorological Society in 2007 did
state their position that they believe global warming is occurring and that
man’s activities are exacerbating the change. AMS Executive Director Keith Seitter recently
said that all evidence since 2007 has only strengthened that position.
But Judith Curry, professor at the School of Earth and
Atmospheric Sciences said to a congressional subcommittee, "Yes, there's a
lot of crankology out there," Curry says. "But not all of it is. If
only 1 percent of it or 10 percent of what the skeptics say is right, that is
time well spent because we have just been too encumbered by groupthink."
(Lemonick 80) She believes that we can’t
just dismiss all of their objections because some of what they say seems
stupid. But only a very small minority of scientists remain skeptical. Dr.
Chadwick Tolman emphatically stressed that concurrence is nearly unanimous
among serious climatologists. They have seen that atmospheric and oceanic
temperatures are rising, ice and snow packs are receding, and sea levels are
higher. (Tolman)
In Wikipedia, the article on global warming states, “Evidence for warming of the
climate system includes observed increases in global average air and ocean
temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea
level.” (Global Warming). The
air and water temperatures have only become available as more and more of the
Earth’s surface is measured. Land based weather stations give us surface air
temperatures, marine air temperatures come from stations anchored in the ocean
and tell us temperatures just above the ocean’s surface while ships measure the
temperature of the ocean waters. Then corrections are made for things like
instrument placement and urban heat island effect where buildings and concrete
affect readings.
A lot of this data has only been
around for about 150 years and has gotten better as more measuring places are established.
This improved data indicates that temperatures stayed pretty much the same from
1850 through 1920. Then they moved up about 0.4 °C by the 30’s, took a tiny dip
in the 50’s and then went up another 0.4 °C by 2010. That doesn’t sound alarms
for a lot of people, but the effect of that less than 1 °C change is
significant and will be discussed later.
Other longer term measurements come
from different places. Boreholes into the Earth’s crust, such as those yielded every
time a drill penetrates for oil, show an evened-out picture of what surface
temperatures have been over the recent centuries as the surface heat is
absorbed by the ground. Measurements of upper ocean waters also tell what the
surface temperatures were in the past. We obtain data from the upper atmosphere
by sending weather balloons and from special satellites. Changes in the
cryosphere, the ice covering the Earth’s surface, like mountain glaciers,
Arctic ice caps, and ice over land in Greenland and the Antarctic can tell us a
lot about climate changes. Weather measurements like hurricane frequency and
strength, patterns of drought and floods, and the narrowing difference between
daytime and nighttime temperatures give us data. Even the changes in plant and
animal ranges give more evidence of what’s happening with our climate.
Scientists say that the “Greenhouse
Effect” is responsible for the warming. In a greenhouse or a car on a sunny
day, the light from the sun comes in as radiation, is absorbed inside and then
can’t escape because it is trapped. Something similar happens on the Earth when
sunlight turns to heat as it strikes the surface, but if less can escape the
atmosphere, the Earth begins to warm. Water vapor and certain gases have become
more concentrated in the atmosphere and have begun to act like a blanket. They
can absorb a lot of heat. That means that the layer of air beyond them doesn’t
get as much heat. That layer gets colder and less heat is lost to surrounding
space and more heat stays on the Earth. The planet Venus has had something
similar happening to it and its surface temperature is about 900 °F mainly
because its atmosphere is 96% carbon dioxide.
The water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2)
that are the main causations of
Earth’s greenhouse effect don’t stay in the atmosphere forever. They cycle
through the atmosphere, oceans, soil, rocks, and living things. A water
molecule stays in the atmosphere only for about a week and CO2
for about 5 years. Plants take CO2
from the atmosphere to make their
energy during photosynthesis. Plants and animals use this energy, taking in
oxygen and putting out CO2
to the atmosphere. A tiny bit of carbon gets stored as fossil fuels. CO2
from human use of the fossil fuels
is only a small part of the global carbon cycle, but it builds up in the system
and raises the concentration in the atmosphere. It will take hundreds or
thousands of years before this extra carbon leaves the system.
The Earth gets a pretty steady
amount of energy from the sun. When the system is stable, the same amount is
given off that is received and the temperature stays pretty much the same. As
long as the extra CO2 gets added, there will be less energy given off and
temperatures will rise. This causes more water vapor to be in the atmosphere
which holds more of the heat, too. Until we stop adding CO2 , our troposphere will continue getting warmer. It may be
centuries before we can even undo the damage we’ve already done.
For the past fifty years, we’ve had instruments to
actually measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We also have a way to find out how much
has been in the atmosphere for the past several thousand years. We’ve taken
samples of ice from the South Pole and checked air bubbles that were formed
back through the ages. We know that the levels of CO2 we have now are far greater than ever before. That matches
up with what we know of human activity. For the most part humans have only
burned fossil fuels to keep warm. With the industrial revolution, it provided
the energy for manufacturing and transportation. The need has grown so much
that we have found new ways to get the fossil fuels out of the ground in
greater and greater amounts. But we pay the price because half of what we burn
is added to the amount in the atmosphere. We know it comes from humans partly
because we can get great estimates from what we know is getting burned, and
also because the level of carbon 14 is higher which tells us it’s been released
recently. From the Pew Center’s web site, this statement is their lead
statement, “The
scientific community has reached a strong consensus regarding the science of
global climate change. The world is undoubtedly warming, and the warming is
largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases
from human activities.” (Global Warming Basics)
Humans are also putting other
greenhouse gases into the air. Methane comes from farming, mining,
hydroelectric dams, landfills, and sewage treatment plants. Aerosols also affect
the climate, but some actually go up and reflect sunlight and have a cooling
effect. Land uses, such as deforestation, have a big impact partly because the
trees taken down won’t be removing CO2 and also because the exposed land absorbs more heat than
the trees. Some skeptics have claimed that scientists have yet to firmly
establish a correlation and causal scenario between CO2 emissions and global warming. But a study just released has
established exactly that evidence:
These observations, together with
transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an
antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes
superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations
is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most
recent ice age. (Shakun, Clark, Feng He, Marcott, Mix,
Zhengyu Liu, Otto-Bliesner, Schmittner, Bard, 49)
Roughly
translated, this report has irrefutable evidence that an increase in CO2
over a 6000 year period was strongly
correlated with a rise in global temperatures of about 6 degrees F and ended
the last ice age. They found that an initial rise in CO2 then a plateau and another rise matched almost precisely a
rise in global temperature with a slight lag time. The total rise in CO2 is about the same amount that has been inserted into the
atmosphere in just the last century by man’s use of fossil fuels.
Scientists are trying to figure out
what’s going to happen to the climate, and one of the tools they use is
modeling. They have simple models which use the Earth as a single place with a
certain amount of energy coming in and out based on variables like greenhouse
gas concentrations, and then they calculate temperature rise. Really complex models
break up the Earth’s surface and atmosphere into cells and work to see how
changing variables affects them and how the cells affect each other. The most
complex are called global climate models and they account for continents,
oceans and ocean depths and water and air circulations. But even the best
models have sides that are at least 100 miles long. Until we have the computing
power to get to smaller cells, we can only be so sure of the predictions coming
from them.
But we can be pretty sure of some of
the things they tell us about the impact of climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations to
get information regarding the potential for climate change. It uses thousands
of climate scientists to deliver data and conclusions about what is happening
and how best to deal with it. In 1990 their first assessment report came in
saying that there was no doubt that manmade additions of CO2 to the atmosphere
was raising greenhouse gas levels and had already created a .3 to .6 degree C
rise in global temperature over the last 100 years. Further, they state,
unequivocally, that in a business as usual (BAU) scenario, global temperatures
will continue to warm at the rate of .3 degrees C every decade. It indicates
that there has been no lack of consensus among thousands of leading
climatologists in the global community for the past 20 years, at least. (IPCC) It’s very likely we’ll see intense heat waves like
the one in Europe in 2003 that killed tens of thousands. There will be greater
flooding from intense rainfall, longer and more severe droughts, and stronger,
more frequent tropical storms. Sea levels will rise as ice melts, and because
there is a lag time, the sea will continue to rise for several hundred years
even after warming is controlled. There may be consequences from “tipping
point” surprises. An example of this would be if melted ice makes the salt
concentration of the oceans less, currents may change causing other drastic
climate changes. A tipping point with the most dire consequences is located
just under our oceans’ waters. A layer of methane hydrate lies inert in cold Arctic
regions and on the ocean floor. It is held inert by a combination of cold
temperatures and high pressure. About 56 million years ago, warming began
releasing this methane which, through a positive feedback mechanism, caused
more warming and more release until there was a 6 degree C rise in global temperature.
There were mass extinctions in the ocean. It is estimated that there is
currently a much greater amount of this methane hydrate lying inert. If it is
triggered, the results will be catastrophic, with extinction of the human race
as a possibility. (Tolman)
To lessen climate change, world
leaders have at least gone to conferences and agreed to try to make changes. The
Kyoto protocol had major energy producing countries agree to lower greenhouse
gas emissions over time. The most recent conference was in Copenhagen in 2009. But
sacrifices will have to be made and leaders have a tough time doing that. One
environmental writer puts it this way, “Earth-system scientists may have shown
us how the physical planetary system functions as a single entity, but we are a
long way short of displaying even the minimum attributes necessary for
effective earth system governance.7” (Hulme 19). But until people
accept how bad things are and push their leaders, not enough progress will be
made. A Newsweek article recently
mentioned that too much attention may actually hurt public commitment. “The
battle between "alarmists" and "deniers" has taken a huge
toll, not just on the reputations of Jones and the other
"climategate" scientists. It has also damaged the credibility of climate
science itself, and threatened more than a decade of diplomatic efforts to
engineer a global reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions.”( Guterl, Stone, and Simons
35).
Some have even asked the question of
whether it might be the right thing to do to pass this problem on to future
generations. “Climate change
raises a number of ethical questions. How should we--all of us living
today--evaluate the well-being of future generations, given that they are
likely to have more material goods than we do? Many people, some living, others
yet to be born, will die from the effects of climate change.
Is each death equally bad? How bad are those deaths collectively? Many people
will die before they bear children, so climate change will
prevent the existence of children who would otherwise have been born. Is their
nonexistence a bad thing? By emitting greenhouse gases, are the rich
perpetrating an injustice on the world's poor? How should we respond to the
small but real chance that climate change
could lead to worldwide catastrophe?” (Broome 101)
There are some things being done politically
that show awareness of the problem. In North Carolina a bill has been
introduced to help adapt to climate change. “A bill introduced in North
Carolina, called the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy Act, is
aimed at ‘helping policymakers translate what we know about climate change into what
we can do about climate change," says Stein, the bill's
sponsor. "Threats to our economy and way of life," he says,
"demand that we explore adaptation strategies.’” (Andersen 41). But it
will take action from a lot of different directions to handle climate change. “The
urgency of climate change calls for a scientific,
technological, and political revolution in the next 50 years and beyond.” (Boyd
750)
Some ways we can act include moving
away from carbon based fuels and toward nuclear and renewable energy sources. Wind,
solar and hydroelectricity can be more greatly used. But hydro means dams and
land use issues. Solar has a lot of potential but right now, energy produced by
solar and wind is more expensive. Geothermal and tidal energy are localized and
sometimes more expensive. Nuclear power has the problem of dangerous wastes
that last for thousands of years. Decisions along these lines are really tough.
There are some possible solutions to
the problems of climate change. Globally sponsored technological advances could
make a huge difference over the long run. One particularly promising technology
is nuclear fusion. When Stephen Hawking, one of today’s most respected
physicists, was asked the question, “What scientific discovery or advance would
you like to see in your lifetime?” he replied, “I would like nuclear fusion to
become a practical power source. It would provide an inexhaustible supply of
energy, without pollution or global warming.” (Zanzi 8). Many countries are
participating now in building an experimental fusion reactor in Europe that
hopes to produce 5 times as much power as it uses. They hope it will be
operational in 2018. They advances will then be put into a demonstration
reactor that they hope will be able to produce 25 times the power consumed at
commercially viable quantities. They don’t think it will be in operation until
2033. But if that happens and plants can be built throughout the world, cheap
energy from this will replace carbon based energy and a lot of the problem
would be taken care of. Another technology is carbon capture. Carbon is removed
either before the fuel is burned or while it’s burning. The technology is called
carbon capture and sequestration. Like a
lot of the solutions, it’s expensive to develop and use.
Cutting back on energy use is
another direction we really need to take on a global level. As the problem
becomes worse, the choices will be more undeniable. Energy conservation will
look a lot better. Public opinion and obvious need will make countries take
hard steps.
Two facts are unquestionable. Carbon
is building up in the atmosphere and human activity is putting it there. Climate
models are making predictions based on those facts which all show gradual
warming over the next hundred years. Scientists are saying that because of that
warming, certain consequences will result in our weather and our world. Maybe
the models are leaving something out. Maybe they’re wrong. Maybe there’s
something we’re missing that will keep us all comfortable and happy in the face
of mounting evidence to the contrary. It would probably be wise not to count on
that. There are remedies, but they have costs. What we do have is options. What
we don’t have is a whole lot of time to start taking action.
Works Cited
Andersen, Glen, State
Legislatures, Jul/Aug2010, Vol. 36 Issue 7, p40-43, 4p
Boyd, Emily, Bioscience,
Oct2010, Vol. 60 Issue 9, p742-750, 9p
Broome, John, Scientific
American, Jun2008, Vol. 298 Issue 6, p96-102, 6p
Coleman, John. The Blogosphere.
Icecap, 11 Nov 2007, Web. 31 Mar 2012.
<http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/>
“Global Warming”, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 3 Mar 2012, Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc., 3 Mar 2012 < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming>
“Global Warming Basics”, Pew
Center, Global Climate Change, 23
Feb 2012. <http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics>,
Gohen, Shasta, Global
Warming, Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2005, Print.
Guterl, Fred, Stone, Daniel, Simons, Craig, Newsweek, 3/1/2010, Vol. 155 Issue 9,
p34-37, 4p
Hulme, Mike, Environment,
May/Jun2010, Vol. 52 Issue 3, p15-19, 5p
IPCC, First
Assessment Report Overview Chapter, International
Panel on Climate Change, n.d., Web. 20 Feb 2012.
<http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/1992%20IPCC%20Supplement/IPCC_1990_and_1992_Assessments/English/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_overview.pdf
>
Jordan, Stuart, Humanist, Jul/Aug2010, Vol. 70 Issue 4,
p16-21, 6p
Lemonick, Michael D. Scientific American, Nov2010, Vol. 303
Issue 5, p78-83, 6 p.
Shakun,
Jeremy, Clark, Peter U., Feng He, Marcott, Shaun A., Mix, Alan C., Zhengyu Liu,
Otto-Bliesner, Bette, Schmittner, Adreas, Bard, Edouard. “Global Warming Preceded by
Increasing Carbon Dioxide Concentrations During the Last Deglaciation.” Nature. 5 Apr 2012: 49 – 54. Print.
Tolman,
Dr. Chadwick. “Thoughts on an Impending Global Climate Change”, Personal
Interview. February 8, 2012.
Wolfson, Richard, Energy, Environment and Climate, New
York: W.W. Norton, 2007, Print
Zanzi, Luca, Time,
November 15, 2010, Vol. 176 , No. 20 10, p8
No comments:
Post a Comment