Abstract:
In the broadest of terms, "Global Warming" refers to the gradual warming of earth's climate. It makes up the brunt of most environmental movements that are springing up en masse from today's youth. It correlates with the industrialization of many countries; however, because correlation does not imply causation, global warming serves as the basis for many arguments. A plethora of biased articles with lofty propositions circulate the media, which does not generate an accurate explanation of patterns in our climate. One must dig deep in order to discover the facts about this environmental problem and to offer a rational course of action.
Introduction:
Since the early 1880s, the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change and knowledge about the greenhouse effect has existed. Unfortunately, there was a dearth of scientific backing and the public at large generally ignored the idea. It wasn't until the late 1970s that recognized politicians such as Al Gore and Margaret Thatcher turned the topic into a major public policy issue. After its introduction, the natural human fear of death and large-scale change fueled media attention. As a result, many realized that the blades of various opposing self-interests mar the subject, causing heated debate whenever the topic arises. It must be pointed out, however, that the term is misleading: not only is the word charged with a negative connotation, but also is quite ambiguous. The increase of global temperatures can occur naturally due to extreme weather conditions such as volcanoes or the variation of earth's orbit and tilt around the sun (also known as orbital forcing). Synthetic climate alteration is a more accurate term to describe the common meaning of "Global Warming".
The largest area of argumentation relates to the nature of global warming. As mentioned before, orbital forcing and other natural phenomenon constantly modify climate. While very few question the International Panel on Climate Change's data that shows a .74 ± .18° Celsius increase in average global temperatures, many wonder whether or not these changes are induced by human activities. The three major human impacts on climate change are the increase of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, the change in land structure due to human adaptations to the environment (deforestation), and the increase of aerosols. The greenhouse gases confine solar heat and allows for life to thrive on earth. Dramatic increases in these gases, however, will cause a substantial rise in temperature because less heat escapes the planet. Venus is the quintessential example: it has a thick atmosphere consisting of mostly carbon dioxide, which makes it hotter than Mercury. Because trees convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, they can help curb its negative effects. Unfortunately, deforestation is the result of agriculture and human development. It is difficult (if not impossible) to argue that we are not creating excess levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to industrialization; however, the significance of such pollution is widely disputed.
The potential effects of global warming are another problem and act as a source of controversy for many scientists and politicians. Global climate change will have an impact on every sentient being on the planet. Common sense dictates that an increase in global climate would melt the glaciers at either of the two poles. As a result, flooding would occur which may ruin coastal cities. The rise of temperatures and sea levels will also have other, unforeseen impacts. Scientists predict an increase in extreme weather. The possible transformation of weather patterns is detrimental for humans. Some assert that global warming will hasten species extinctions. The extent and delay time of these controversial impacts are debated. Some believe that the world is going to hell in a hand basket while others convince themselves that global warming will not have any severe impacts on our lifestyles.
The International Panel on Climate Change is the largest and most influential organization dealing with Global Warming. Contrary to popular belief, the IPCC does not conduct its own scientific research. Instead, the panel assesses scientific data, potential impacts, and possible solutions. With the data they receive from thousands of respected scientists around the world, the IPCC publishes assessment reports every five years. Reviewing these reports is key to understanding the current scientific research in this area.
Body:
There is strong scientific evidence showing an increase in greenhouse gases. According to the IPCC, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from 280ppm (parts per million) prior to industrialization to 379ppm in 2005. By studying ice cores, we have determined that the range of carbon dioxide concentrations for the past 650,000 years lies between 180ppm and 300ppm. Our current carbon dioxide levels have exceeded natural levels by about 79ppm. Methane, another greenhouse gas, has globally increased from 715ppb (parts per billion) to 1732ppb after the process of industrialization. In 2005, the global concentration of methane was recorded as 1774. To put the numbers in perspective, the natural range of methane concentration over 650,000 was 320 to 790ppb. Like carbon dioxide, the natural range of methane is determined from ice cores and is much lower than it is today. Nitrous oxide has also increased primarily due to agriculture. For the past 10,000 years, concentrations have been at a constant- around 250ppb. With the onset of the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution, nitrous oxide levels have risen to about 319ppb. While there is an obvious increase in greenhouse gas concentration, the statistics are worthless without a conclusion on how they are affecting the climate.
Net irradiance is the difference between incoming radiation energy and outgoing radiation energy in an atmosphere. It is measured in watts per square meter. Radiative forcing, or the change in net irradiance, is one variable that can be used to establish the effects of various changes in the atmosphere. The increase in the three gases mentioned above have led to a positive radiative forcing of 2.3 ± .23 (since 1750). Also, scientists are 90% confident that the true value of increases due to human activity is between +. 6 and +. 24. Because all the number previously mentioned is not exactly accurate (they have standard errors), direct observations must also be considered.
Direct observations have shown increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, extensive melting of glaciers and snow, and mounting sea levels. Since 1850, average near surface air temperature has been instrumentally recorded. In terms of average air temperatures over land and sea, the eleven years between 1995 and 2006 rank in the top twelve hottest years since 1850. From 1906 to 2005, global temperatures have increased .74° Celsius with a standard error of .18° Celsius. Over the last 50 years, temperatures have increased .1° Celsius to .16° Celsius per decade. The rate is almost twice as fast as that for the past 100 years. Even in the upper parts of the atmosphere, weather balloons have recorded temperatures that show trends similar to those found on the surface. The increasing temperatures have also caused a loss of snow cover in both hemispheres. It has melted glaciers from the Antarctic region and Greenland. Both areas have experienced net mass loss in recent years: the rate of melting glaciers has surpassed the rate of snow accumulation. Satellite data shows that since 1978, the average arctic ice extension has diminished by 2.7% ± .6 per decade. Another observation that supports synthetic climate alteration is the rise of sea levels, which is often attributed to warmer temperatures (oceans absorb more heat and therefore, swell) and the liquefaction of glaciers. Global average sea levels have risen from 1961 to 2003 at a rate of 1.8 ± .5 mm per year. In the years from 1993 to 2003, however, sea levels grew at a much higher rate: 3.1 ± .7 mm per year. Given all the scientific evidence, it is fairly obvious that some of the numbers are artificially high. We are 90% confident that these changes are not caused by nature alone. The chart attached comes directly from the IPCC's Working Group I report and summarizes worldwide temperature changes over the past 100 years.
With much scientific backing, anthropogenic climate change is very likely. However, discussion of the long-term effects of global warming treads into uncertain waters. The increasing temperatures will ruin the crop cycle in many areas. In Africa, for example, warmer temperatures and lack of precipitation has reduced the length of the growing season. Crop productivity is projected to increase for higher latitudes and decrease for lower latitudes. In areas like Sub-Sahara Africa, where destitution is rampant, the failure of crops does not bode well for the hunger stricken wretches. Also, temperatures of the surface layer of permafrost have increased around 3° Celsius since 1980, which will cause the permafrost to melt; therefore, transportation utilities such as roads, railways, and pipelines in hyperborean sectors will require constant and costly maintenance due to buckling. Frozen peat bogs, such as the one million square kilometer bog found in Siberia, also pose a threat to humanity. They are ticking time bombs brimming with trapped methane. As temperatures increase, they begin to melt and release large amounts of methane in the air. Scientists predict that the peat bog in Siberia could potentially release 70 billion tons of methane over the next several decades. A dramatic increase in methane could cause irreversible damage to the environment. Temperature is also a major factor in a hurricane's power. Increasing temperatures can be linked to the fact that since 1970, the number of category 4 - 5 storms has nearly doubled. Global warming may lead to more intense hurricanes in the future, which will lead to catastrophes similar to Hurricane Katrina. Flooding from swollen sea levels is another major concern, especially for low-lying countries and islands. A rise in sea level could possibly wipe out most of the land in these areas. Coastal cities are also in danger because rising sea levels may eventually flood its streets and render it inhabitable. Short-term damages include more severe storm-surge flooding and increased coastal erosion. Storm-surges are a serious problem in coastal areas and cause lots of destruction and loss of human life. Global warming also has negative economic impacts, because adaptation to and protection from these new changes would be very expensive. Humans are detrimentally affected by global warming, but its impact on ecosystems is much worse.
The change in worldwide climate will lead to the extinction of many species. Animals that rely on cold weather conditions are at immediate risk. Polar bears, penguins, gyrfalcons and snowy owls all face extinction. Warmer temperatures will ruin the lifestyles of many species by increasing their metabolism and therefore decreasing their body size while increasing food consumption. Consequently, their risk of predation is elevated. Studies done on rainbow trout prove that mortalities of populations can be climate-induced. Other fish, such as Salmon and Cutthroat Trout, have adapted to cold-water conditions and depend on it for survival. Retreating glaciers causes reduced glacial runoff, which leads to insufficient stream flow that threatens the existence of these species. Rising temperatures can also create favorable environments for tropical diseases such as dengue fever and malaria. Risks of forest fire can increase because warmer temperatures will cause infestations of insects such as the pine beetle. These insects thrived due to the lack of severe winters in British Columbia and are responsible for killing more than 50% of pines in that region. The death of these trees will greatly intensify any forest fires in the area. Despite the terrestrial effects of global warming, the oceanic environments cause the most concern. Earth's oceans soak up the majority of carbon dioxide emissions from living organisms. The carbon dioxide, however, turns into a weak carbonic acid in ocean waters that will lower pH levels. An increase in greenhouse gas from the industrial revolution has already lowered the average pH of seawater by .1. Ocean acidification could become a major problem since current projections claim that the pH will fall another .5 by 2100. A more acidic ocean will kill off precious coral reefs and organisms with calcium carbonate shells. These organisms span the length of the food chain, and their disappearance would offset the entire ecosystem. Large scale changes such as the breakdown of thermohaline circulation and an ocean anoxic event (the complete depletion of oxygen in all areas of the ocean except near-surface waters) have also been proposed, but there is little evidence of this.
Conclusion:
It is fairly obvious that global warming forges a great obstacle for mankind. How, then, do we overcome this challenge? Politicians will endlessly bicker over solutions that benefit those who they represent while hardcore interest groups will strive for solutions that completely remove humans from the equation. Laws, such as the Kyoto Protocol, may get passed with the lofty and seemingly wonderful intention of reducing greenhouse gases. It is quite difficult to meet objectives, however, when the world's leading nation in spewing greenhouse gases doesn't feel like participating. Legislation that can reverse the effects of global warming requires the contribution and approval of every human on the face of this planet. It requires each person to give up luxuries and conveniences in the name of an entity unknown to them (most men, trapped in an age of urbanization, have lost their tune with nature). It requires that developing countries throw down their chances of gaining a seat as a world power and resuming their deprived existence. In a time when most look out only for their own self-interests, such requirements are impossible to meet. Sure, there are people who attempt to save the environment and contribute as little as humanly possible to the toxins that poison our planet, but how can such insignificant actions affect global climate? Changing worldwide climate requires the effort of every person, something that cannot be achieved with petty legislation. There are two ways in which such a feat could be accomplished. One would be to establish a worldwide totalitarian government that forces each citizen to be environmentally proactive. A political environment such as the one found in 1984 is ideal. When man has been stripped bare of his rights, he cannot fight for self-interests; he can only obey. Founding such a society however, can be difficult; great men in the past have tried and all of them failed: Adolf Hitler Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, etc. Fortunately, a second option exists, but it relies mostly on luck. It requires a large-scale catastrophe or a series of unfortunate events that affect every corner of the earth. The incident(s) must kill off or maim at least one member of every family in order to have a lasting effect- only then will the world collaborate as one to make peace with Mother Nature. Both of these solutions are undesirable and don't meet the basic moral standards embedded in all humans. In this respect, Al Gore was correct in calling global warming an "inconvenient truth". Therefore, the solution to global warming will not be derived politically or socially. Instead, it comes from the same entity that helped create it: technology. Currently, we hold our technology to three standards: speed, size, and convenience. With the addition of a fourth standard, the green standard, we will reduce global warming without giving up too much of our own pleasures. For example, we buy a specific laptop today because it is faster, smaller, and has more features than its competition. Tomorrow, we will buy a laptop because it is smaller, faster, easier to use, and greener than its competition. The introduction of "green" as a fourth standard will be easy because "saving the environment" is just motive that everyone will agree with (as long as it doesn't require too much personal sacrifice). The green standard is already occurring everywhere as companies are taking advantage of the youth's environmental movement. They hail their products as environmentally friendly, with the hopes of boosting sales. Deer Park, for instance, now manufactures their bottles with a slim design, saving 30% of the plastic per bottle. Automobile companies join the trend as they show off cars with high gas mileage that consume less natural resources and help save the environment. Technology will also help us overcome the problem of global warming by helping us adapt to the changes in the world around us. While politicians and interest groups squabble over trivial matters searching for a forever-elusive solution, technology will let us live comfortably in a world forever scarred by global warming. Our technology evolves with our environment. It will be the divine intervention that saves mankind from being dragged into the depths of hell.
Log in to comment