Written by
A fellow RantRaver and I have dueled, in the verbal sense, on the topic of global warming. The Cypress Gang has been decidedly in the skeptic camp, and I am decidedly in the "it's inevitable" camp. I appreciate the skepticism. I think it is healthy. I am a relatively unabashed skeptic most of the time. I tend to need proof of things. So, I thank Cypress Gang for the opportunity to evaluate and comment on sources he has found which he sees as supporting a case that humans are not the cause of global warming. I hope by evaluating each of these sources he has found, reading them thoroughly, and commenting, I can shed some light on this complex issue.
For those new to the thread, I am a BA in Bio/Chem, MA in Technology, and am a 20 year veteran of teaching bio and chem at the high school level and freshman college level.
US Government Sites:
_________________________________________________________
EPA (U.S. site) http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
_________________________________________________________
Here's a reprint of a few paragraphs from the EPA site:
"For over the past 200 years, the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, and deforestation have caused the concentrations of heat-trapping 'greenhouse gases' to increase significantly in our atmosphere. These gases prevent heat from escaping to space, somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse. Greenhouse gases are necessary to life as we know it, because they keep the planet's surface warmer than it otherwise would be. But, as the concentrations of these gases continue to increase in the atmosphere, the Earth's temperature is climbing above past levels. According to NOAA and NASA data, the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4ºF in the last 100 years. The eight warmest years on record (since 1850) have all occurred since 1998, with the warmest year being 2005. Most of the warming in recent decades is very likely the result of human activities. Other aspects of the climate are also changing such as rainfall patterns, snow and ice cover, and sea level. If greenhouse gases continue to increase, climate models predict that the average temperature at the Earth's surface could increase from 3.2 to 7.2ºF above 1990 levels by the end of this century. Scientists are certain that human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere, and that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will change the planet's climate. But they are not sure by how much it will change, at what rate it will change, or what the exact effects will be."
source: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.htm
The only thing the EPA leaves to speculation is the exact impact of the climate change. No one on earth has developed a model sophisticated enough to be sure what will happen. But all evidence leads to the conclusion that something will happen, and it is likely that it won't be good for most of the animal life on the planet.
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html
_________________________________________________________
This page states, "There is a high level of confidence that the global average temperature during the last few decades was warmer than any comparable period during the last 400 years. Present evidence suggests that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. However, uncertainties associated with this statement increase substantially backward in time."
Again, that seems pretty clear. The rest of the page provides all sorts of data showing the rise in carbon dioxide levels and right states that as the temperature of the oceans rise, the solubility of carbon dioxide decreases adding insult to injury.
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_04.php
_________________________________________________________
This is a fascinating page because it suggests that activity on the sun may be increasing the amount of solar energy arriving on earth from our own personal nuclear fusion reactor some 93,000,000 miles away. The irony of the source is that some might draw the conclusion that the sun, not humans, is therefore responsible for global warming – and literally, the sun is.
However, were it not for the earth's atmosphere the majority of the energy of the sun would be radiated back to space (one of those pesky laws of thermodynamics is that heat always flows from a hot to a colder body and space is infinitely colder than a hot planet). Fortunately, the atmosphere blanketing the earth prevents some of the energy from escaping the earth providing us with hospitable temperatures over vast regions. Yet as the article continues, "most scientists predict the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels will continue to block a larger and larger percentage of outgoing thermal radiation emanating from the Earth." Which of course is the problem. If the sun is releasing even more energy due to sun spot activity, and we are increasing the thickness of the blanket that is our atmosphere, well, you can see the problem could be even more catastrophic than it otherwise might have been. Maybe the earth would be fully capable of restoring balance despite having the volume of carbon dioxide that took 400 million years to fix in animal and plant matter now converted to oil, coal, and natural gas, suddenly being released in a flash of under 400 years – though it's terribly difficult to see how that would be possible; but with the added energy from the sun, this restoration of equilibrium would be all the more challenging for animal life on the planet.
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html
_________________________________________________________
Coloranter Raver: I'm guessing this page from NASA was appealing because it talks about how the climate of Mars is indeed changing, something, apparently some people thought impossible given the apparent lifelessness of the planet. You see, anti-global warming rhetoric hinges on the premise that humans couldn't possibly be responsible for the climate change and, therefore, don't need to change their lifestyles or habits of driving Hummers which get 12 miles to the gallon or burning up every brick of coal on the planet to air-condition the casinos in Las Vegas. The irony of this to people and scientists who believe global warming is inevitable if we don't change and soon, is that they know that the earth's climate has been changing since the planet was formed. They do not dispute that the earth's climate changes. The evidence of the past ice age some 40,000 years ago is pretty darn compelling. How else did all that fresh water get into the Great Lakes? So, no one is disputing that the earth's climate is changing – expect maybe those who still aren't quite sure the earth is older than 4,000 years of course. The questions rather are how much has our population explosion from a few million to seven billion and our petrochemical dependency begun to change the earth's climate and atmosphere, will the earth be able to rebound from these changes or will it warm up to a point where animal life on earth is extinguished, and is there anything we can do to prevent this from happening because not only will it be the end of the Polar Bears, it will be the end of Homo sapiens?
Therefore, the reasoning that the earth's climate or the Martian climate has always been changing is immaterial. There's no doubt that earth, which was once a hot, molten planet with no liquid water, and an atmosphere mostly consisting of hydrogen sulfide gas, water gas, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen gas, has changed quite a bit since then. The planet has cooled considerably causing the water gas to condense and rain for millions of years until it cooled enough to form the oceans. Photosynthetic life evolved producing free oxygen for the first time and causing one of the greatest mass extinctions in earth's 3-billion year history as nearly all anaerobic life was killed by this newly abundant gas. This photosynthetic life removed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere which reduced its presence and further cooled the planet to a point where animal life would become possible. So, the question remains, how eager are we now to gamble with the possibility that we are setting or already have set the earth on a new course that will wipe out all current animal life as we know it?
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
_________________________________________________________
This piece in National Geographic Magazine relates to the NASA report mentioned above. In this case, "Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun."
I believe I've addressed this. The bad news is that if the sun is releasing even more energy and warming the earth and Mars more than it was, the impact of our increasing of the carbon dioxide blanket in our atmosphere is all the more perilous, and not the other way around.
Ironically, if Mr. Abdussamatov is correct, his ideas are being used incorrectly. Let's suppose that in 1945, post WWII, all nations on earth agreed to go solar. And we never went Big Oil/ Coal / Gas. And we therefore, were contributing far less to the CO2 blanket. Bravo! Unfortunately, again, if Mr. Abdussamatov is correct, we could have a global warming problem on our hands that we'd still need to fix. Is it not apparent to human beings across the planet that if the earth gets too hot, the climate and life on the planet will be in trouble? We need food people! If vast regions of the planet that used to be the earth's bread baskets all dry up and die, if the oceans swell and cover low level land, and so on, it's going to be a problem that makes Hurricane Katrina look like a High School musical. So, again if Mr. Abdussamatov is correct, we have all the more reason to be alarmed and mobilize our ability to decrease the carbon dioxide levels immediately.
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/Polish-Academy-of-Sciences-Questions-Gores-Man-Made-Global-Warming-Theory-43618922.html
_________________________________________________________
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this treatise by the Polish Academy of Sciences. There work and words are scientifically accurate and compelling.
They begin by stating the obvious, the earth's climate has always been changing. Again, that is not a fact in dispute. They point out the most recent ice age, in fact. Again, that is not in dispute. Their focus point is that the earth is simply in a warming period as it has experienced countless times in the past. And, they may well be correct. The earth may be in a normal warming period following the last ice age. Then they state that there is no evidence that man is responsible for this current temperature change. They come to this conclusion because they cannot seem to find any causality between this natural warming cycle and the activity of human beings. They, in fact, seem to conclude that the earth just chugs along doing its own thing regardless of human activity. They do, however make this small note, " There is no doubt that a certain part of the rise of the level of greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, is associated with human activity therefore, steps should be taken to reduce the amount on the basis of the principles of sustainable development, a cease of extensive deforestation, particularly in tropical regions. It is equally important to take up and pursuit appropriate adapting actions that will mitigate the effects of the current warming trend." If that's not one of the most ironic final paragraphs, I don't know what is. "There is no doubt," they say, "that a certain part of the rise...is associated with human activity." Anyone hoping that the Polish Academy of Sciences was going to force Al Gore to stand down need only read that last paragraph. I'm guessing most people who read the article, didn't get that far. I'm a big fan of reading entire articles. I'm also a fan of studying motivations for writing them in the first place for that can often be more revealing than the articles themselves.
_________________________________________________________
Final Summation:
In any case, what the PAS and many, many other reputable scientists who would call into question human causation for any degree of global warming is a very simple and irrefutable construct. I've written it dozens of time on this site and others for the previous 5 years.
[in all caps for emphasis]
IT TOOK OVER 400 MILLION YEARS TO TRAP THE GIANT QUANTITY OF CARBON DIOXIDE GAS IN THE ORGANIC MOLECULES OF OUR EARTH'S TOTAL SUPPLY OFOIL, COAL, AND NATURAL GAS. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE RESULT WILL BE OF RELEASING EVEN 20% LET ALONE 100% OF THAT QUANTITY IN JUST 300 YEARS. NO ONE.
No one knows but any child who's ever ridden a see-saw with a kid a lot bigger than he knows that when you put an extreme pressure on something that was balanced, the result is compelling. You are now suddenly stuck up in the air with no way to get down.
No one wants to talk about this, not even Al Gore. I'm guessing the reason is that it's very fatalistic. We don't want to know that we may have already destroyed our planet. We don't want to know that if we haven't it's going to take serious change to prevent its destruction. We don't want to accept that through no original fault of our own, we are potentially destroying our Mother Earth. Whether created by 3 billion years of planetary evolution or a single act of a divine being, we know this planet provides our sustenance and without her we would die. Those who believe that dinosaurs roamed the planet and died out suddenly during the last ice age know that amazing creatures the enveloped the planet can become, quite suddenly, extinct. A species that's so in love with life, does not often choose to contemplate the end. Therefore, it is far easier to ignore the facts, our intuition, and the signs, marching onward in denial.
While no one knows what impact the release of all this carbon dioxide hundreds of millions of tons per day from all over the planet will have, in their bones, I believe everyone knows by now that something will happen. We will have to pay the piper for burning up all the earth's resources. I think most just hope it's later rather than sooner. Leave the problems of mass animal extinction on earth to future generations. Right now it's more important to ensure the solvency of our oil, coal, and gas industries.
As some of the information in these articles suggests, we may not be responsible for the huge changes ahead, the sun itself may have other plans in store for this planet. Surely, though, that information should not be met with glee that we aren't to blame, rather it should be met with the same solutions as we must implement if we are responsible for any degree of this problem.
Moreover, and equally ironic, for the USA, Europe, and Japan – all of which live in a death grip by nations that provide so much of the energy people consume – transitioning away from a petro-chemical power source to a solar and wind power source could kill both problems with one stone. Therefore, one has to ask the salient question. Who would not want to see the USA free from the control of our debtor nations who sell us our fuel? If that doesn't cause one certain alarm, then let the simple concept that, at our present course, it is inevitable that we will force the climate of our planet into a stress from which it may only recover by eliminating the problem – us.