Should We Worry About Global Warming?
The Benefits of Atmospheric Warming
Resource: http://www.enter.net/~jjfhome/globalwarming.htm
The Problem
"At stake is nothing less than the survival of human civilization and the habitability of the earth for our species."
A. Gore
If you believe today's press, nearly all the world's respectable scientists believe that mankind is causing the atmosphere to warm, and the temperature increase will lead to disastrous consequences for animals and man. Furthermore, only man can "save the planet", by costly methods and by putting man's environment ahead of the interests of man himself. Could it be possible that rising atmospheric temperatures are good for humanity? Over the earth's history, the climate has constantly changed, warming and cooling. At the present time, we are in a slow warming trend. Reason tells us that atmospheric warming is better than atmospheric cooling, because it is easier to adapt to warmer temperatures than to cooler ones. In the light of reason, the quote above from Mr. Gore is absurd.
A review of the planet's history
The earth has been warming for the last 18,000 years since the current interglacial event began. The warming has neither been linear nor monotonic. Within historical times, man has seen the medieval warming period, during which time Greenland and Newfoundland were colonized. George Washington experienced the Little Ice Age while at Valley Forge.
Throughout the history of the earth the climate has often changed but predicting future changes on the time scale of decades or centuries by using numerical models will never work. Just look at numerical weather prediction models. It is hard to predict a week ahead, and these models are particularly weak when they attempt to call a change in the weather. If we cannot reliably call the turn in the weather 48 - 72 hours out, how can we possibly suggest that global climate models could have any validity over centuries. Models are good at one thing--solving equations. Models cannot account for variables not programmed into them. In the case of climate, some variables that cause problems include: clouds, biologic activity, dust, land use, and carbon reservoirs such as: land plants, soil, atmosphere, oceans, & fossil fuels. To repeat myself, models are good for solving equations, period. Whatever you believe about the future of the climate, do not believe model predictions!
What causes climate change
Some causes of climate change include:
Changes in solar activity
Cycles in the earth's obliquity, eccentricity, and wobble
Plate tectonics
Vulcanism
Impact by extraterrestrial body
Changes in greenhouse gases (H2O, CH4, CO2, and others)
Of these gases, water and methane have the most greenhouse effect, but it is not easy to blame mankind for them. Clearly most of the climate change over the last two million years did not result from human activity, but it is likely that man is partially responsible for the current warming. It is not easy to prove either way, but it has become axiomatic in the press that it is man's fault. There is a correlation between CO2 concentration (currently about 385 parts per million) and atmospheric temperature, but although a cause and effect relationship has not been established (cum hoc ergo propter hoc), the relationship could be causal. The concentration has been higher and lower in the past, and given the history of climate change, man's effect is probably not overwhelming. After all, the CO2 concentration is only about 0.01 that of the water vapor concentration. Now let's take a look at politics.
GEO-4
In October 2007, the UN issued a report called Global Environmental Outlook.
In its press release, GEO-4 says, "There are no major issues raised in Our Common Future for which the foreseeable trends are favourable."
However, according to the EPA, "The common view that the environment is deteriorating in almost all respects is not justified. Several important trends are moving favorably as a result of applications of science and technology as well as behavioral and policy shifts in both developing and industrialized countries. For example, energy intensity, the source of major environmental problems when fuels are dirty, is decreasing, and the fuel mix is decarbonizing, signifying a shift to cleaner sources."
Geo-4 says, "Sea-level rise caused by thermal expansion of water and the melting of glaciers and ice sheets will continue for the foreseeable future, with potentially huge consequences." While true as stated, sea level has risen 100' in 18,000 years. Why does GEO-4 imply that this rise is recent?
GEO-4: "The situation on air pollution is mixed, with some successes in both developed and developing countries, but major problems remain...Despite progress in reducing emissions, air pollution still poses risks for both human health and the environment."
Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change: "There is little published evidence that changes in population health status actually have occurred in response to observed trends in climate over recent decades."
The Environment
The word "environment" refers to man's surroundings. Even if used to mean the surroundings of an animal, the word is used only by humans, not by the animal. It should be appropriate then for man to take pleasure in his environment, use its resources, and take care of it. However to some, "environment" and "earth" have taken on the characteristics of a god, and devotion to the environment has become a religion. To those people, man is viewed as evil; whereas, animals, trees, and ice are viewed as good. They seem to think the world would be a better place, if only there were no humans. If the atmosphere is warming, that is good for most people. Those living on low-lying islands or seacoasts seem to be the only exception.
According to the EPA, aggregate emissions from six principal pollutants in the USA has decreased 54% since 1970. From that I conclude man has done a good job in recent years in taking care of his environment.
A review
What have we learned so far? The earth has been warming for a long while, and humans may be contributing some of it now. What is the goal of radical environmentalism? Is it to reverse global warming and produce cooling? That would be a true catastrophe. Is it to stop warming? That is impossible until the next glaciation. Is it to reduce the rate of increase? To what purpose; how low should we reduce it; how will we know when we have done enough? Why is the goal never stated?
When have you heard an environmentalist propose a solution (not goal) that did not hurt people or business? Goals such as clean air and water are good; solutions that hurt people, cost money, resources, and the expenditure of great effort by man should be subjected to a cost/benefit analysis. Note that only CO2 emissions from transportation and electricity generation are addressed.
What about changing our forestry practices to put out more fires, such as cutting out the underbrush?
What about building more nuclear power plants?
What about engineering solutions like adding aerosols to the atmosphere?
What about using less ethanol in gasoline so we do not disturb a major carbon sink, the soil?
On balance ethanol in gasoline puts more carbon in the atmosphere.
The benefits of "Global" Warming
Amid all this despair about anthropogenic global warming, could it be possible that warming is good? First of all, warming is not global. It occurs most in colder places and times such as: northern latitudes, mountains, night, & winter. It occurs least in tropical climates. Let's compare some benefits with drawbacks.
Drawbacks Benefits
Low-lying areas get flooded Reduced energy use
Loss of biodiversity More land is available for mankind & farming
Arctic ice melts Northwest passage opens
More heat-related deaths Fewer cold-related deaths
More severe storms?? Better conditions for crops and forests
Although the consequences of warming outlined in red in the table are significant and problematical, there are offsetting consequences that are good. On balance, decide for yourself, are energy savings and increased land availability better for mankind than loss of low-lying areas and loss of biodiversity? When have you ever heard anyone cite the advantages of warming? Would you rather cooling or warming?
Conclusions
The earth has been warming since the latest glaciers started to melt. Isn't that better than cooling? Let's all enjoy the energy savings.
Should we worry about global warming? Yes, if you live on a low-lying island or barrier island, otherwise no. We should welcome the warmer temperatures in the polar and temperate climates and accept the trends we cannot control.
J. J. Friel, Ph. D.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The article could be made to tackle only to Al Gore's quote. I find it new and interesting, but it's a bit selfish.
Yes, I agree that the Earth has always been cooling and warming off for millions of years. But it does not mean we are not being responsible, as stated. In my opinion, we are not irresponsible of it either. We are the one that speed global warming up, causing the precious time with which we can use to invent better technologies to cope with global warming dwindle at a fast rate.
"Clearly most of the climate change over the last two million years did not result from human activity, but it is likely that man is partially responsible for the current warming." Human population are not as many as the current numbers 1 million years ago. Even when compared to a few centuries ago, our current population size is towering. Added with the technologies and industries that had been producing waste for 200+ years(since the Industrial Revolution), and the eat-till-you-can't-eat-anymore lifestyle(which focus on 'take', but not 'sharing' or 'returning'); well, most of the sons and daughters of Mother Nature sure is ungrateful.
I am not sure if it's only me that thinks like this; isn't the GEO-4 seems to "open one eye, close another"? while i try not to 'challenge' everything in this article, i will at least attempt one on this: "Sea-level rise caused by thermal expansion of water and the melting of glaciers and ice sheets will continue for the foreseeable future, with potentially huge consequences." While true as stated, sea level has risen 100' in 18,000 years. Why does GEO-4 imply that this rise is recent?
Even though sea level has been rising, in my (humbly low) knowledge, glaciers had not melt at such a fast pace before, right? I really believe that the ice cap in the North Pole is almost the same size and shape for a long time(meaning they didn't melt so crazily like they do nowadays).
"There is little published evidence that changes in population health status actually have occurred in response to observed trends in climate over recent decades."
We shouldn't wait for the effect to kick in before we start looking into things. I thought prevention is better than cure.
"CONCERNS+HUMANITY NOW :)
HOT ISSUES OF the DAY:
Dear RS members:
For those who havent receive any membership's notification, please contact the membership officer AUDREY LIM or any of the committee members.
Contact:
Audrey_leewen@hotmail.com
rainbow.society@hotmail.com
Thank You.
Elly see (president of RS)
Want to join us?
If you feel like to join Rainbow society, application form could be get by accessing the link below:
http://www.upload.ae/file/5145/-www-upload-ae-registration-form-new--doc.html
After you have finished filling the application form, please email it back to :
1. rainbow.society@hotmail.com
or
2.crazy_elly@hotmail.com (for further information).
JOIN US:
Monday, December 22, 2008
Should We Worry About Global Warming? The Benefits of Atmospheric Warming
Should We Worry About Global Warming?
The Benefits of Atmospheric Warming
Resource: http://www.enter.net/~jjfhome/globalwarming.htm
The Problem
"At stake is nothing less than the survival of human civilization and the habitability of the earth for our species."
A. Gore
If you believe today's press, nearly all the world's respectable scientists believe that mankind is causing the atmosphere to warm, and the temperature increase will lead to disastrous consequences for animals and man. Furthermore, only man can "save the planet", by costly methods and by putting man's environment ahead of the interests of man himself. Could it be possible that rising atmospheric temperatures are good for humanity? Over the earth's history, the climate has constantly changed, warming and cooling. At the present time, we are in a slow warming trend. Reason tells us that atmospheric warming is better than atmospheric cooling, because it is easier to adapt to warmer temperatures than to cooler ones. In the light of reason, the quote above from Mr. Gore is absurd.
A review of the planet's history
The earth has been warming for the last 18,000 years since the current interglacial event began. The warming has neither been linear nor monotonic. Within historical times, man has seen the medieval warming period, during which time Greenland and Newfoundland were colonized. George Washington experienced the Little Ice Age while at Valley Forge.
Throughout the history of the earth the climate has often changed but predicting future changes on the time scale of decades or centuries by using numerical models will never work. Just look at numerical weather prediction models. It is hard to predict a week ahead, and these models are particularly weak when they attempt to call a change in the weather. If we cannot reliably call the turn in the weather 48 - 72 hours out, how can we possibly suggest that global climate models could have any validity over centuries. Models are good at one thing--solving equations. Models cannot account for variables not programmed into them. In the case of climate, some variables that cause problems include: clouds, biologic activity, dust, land use, and carbon reservoirs such as: land plants, soil, atmosphere, oceans, & fossil fuels. To repeat myself, models are good for solving equations, period. Whatever you believe about the future of the climate, do not believe model predictions!
What causes climate change
Some causes of climate change include:
Changes in solar activity
Cycles in the earth's obliquity, eccentricity, and wobble
Plate tectonics
Vulcanism
Impact by extraterrestrial body
Changes in greenhouse gases (H2O, CH4, CO2, and others)
Of these gases, water and methane have the most greenhouse effect, but it is not easy to blame mankind for them. Clearly most of the climate change over the last two million years did not result from human activity, but it is likely that man is partially responsible for the current warming. It is not easy to prove either way, but it has become axiomatic in the press that it is man's fault. There is a correlation between CO2 concentration (currently about 385 parts per million) and atmospheric temperature, but although a cause and effect relationship has not been established (cum hoc ergo propter hoc), the relationship could be causal. The concentration has been higher and lower in the past, and given the history of climate change, man's effect is probably not overwhelming. After all, the CO2 concentration is only about 0.01 that of the water vapor concentration. Now let's take a look at politics.
GEO-4
In October 2007, the UN issued a report called Global Environmental Outlook.
In its press release, GEO-4 says, "There are no major issues raised in Our Common Future for which the foreseeable trends are favourable."
However, according to the EPA, "The common view that the environment is deteriorating in almost all respects is not justified. Several important trends are moving favorably as a result of applications of science and technology as well as behavioral and policy shifts in both developing and industrialized countries. For example, energy intensity, the source of major environmental problems when fuels are dirty, is decreasing, and the fuel mix is decarbonizing, signifying a shift to cleaner sources."
Geo-4 says, "Sea-level rise caused by thermal expansion of water and the melting of glaciers and ice sheets will continue for the foreseeable future, with potentially huge consequences." While true as stated, sea level has risen 100' in 18,000 years. Why does GEO-4 imply that this rise is recent?
GEO-4: "The situation on air pollution is mixed, with some successes in both developed and developing countries, but major problems remain...Despite progress in reducing emissions, air pollution still poses risks for both human health and the environment."
Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change: "There is little published evidence that changes in population health status actually have occurred in response to observed trends in climate over recent decades."
The Environment
The word "environment" refers to man's surroundings. Even if used to mean the surroundings of an animal, the word is used only by humans, not by the animal. It should be appropriate then for man to take pleasure in his environment, use its resources, and take care of it."
THAT is so inconsiderate! If I undersatnd the meaning correctly, you are saying that we should just live our live fulfilling our lust and desire and throw all the waste we don't want to Mother Nature, but when we want something, we will go and grab whatever it is we want from wherever it is with out thought focus on ourselves. How would you deel if you are one of those Polar Bear in the Arctic whose hunting ground is melting away, making them all hungry, and unable to find a place to build it's den/nest/breeding ground? How would you feel when your entire city was strip bare, and you are left on a plain field with no food, all by the doings of a higher race(let's see, the ancient Egyptions XP) The term of any word can be changed so long as everyone egreed on it. It's not important the the environment has expanded from just "surrounding of human" to "surrounding of animal and human and forest and everything" It's the same because everything you give will come back to you. If you take care of your home, why do you not take care of your 'bigger home'?
"They seem to think the world would be a better place, if only there were no humans."
Well, I am not going to say that, because that would be too extreme. I would say from the dpth of my heart, some people are better never to be born or raised. I think the world would be a better place without their action/interference/influence.
However, everything must be balanced. So, naturally, there are groups of people that has helped everything around them selflessly. So, no, I do not think the world would be a better place without some of these selfless person.
"To what purpose; how low should we reduce it; how will we know when we have done enough? Why is the goal never stated?"
The purpose is to reduce it to the normal/original value(which is considered safe). We know we will have done enough because scientist has a scale that says the current status has exceeded the "safe zone". I don't know what you truly meant, but isn't the goal "to preserve/restore the balance that had been inbalanced by the emission of waste and destruction of mankind" roughly sounds like?
"When have you heard an environmentalist propose a solution (not goal) that did not hurt people or business?"
You reap what you sow. What one person do will affect another. Do you expect 'Come save the environment with us. All you need to do is eat and sleep'? You hurt the planet you live in, and you expect you can easily clean it off?
In Rainbow Society, it may seem too big to achieve, but we hope to save all aspect of live. From our unhealthy lifestyle, immoral&selfish actions and thoughts, to the forest, the sea, to the victims of natural disaster and diseases and famine.
"Drawbacks Benefits
Low-lying areas get flooded Reduced energy use
Loss of biodiversity More land is available for mankind & farming
Arctic ice melts Northwest passage opens
More heat-related deaths Fewer cold-related deaths
More severe storms?? Better conditions for crops and forests"
Sure, who cares if a few hundred thousands of unknown faces die due to our actions(which can be stopped)? It's not like we killed them, so it's not genocide. So long as we can have more crops and food and cheaper travels. Well, what if the entire North America continent become under sea level due to an earthquake? And all the originally low-lying areas become high lands? I think you guys will do just fine-.-
"Should we worry about global warming? Yes, if you live on a low-lying island or barrier island, otherwise no. We should welcome the warmer temperatures in the polar and temperate climates and accept the trends we cannot control."
'..Yes, if you live in low-lying island..Otherwise no...' I wonder how you would feel if someone just stand by and watch the destruction of your homeland without offering any help.
'accept the trends we cannot control.' Have you accepted the current economy crisis? Well, you can help it as much as you can help your Earth.
I notice this is mostly about global warming. Nothing much on Forest, or poverty.
Post a Comment