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. 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.

CLICKING THAT HELPS

http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/
http://www.thehungersite.com/tpc/THS_linktous
http://www.care2.com/click2donate/

Come on, try checking them out.

IT'S FREE. YOU DO NOT NEED TO DONATE $$ TO HELP.

These site have buttons for you to click LOL

Well, it works like this. The donations use money given by companies that put their advertisement there. When you click, It will shows those advertisement below the buttons. Each click count. And the advertisement's money will go to charity.

Sorry if you don't understand... Check this, it explains better:
The Hunger Site provides a feel-good way to help promote awareness and prevent hunger deaths every day — through easy and quick online activities.

With a simple, daily click of the yellow "Click Here to Give - it's FREE" button at The Hunger Site, visitors help provide food to those in need. Visitors pay nothing. Food is paid for by the site's sponsors and distributed by Mercy Corps worldwide and by Feeding America (formerly America's Second Harvest) to food banks throughout the United States.

Please remember to click every day to give help and hope to those most in need. Every click counts in the life of a hungry person.

Obama left with little time to curb global warming

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer Sun Dec 14, 6:49 pm ET

WASHINGTON – When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Now it is a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid.

Since Clinton's inauguration, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas. The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton's second inauguration. Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it.

"The time for delay is over; the time for denial is over," he said on Tuesday after meeting with former Vice President Al Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming. "We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now that this is a matter of urgency and national security and it has to be dealt with in a serious way."

But there are powerful political and economic realities that must be quickly overcome for Obama to succeed. Despite the urgency he expresses, it's not at all clear that he and Congress will agree on an approach during a worldwide financial crisis in time to meet some of the more crucial deadlines.

Obama is pushing changes in the way Americans use energy, and produce greenhouse gases, as part of what will be a massive economic stimulus. He called it an opportunity "to re-power America."

After years of inaction on global warming, 2009 might be different. Obama replaces a president who opposed mandatory cuts of greenhouse gas pollution and it appears he will have a willing Congress. Also, next year, diplomats will try to agree on a major new international treaty to curb the gases that promote global warming.

"We need to start in January making significant changes," Gore said in a recent telephone interview with The Associated Press. "This year coming up is the most important opportunity the world has ever had to make progress in really solving the climate crisis."

Scientists are increasingly anxious, talking more often and more urgently about exceeding "tipping points."

"We're out of time," Stanford University biologist Terry Root said. "Things are going extinct."

U.S. emissions have increased by 20 percent since 1992. China has more than doubled its carbon dioxide pollution in that time. World carbon dioxide emissions have grown faster than scientists' worst-case scenarios. Methane, the next most potent greenhouse gas, suddenly is on the rise again and scientists fear that vast amounts of the trapped gas will escape from thawing Arctic permafrost.

The amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has already pushed past what some scientists say is the safe level.

In the early 1990s, many scientists figured that the world was about a century away from a truly dangerous amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, said Mike MacCracken, who was a top climate scientist in the Clinton administration. But as they studied the greenhouse effect further, scientists realized that harmful changes kick in at far lower levels of carbon dioxide than they thought. Now some scientists, but not all, say the safe carbon dioxide level for Earth is about 10 percent below what it is now.

Gore called the situation "the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately."

Scientists fear that what's happening with Arctic ice melt will be amplified so that ominous sea level rise will occur sooner than they expected. They predict Arctic waters could be ice-free in summers, perhaps by 2013, decades earlier than they thought only a few years ago.

In December 2009, diplomats are charged with forging a new treaty replacing the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which set limits on greenhouse gases, and which the United States didn't ratify. This time European officials have high expectations for the U.S. to take the lead. But many experts don't see Congress passing a climate bill in time because of pressing economic and war issues.

"The reality is, it may take more than the first year to get it all done," Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said recently.

Complicating everything is the worldwide financial meltdown. Frank Maisano, a Washington energy specialist and spokesman who represents coal-fired utilities and refineries, sees the poor economy as "a huge factor" that could stop everything. That's because global warming efforts are aimed at restricting coal power, which is cheap. That would likely mean higher utility bills and more damage to ailing economies that depend on coal production, he said.

Obama is stacking his Cabinet and inner circle with advocates who have pushed for deep mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas pollution and even with government officials who have achieved results at the local level.

The President-elect has said that one of the first things he will do when he gets to Washington is grant California and other states permission to control car tailpipe emissions, something the Bush administration denied.

And though congressional action may take time, the incoming Congress will be more inclined to act on global warming. In the House, liberal California Democrat Henry Waxman's unseating of Michigan Rep. John Dingell — a staunch defender of Detroit automakers — as head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee was a sign that global warming will be on the fast track.

Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., vowed to push two global warming bills starting in January: one to promote energy efficiency as an economic stimulus and the other to create a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from utilities. "The time is now," she wrote in a Dec. 8 letter to Obama.

Mother Nature, of course, is oblivious to the federal government's machinations. Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. Experts say it's thanks to a La Nina weather variation. While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming.

The average global temperature in 2008 is likely to wind up slightly under 57.9 degrees Fahrenheit, about a tenth of a degree cooler than last year. When Clinton was inaugurated, 57.9 easily would have been the warmest year on record. Now, that temperature would qualify as the ninth warmest year.

___

Associated Press writer Dina Cappiello contributed to this report.

source : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081214/ap_on_sc/global_warming_obama/print