Global Warming or Just Hot Air?

Global Warming or Just Hot Air?

The Truth & the Consequences

“The nation behaves well if it treats resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased, and not impaired, in value.”

Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

While I do not hold a degree in climatological science, I have spent the better part of the last 30 years studying the subject from those who do. Until the last decade, climatologists (for the most part) were unconcerned, if not downright unaware that our little planet has, indeed, been warming up. All that changed in 1995 with the release of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) report that concluded that there was significant empirical evidence that human activity was (and is) affecting global climate. In 2001, with the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, that statement was ratified. It is unarguable that mankind’s environment tinkering is affecting not only Earth’s atmosphere, but large bodies of water that, to a sizeable extent, contribute to global weather patterns and cycles as well. Thousands upon thousands of notable scientists, respected scientific organizations and at least nineteen international Academies of Science have endorsed these conclusions. Stated more definitively,

“It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”[1]

The unintended consequence of this scientific revelation that global warming may be hazardous to our health has created a firestorm of controversy that has notably less to do with science than it does political jingoism. The most vocal opponents of global warming, it seems, come primarily from a conservative right wing political ideology. For some unknown reason, their agenda is to defeat the “liberal environmentalists” by using the age-old tactic of political slurs and personal attacks, a tactic, I might add, that is not limited to the right. Vehemently vocal conservatives appear to be less concerned with scientific data and interpretation than they are with eliciting an emotional public response that will further some political agenda. Typically, whatever arguments they put forward have no scientific proof to back them up, nor do they have anything to do with reason or common sense.

For those interested in the potential effects global warming will have (both positive and negative), I would refer them to the website Skeptical Science and the following article:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-reviewed-impacts-of-global-warming.html.

The negatives are numerous and far outweigh the few positives noted (as might be expected), but a “top five” list might include the following:

* An atmosphere with increased levels of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) will result in ecosystem change, new and enlarged desertification, severe worldwide reduction in potable water supplies, and increased fire frequency[2]

* There will be a substantially increased potential for extensive vegetation die-off due to more severe and increased length of droughts[3]

* Increase in the range and severity of crop disease[4]

* Increase of atmospheric temperatures leading to Arctic Lake melt, releasing CH4 and creating an atmospheric warming feedback loop[5]

* Future global warming will likely have large impacts on ocean oxygen depletion and the associated adverse effects on marine life, such as more frequent mortality events[6]

A reasonable argument can be made that all of these events listed above would very likely have severe economic repercussions for every nation of the world. Beyond the economic, however, are issues of social justice and the distribution of resources. As it is today, “he with the most cash wins,” and the majority of resource-rich nations are exporting their resources to a ravenous western world with little thought for the citizens of those countries. Rather than providing clean water, electricity, education and the essentials of life to their citizens, infrastructure projects and relief programs are primarily funded by western taxpayers and charitable organizations.

The conservative political backlash to this statement will be extraordinarily loud. Claiming that environmentalists are dedicated to ending the “American Way of Life” (which, I suppose, equates to ‘consume as much as you can before it’s all gone’) through social engineering, they fail to see the much larger picture: Sooner or later, a starving nation will turn on its neighbors and the world then becomes a far more dangerous place.

While conservatives believe (justifiably) that the U.S. of A. will be able to defend itself against all comers and are not too concerned with starving, repressed nations, they again fail to see the larger picture. Maintaining a standing army, as we taxpayers have all found out in Iraq and Afghanistan, is a horribly expensive proposition. As a matter of fact, it’s far more expensive building armies and weapons than it would be to work towards a low-impact economy where no one has to give up the American lifestyle. More, embracing a “carbonless” goal and working toward that technology will do something for the U.S. that no one has been able to achieve recently: more jobs, greater wealth and prosperity and better security for our country.

The issue is complex and more detailed than can be taken up in one short article. However, it can be safely said that no one has all the answers and that the solutions won’t be reached overnight. But it is imperative that we make a start, and we make a start now before the inevitable consequences of global warming get worse than they already are. It is interesting to note that while some of the biggest antagonists of global warming have been, historically, oil companies, the American Association of Professional Geologists has made this statement:

"In the last century growth in human populations has increased energy use. This has contributed additional carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases to the atmosphere. Although the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases, the AAPG believes that expansion of scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate is important. This research should be undertaken by appropriate federal agencies involved in climate research and their associated grant and contract programs." [7]

When even your opponents agree, it’s time to stop arguing and take action.

As a final note, to politicize scientific understanding and discovery is to return once again to the Dark Ages and the despotism of Inquisition. Science, by its very definition, does not moralize. It seeks first to observe, then to experiment, then hopefully to understand. It is up to society to moralize, but ignoring the facts and making moral judgments on scientific evidence is not only counter-productive; it is downright dangerous. If you will recall, in a different era, science unlocked the atom and society created a weapon.

All the political rhetoric and hyperbole will not push back the threats of the environmental challenges that our world faces today. Argument leads to inaction and, in this case, we do so at our own peril.

[1] “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Peter T . Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, EOS, Vol. 90 No.3, January 20, 2009

[2] “Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions,” by Susan Solomon , Gian-Kasper Plattner, Reto Knutti, Pierre Friedlingstein, December 16, 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

[3] “Regional vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type drought,” David D. Breshears, Neil S. Cobb, Paul M. Rich, Kevin P. Price, Craig D. Allen, Randy G. Balice, William H. Romme, Jude H. Kastens, M. Lisa Floyd, Jayne Belnap, Jesse J. Anderson, Orrin B. Myers, and Clifton W. Meyer; October 18, 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

[4] “Range and severity of a plant disease increased by global warming" Neal Evans, Andreas Baierl, Mikhail A. Semenov, Peter Gladders and Bruce D. L. Fitt, August 21, 2007, Journal of the Royal Society Interface

[5] “Thermokarst Lakes as a Source of Atmospheric CH4 During the Last Deglaciation,” K. M. Walter, M. E. Edwards, G. Grosse,S. A. Zimov, F. S. Chapin, III, October 26, 2007, Science Magazine

[6] “Long-term ocean oxygen depletion in response to carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels,” Gary Shaffer , Steffen Malskær Olsen and Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, January 25, 2009, Nature Geoscience

[7] “American Associaton of Petroleum Geologists Statements,” http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/index.cfm