Global warming is a serious threat to all

When one hears the phrases "global warming" and "greenhouse gases," one may picture liberal tree-huggers making outlandish claims about melting ice caps and submerged cities. President Bush apparently does, and so do an awful lot of politicians and businessmen who, coincidentally, stand to profit from lax pollution standards. Yet there is a growing scientific consensus that global warming is real, it is caused by human activity rather than ongoing natural cycles, and its consequences are going to be devastating. A study released last month by a United Nations panel found that the earth's average temperature has risen over the past century by one degree Fahrenheit a huge leap in global climate terms the only such rise in at least the past 1,000 years, according to tree rings and other prehistoric records, and quite possibly the biggest in 100 million years, according to Time magazine.

The study further concludes, employing a wide range of prediction techniques for the sake of accuracy, that the average global temperature will go up somewhere between 2.5 degrees and 10.4 degrees over the next century. (For the record, it took only 9 degrees of change, over thousands of years, to end the last ice age, according to Time.) Global warming impacts every human, everywhere in the world. It could shift entire climate zones, increase severe weather, dislodge whole populations, and, if temperatures keep rising for long enough, submerge coastal areas because of rising ocean levels.

Once easily dismissed as a nightmare scenario invented by paranoid environmentalists, today we know that this stuff is real. High-powered computer modeling technologies and highly reliable climate information have proved that over and over again. Washington, D.C. is missing the point. President Bush points to uncertainties in the research, but no science is truly exact and recommends further study instead of immediate action, Time reported in its April 9 cover story. Bush's position echoes that of his father, 10 years ago: We don't know enough about it. We need more time to study it. Let's wait and see.

That may have been true then. It isn't true now. Its repetition now is especially frightening when one considers that, scientifically; we've already waited too long. Carbon dioxide molecules stay in the atmosphere for about 100 years, so even if the world were to entirely halt all greenhouse pollution tomorrow, we'd still have a problem. On March 29, Bush announced that he had decided to cancel the Kyoto climate treaty, which was supposed to get the world's industrial nations to cut back on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Never mind that the U.S. signed the agreement in good faith after years of tough international negotiations. The Kyoto treaty, Bush said, was "fatally flawed."

On the surface, some of Bush's reasons for canceling the treaty may inspire nationalistic agreement, since he claims its terms are unfair to America. But on the other hand, perhaps America is being unfair to the world by producing 25 percent of its greenhouse gases despite housing only 4 percent of its population. Besides, Bush's reasons for nixing Kyoto are far deeper, and more deeply flawed, than that. He says it is impossible to fix the environment because, well, we have an economy to worry about. "In terms of the (carbon dioxide) issue, I will explain as clearly as I can today and every other chance I get, that we will not do anything that harms our economy," Bush explained. "First things first are the people who live in America."

President Bush doesn't seem to realize that a catastrophic climate change, one which could heighten heat waves, increase insect-born diseases and turn rich Midwestern farmlands into arid wastelands, actually is important for the people who live in America. And we're not talking about the next epoch or even the next millennium. We're talking 2100, if not sooner. It is easy to understand why Bush prioritizes the America's economy above the environment. As Time pointed out, "Members of both major parties realize that global warming is a long-term problem that carries little short-term political risk. By the time their inaction causes big trouble maybe decades from now they'll be long gone. But if they foul up the economy, they'll be sent home next Election Day."

True, true. I always thought one of a government's most important roles was to provide society with a bit of forward-looking common sense. A 30-year-old man living in New Orleans may be pleased with Bush's decision today because his electric bills will go down. His great-grandson may be less pleased when he has to move inland because the ocean is slowly eroding his land. A private citizen cannot be expected to have such a long-term vision; a national government must. Yet Bush's government appears more than happy with the status quo, when polling numbers like those produced by CNN and Time show that 75 percent of the public thinks global warming is "very serious" or "fairly serious" and 67 percent say Bush should act to reduce emissions, but only 48 percent would support such reductions if they sent gas prices up by 25 cents; only 47 would support them if they caused utility bills to rise; and only 38 percent would support them if they increased unemployment.

The Onion, a satirical newspaper poking fun at the news of the day, may have put it best in a fake quote from homemaker Patricia Volk on the "What Do You Think" section of its website. "I'm against global warming," Volk supposedly said. "I'm also against altering my lifestyle in any way whatsoever to reduce it." This seems to be the prevailing philosophy. ("The Onion" also hit the nail on the head with another fake quote, this one from student Debbie Honig, who supposedly said, "As a Nader supporter, I'm thrilled to see the Green Party's master plan working so perfectly." One can't help but wonder whether Nader, the lifelong environmental crusader, loses any sleep these days wishing he had won 539 fewer votes in Florida.)

Bush, for what it's worth, says he is committed to some sort of pollution-cutting plan just not the Kyoto plan. Such promises make for splendid sound bites, but it is difficult to imagine any meaningful changes coming out of an administration that says flat-out it believes the national economy is intrinsically more important than the world environment. International pressure is mounting on Bush to reconsider his Kyoto position. He probably won't. More importantly, parts of corporate America are gradually waking up to this crisis, even if Washington has gone back to sleep.

What people tend to overlook in this debate is that we can actually look back to a time when all this CO2 was floating about in the atmosphere. Yes, in the distant past, around the time that dinosaurs were roaming the continents, most of that CO2 had not been deposited underground yet and was still found in the atmosphere. And, although changes in solar radiation and earth orbit also affect climate, we can presume that if all the carbon dioxide reenters the atmosphere, the climate will become more like it was then.

Well, what was it like back then? Was it a 'good' climate? It depends on your viewpoint. The climate was much warmer, and wetter. Vast swamps, rainforests, and shallow seas covered the land. Grasslands were unknown, because grass hadn't evolved yet, but even if it had, there would not be appropriate conditions for it to thrive. If you were a dinosaur, a fish, or a mosquito, you would be quite content with this climate. Indeed, for animals as a whole, and plants as a whole, this type of climate would be very rich and productive.

But what about us? Humans evolved during consecutive ice ages, to survive blistering cold, and hunt animals on the savannahs and grasslands. Later, we also took up agriculture in these areas. Ever try to farm a swamp? To some extent, rice and other crops can be grown in swamps. But it certainly wouldnt be a fun existance. And what of the shallow seas which would cover our most productive land?

Over hundreds of years, humans have been destroying swamps, rainforests, and coastal marshes. Although humans are likely to want to preserve vast tracts of mountain, desert, and rangeland, until recently no one lamented the loss of wet areas. Why is this? Well, its because we don't do well in these areas. Humans just arent meant to live there. And wouldnt it be amazingly ironic if we were destroyed by the very rainforests, swamps, and marshes that we once almost eliminated?

Do we need more research on this? Hell yes... do we need to make sure our actions are based on scientific research? Again, yes. But as this strikes deep at the roots of the values of Western society, it is virtually impossible to be impartial when we look at this; holding an impartial attitude will be our biggest challenge.

The concept of global warming will not be new to anyone in this day and age. There was a time when it was a radical new theory, when respected scientists could not believe it and when only those who took an active interest in such issues were even aware of it. That time has passed, and it is now a popular debate in schools, a phrase of popular culture and most importantly, a well researched and documented scientific phenomenon.

There is still much debate on the topic, both within scientific circles and in the general public. It can often prove to be a political hotbed, with strongly held views and reams of 'proof' bandied about by both sides. This write-up will attempt to state the facts such as they are, dispel some of the myths and bring the issues to light with the help of the best scientific data available at present.

To begin, let us try and define our terms, not in scientific jargon, but in a way that clearly shows the differences between them.

Global warming:

Exactly as the name states, this is the process by which the average global temperature is increasing. It does not mean that everywhere is hotter all the time, but simply that the earth's climate is on a trend to becoming generally warmer.

The Greenhouse Effect:

A natural phenomena of our earth that has been in place as long as life, and is a vital part in helping to sustain it. It is a way of explaining how the atmosphere acts in the manner similar to a greenhouse. By controlling how much energy is released back into space and how much is kept inside as heat, it helps to stabilize the world's temperature and climate.

Climate change:

Again, this is a natural characteristic of earth. There have been hot spells and ice ages, with everything in between and various changes tend to occur at regular intervals though the ages. No one is saying climate change is good or bad, it simply is.

Climate vs. weather:

Climate describes long-term weather patterns, with average temperatures and precipitation totals as well as typical occurrences of climatic extremes (such as tropical storms) being used to characterize the climate for a particular region. Weather is the state of the atmosphere at a given time and place, defined by variables such as temperature, moisture, wind, and barometric pressure. Changes in weather and climate are not the same thing.

Without further ado - global warming - real or malarkey?

Global warming is real. Now, before you get all upset and start talking about sunspots, just wait. In the beginning, there was a debate as to whether it was real or not, but today we know it is happening. Today the debate lies in whether or not it is humans that are causing it. Generally, when people say they do not believe in global warming, what they really mean is that they don't believe that driving cars and cutting down forests are responsible for it, or that even if that is the case, it isn't as much of a threat as certain people make it out to be.

Regardless of your beliefs in this matter, what follows should at least present you with the facts. Remember that even if you don't believe humans are at fault, a change in climate will cause changes to us and our environment and that we are now in a unique position to study the complex causes and effects of climate change. Never before has there been so much research done and so much data and technology made available to people who study the earth. There is much to be observed, and much to learn for all from doing so.

So, how do we know that global warming is happening?

In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed in conjunction with the UN to study all available literature on the subject and come up with a consensus on the major scientific issues, as well as drawing up recommendations for governments and business. There first report was released in 1996, in which they stated:

"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system."

The report was the first major work of its kind and had far reaching effects on many sectors. When the panel convened again in 2001 it had become a highly respected group. It included top scientists, economists and risk-calculators from more countries around the world than any other offspring of the UN. In the final reports there was an almost unprecedented, unanimous consensus that things were changing, that the world was heating up. After analysis of over 20,000 published papers, journals and other peer-reviewed work, the findings were more conclusive than ever before.

Below is a summary of some of the key points.

• Since the beginning of the 20th century, the mean surface temperature of the earth has increased by about 1.1º F (0.6°C). Half of that rise has occurred in the last 40 years, a period with very reliable data.
• Warming in the 20^th century is greater than at any time during the past 1000 years.
• Eight of the ten warmest years in the 20^th century occurred between 1990 and 2001.
• Mountain glaciers in every part of the world are receding.
• The Arctic ice pack has lost about 40% of its thickness over the past four decades and since 1978 (the date when satellites began to take reliable measurements of it) has decreased in area by about 9% per decade.
• The global sea level has been rising about three times faster over the past 100 years, between 4 and 8 inches total, compared to the previous 3,000 years.
• Studies have shown that plants and animals are changing their range and behaviour in response to shifts in climate.

There is an increasing amount of work being done by geologists, climatologists, palaeontologists and oceanographers into the nature of our climate, studying both its present state and records from its past. The hope being that if they can better understand what has happened before it will be easier to understand our current situation and predict the future.

The U.S Geological Survey Global Change Research Program has been constantly present in Montana's Glacier National Park for over a decade to monitor the state of its namesake features. Records show that when the park was created in 1910 it contained about 150 glaciers. Today there are less than 30 surviving, and even they have shrunk in area by as much as two-thirds. Scientists in the program predict that within 3 decades all the glaciers will be gone. Glaciers in every country are suffering the same fate, melting and receding further up the mountains from where they came. Even researches in the Himalayas, a place so seemingly remote that we tend to think nothing can touch it, predict that if current melt rates continue, most central and eastern glaciers of the famed range will disappear within the century.

It is NASA's laser and satellite technology that shows us dramatic pictures of how the edges of the Northern hemisphere ice sheets are shrinking and sea ice is thinning and breaking up. The Spring break up of sea ice now occurs an average of 9 days earlier than it did in the mid 1800's and only begins to freeze nearly two weeks later. As many researches point out, these are things that do normally occur, but they take place in geologic time, over 1000's of years. Nowdays we are seeing them happen within a lifetime. In just 20 years, ice that used to stretch across the North Pole from the shores of Greenland to those of Russia, now never touches Russian shores, stopping in the sea about three-quarters of the way across.

America's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has data collected from all the world's oceans that show a rise in average sea temperatures. A rise that is going down to depths that they thought would not be affected. They have also got the largest recorded change in any ocean from the subpolar seas neighbouring the North Atlantic, where the salinity of the water is falling at a tremendous rate.

On the islands surrounding the Antarctic Peninsula average temperatures have increased by 9º F since the 50's and the sea ice has retreated, causing major shifts in the populations of penguin species in the area. Species such as the gentoo that used to only be found in warmer habitats such as the Falklands have moved further south, encroaching on to other animal's land and driving their numbers downward. What used to be a polar region just a century ago is now classified as subpolar.

What is causing this global warming?

The IPCC has this to say;

"Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

The unanimous consensus of the panel was that human activities are a prime factor in global warming. There are not many scientists working in the field today that will argue with that. Yes there are some - but there is also a flat earth society. But even though the members of the panel know we are the primary cause, they do not attribute the phenomenon solely to humans. No model that takes into account only human factors or only natural factors has come up with something close to what we know about the past and observe today. Only those which include a combination of the two produce a picture similar to the one we see around us.

The highest recorded concentration of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the earth's atmosphere from the past is about 280 parts per million. The level today sits at around 375ppm. There is no doubt that since the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has skyrocketed. This is because CO₂ is produced when fossil fuels such as oil and coal are burnt. Also, plants take up carbon dioxide as a part of photosynthesis, and release oxygen back into the air. Deforestation and huge land-use change has lead to a significant reduction in the amount of total plant cover on land, hampering the earths natural ability to absorb CO₂ and maintain the composition of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is one of the main greenhouse gases. That means it is one of the main ones responsible for the greenhouse effect and the controlling of the earth's heat budget. More carbon dioxide means that less energy is let back into space and more is kept on earth as heat, thus the earth gets warmer.

Data from the past shows a direct correlation between the amount of CO₂ in the air and the average global temperature, as one increases so does the other. With the current measurements of carbon dioxide in the air, and factoring in as many different scenarios as can be thought of, computer models predict a rise of anywhere between 3º F and 10º F between now and the end of the century. It may not sound like something terribly dramatic, but consider this. The difference between our average temperature now and that during the last ice age is only 9º F.

We also know that the earth goes through many different cycles which affect its climate, alternating between ice ages and warmer interglacial periods. Earth does not rotate perfectly; its spin around the axis wobbles slightly as does the exact angle of tilt of the spin axis. Combined with an expanding and contracting orbit around the sun which creates a sometimes more circular and sometimes more elliptical path through space. This is thought to bring on changes in climate by altering the distribution of sunlight on the earths surface. The suns energy output is also in constant flux, so the amount of heat the earth receives from it does vary over time. However no data leads scientists to believe that these natural cycles are the cause of the rapid changes we are observing today.

As there are obviously no direct temperature records from long ago, scientists use natural markers to find out about the past. Air temperatures affect the chemical makeup and structure of snow which is layered down year after year and eventually forms the polar ice sheets. By drilling down and taking core samples at different depths and in different areas, researchers can learn a lot about the climate at the time. Fossilized shells of tiny marine organisms also contain specific chemical signatures depending on the temperature of the water in which they lived. Fossils of pollen grains trapped in the sediments of lakes have also yielded a lot of data about the type of vegetation long ago which gives clues as to what the climate might have been like.

All of these means are used to try and relate what is happening now to what has happened before. Ice core samples that date back to about 400 000 years ago allow a time line that is long enough to show many significant trends to be drawn up. Thus we now know a lot more than we did about the natural cycles of the earth and its affect on climate, but never have changes of the like we see now taken place. Scientists have learnt that climate change can happen at a rate they previously thought would be far too fast. For example, a study by paleoclimatologists at the University of Oregon, using samples of lake sediment from the area has shown that about 21 000 years ago a huge change took place. The type of trees covering the area switched completely in the space of about 300 years. This could only be due to an abrupt shift in climate, and as the signs indicate we are heading to something similar, understanding exactly what caused it then can help us predict how much of a factor we are now.

Despite all the work being done, there is still considerable doubt over the exact causes of global warming. It is