Global Warming
One
positive impact of the environmental movement is that we humans have become
more responsible on what we spew into our air and water. This responsibility is obviously a good
thing, and even countries like China, India and Russia are become better
citizens of the world concerning the environment by adopting some modicum of
environmental controls. Our atmosphere,
rivers, lakes and oceans have become cleaner in the last 30 years. Again, this is somewhat anecdotal, but the
trend toward fewer pollutants has to be positive.
Unfortunately the issue
of global warming has become politically polarized. The environmental movement has over
emphasized global warming, and has instilled fear in concerned scientists that
have developed data and conclusions that counter the loudly proclaimed
contention that global warming is caused primarily by human generated emissions
into the atmosphere. A figure bandied about by pundits and politicians,
including Obama and Kerry in the U.S., is that 97% of the world’s scientists
agree that global warming caused my human emission into the atmosphere is a
mounting threat. This assertion has been
proven to be patently false and based on spurious data. These links support the “de-mythifying” of
the 97% claim.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/ The
following link presents what seems to be a balanced pro and con commentary of
the global warming phenomenon.
A review of the data and conclusions of both the
proponents and detractors of global warming (seemingly about equally in number,
not 97% in either direction), is not definitive. The studies are either incomplete, too
anecdotal or political in nature, or the results and conclusions get lost in
the scale and mass of the data. These
Pew Research studies add some significance.
The following link is to an in depth and comprehensive
statistical analysis of the earth’s natural heating and cooling cycles and the
effect of human activity on these cycles. http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle. It appears to be a valid scientific attempt
to examine and isolate the variables affecting the earth’s temperature
cycles. The scales used visually skew
the results somewhat, but do not markedly detract from the conclusion, namely, that
there is a measurable effect on the earth’s normal temperature cycles due to
human activities since 1750. This
measureable effect is on the order fractions of a centigrade degree and almost
gets lost in the scales used in the analyses.
The Open source Foundation, which has no political
agenda reports as follows: “The data clearly indicates global warming is
happening and is human caused. At this time in the natural cycle Earth should
be slightly cooling on trend, leading into what would have been the next ice
age. Instead Earth is warming. There is no valid evidence that can prove
otherwise. False representations or facts out of context are not a proof of any
kind, they are merely incorrect.” http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths. The OSS website presents a massive amount of
data supporting the scientific basis for global warming, including very
incisive animated clips that illustrate their points very well. As mentioned above, OSS is apolitical.
So there is no doubt that the earth is warming during
a cycle that it should be cooling, and that this warming is caused by human activity. The question is remains – what type of human
activity?
The above very comprehensive OSS study does not distinguish
industrial activities from those resulting from the massive increase in human
and animal populations since 1750, nor does it delineate the effect of
deforestation on global warming. Human
beings have increased from 790 million to roughly 10 times that to nearly 8
Billion during this time. http://www.geohive.com/earth/his_history1.aspx. Estimates of animals that also breathe in
oxygen, exhale carbon dioxide and produce methane through flatulence are
estimated currently as 20 quintillion (20 billion billion). http://animals.mom.me/number-animals-earth-3994.html. If animals (farm animals, etc, have also
increased by a factor of 10 since 1750 similar to humans, there should be a
measureable effect on global temperatures by more humans and animals just being
here on earth and breathing in and out with no burning of fossil fuels.
Quoting
from the above link, “Forests are vital for life, home to millions of species,
they protect soil from erosion, produce oxygen, store carbon dioxide, and help
control climate. Forests are also vital for us to live as they provide us with
food, shelter and medicines as well as many other useful things. They also
purify the air we breathe and water that we need to survive. Deforestation by
humans is causing all of these necessary functions to be lessened, and hence
damaging the atmosphere even further.
Forests
play a huge role in the carbon cycle on our planet. When forests are cut down,
not only does carbon absorption cease, but also the carbon stored in the trees
is released into the atmosphere as CO2 if the wood is burned or even if it is
left to rot after the deforestation process.
Smaller
crops e.g. plants and agricultural crops also draw in carbon dioxide and
release oxygen, however forests store up to 100 times more carbon than
agricultural fields of the same area.
Deforestation
is an important factor in global climate change. Climate change is because of a
build up of carbon dioxide in out atmosphere and if we carry on cutting down
the main tool we have to diminish this CO2 build up, we can expect the climate
of our planet to change dramatically over the next decades.
It
is estimated that more than 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide are released to
the atmosphere due to deforestation, mainly the cutting and burning of forests,
every year.
Over
30 million acres of forests and woodlands are lost every year due to
deforestation; causing a massive loss of income to poor people living in remote
areas who depend on the forest to survive”.
To summarize, human activities have indeed contributed
to measurable deviation in the normal temperature cycles of planet earth. The extent and impact of this deviation has
been exaggerated by alarmists pushing their own political agendas. Efforts to reduce emissions and reduce our
carbon footprint cannot fail to have an overall beneficial effect on our
environment. These efforts should be pragmatic
and based on science rather than on anecdotal or emotional or politically
driven appeals.
Ray Gruszecki
January, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment