They say it is natural.
by
Dr. Nitish Priyadarshi
Rising temperature are already the clearest sign of climate change. So far, according to the IPCC, global average temperatures have risen 0.60 C above the pre-industrial average. Nine of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1988; six of the first eight months of 1998 were the warmest since records began in 1866; and July 1998 was the hottest month ever.
Scientists who assess the planet’s health see indisputable evidence that earth has been getting warmer, in some cases rapidly. Most believe that human activity, in particular the burning of fossil fuels and the resulting buildup of green house gases in the atmosphere, have influenced this warming trend. In the past decades scientists have documented record-high average annual surface temperatures and have been observing other signs of change all over the planet: in the distribution of ice, and in the salinity, levels, and temperatures of the oceans.
Everywhere on earth ice is changing. The famed snows of Kilimanjaro have melted more than 80 percent since 1912. Glaciers in the Garhwal Himalayas in India are retreating so fast that researchers believe that most central and eastern Himalayan could virtually disappear by 2035. Artic sea ice has thinned significantly over the fast half century, and its extent has declined by about 10 percent in the past 30 years.
This is one of the aspect of the global warming which most of scientists believe is man made. There is small minority of atmospheric and other scientists who disagree with this general scientific consensus. According to these scientists we still know too little about natural climate variables that could change the assessment (up or down). In addition, computer models used to predict climate change are improving but still are not reliable.
They also point out that some signs of global warming may not necessarily be caused by human activities. For example, while many glaciers are shrinking, others are growing. Also, glaciers shrink and grow naturally over long periods of time for reasons that are largely unknown.
Finally, they contend that global warming may be a lot less damaging than many people think and can be beneficial for some regions. For example, some countries may be able to increase crop productivity because of more rainfall and longer growing seasons.
They also claim that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could increase the rate of photosynthesis in areas with adequate amounts of water and other soil nutrients. This would remove more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and help slow atmospheric warming.
However recent studies cast doubt on such a generalization for two reasons. First, this effect would slow as the plants reach maturity and take up less carbon dioxide. Second, it is a temporary effect. When the plants die and are decomposed or burned, the carbon they stored is returned to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
Are we heading towards major disaster or it is a simply a natural shifting of climate as it happened in the geological past. During the last 2 billion years the Earth's climate has alternated between a "Ice House", like today's world, and a steaming "Hot House", like the world of the dinosaurs. Jurassic climate stayed warm and became more humid. The polar areas were ice-free during this Period.
The history of earth’s climate is characterized by change. Times of glaciations on the earth have been followed by warm intervals and the duration in years of both cold and warm intervals has varied by several orders of magnitude.
What ever may be the truth we have no options but we have to opt wait and watch theory if we don’t stop carbon emission recklessly. But it is also true that the climate of the earth is changing from the time of its birth from hot to cold and cold to hot. Earlier too the earth has passed through global warming due to natural causes, but this time we the humans are culprits for the changes. When man-made factors are added to the natural ones, the ecosystem may be damaged beyond repair.
Wow this is interesting. I didn't know that some glaciers were growing. Thanks for sharing!
ReplyDeleteDisputes in science are a necessary part of gaining objective knowledge, and divergent views should have a place in every scientific discipline. The thing that concerns me is that the majority of the anti-warming/anti-human-induced warming supporters are driven (in the United States, especially) by a conservative ideology, with backing from "dirty" energy industries. It is so much like the tobacco companies insisting that cigarettes don't cause cancer for decades despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Their profits were threatened, and that's all anyone needed to understand.
ReplyDeleteUn blog muy interesante, me interesa mucho el tema, con permiso te sigo.
ReplyDeleteUn saludo.-
Due to the highly politicized nature of the Global Warming debate, there is almost no funding available from governments or universities for climatologists whose work does not support global warming. This means that the pro global warming science backing is equally biased. Additionally, most fossil fuel companies are not very interested in funding research because they are aware that having their name linked to the research will cause people to immediately dismiss it. In the end this means that there is vastly less money for global warming skeptics, making a balanced political debate very difficult.
ReplyDeleteThe recent controversy about the European scientists colluding to conceal contradicting evidence is not the first case I have heard about. I recall one of them saying that they were afraid that publishing their findings as-is would result in loss of funding. I wish I could recall enough detail to easily find some links to that case.
That being said, there are a number of reasons for replacing fossil fuels which are not subject to any uncertainty. Coal especially is responsible for both serious pollution from its use and environmental destruction from mining. Coal workers are more likely to develop serious work-related illnesses than workers at nuclear power plants. (I'm unsure as to how much of that information is biased by the economic situations and labor laws of countries which have more nuclear power versus countries which use more coal)
The Coal industry in the US briefly tried to put some spin on their product with the term "clean coal" but no one was fooled. What they really meant was "not quite as dirty as some other coal sources" not clean. While I feel bad for the coal workers who likely face job loss in the coming decades, it is easier to recover from losing a job than from lung cancer.