Warming is real
Craig A. French
Saturday, May 5, 2007
THE ARGUMENT over the existence of global warming has finally begun even in the Emporia Gazette, and even with the first round of letters, the tone is acrimonious. I will add to that.
It strikes me as utterly bizarre that global warming is questioned at all any longer. The average world temperature is rising rapidly; it is a recorded fact. Ocean levels are rising which is also observable fact. Human contributions are the main cause; more than 90 percent of the world’s scientists agree.
The big difference between this warming and warmings in the distant past is that those took place over tens or hundreds of thousands of years and this one is taking place within a century or two. Life then could adjust, evolve, and even proliferate within newly formed niches, but it cannot do that as rapidly as change is overwhelming us now. At some point, and we do not know for sure what that point is, the effects of warming will be irreversible over a short term measured in centuries or millennia. There is a significant potential that we could end civilized life on Earth. Seriously. This could happen if aggressive action is not taken within our lifetime.
We must end the use of carbon-based fuels which are the major contributor of greenhouse gasses, turning to wind and nuclear power as the only existing practical alternatives. We must reverse the cutting of tropical and boreal forests. Our oceans are in critical condition with decreases in plankton and other sea life. And yet we cannot even agree upon measures to control fishing, let alone pollution from runoff, consumerism or energy production.
The most fundamental problem is human overpopulation. Solving that is the greatest mystery.
Even so, we must act and act now if we are to save our world. Really. Please learn about these things, ask questions of those who are experts in biology, meteorology and ecology. Then talk about it, write letters, call elected officials local and national. To fail in this is to fail Earth’s future.
netloafer (anonymous) says...
What is meant by aggressive action?
When I was in college population control experts like Paul Erlich became famous because they advocated forced sterilization and forced euthenasia to solve the problem of over population. Today ethicists like Peter Singer from Princeton University are touting infanticide as a solution
Is that's what's being said? If that's the case, then count me out. There's got to be better solutions.
May 5, 2007 at 11:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lothar (anonymous) says...
Your absolutly right, Global Warming is a fact. However, the myth that humaity has anything to do with it is just that, a myth. Look at the 1970's. Then it was Global Cooling, and we were going to freeze the planet.
If manking is causing the warming, them why is it that Mars and Io (one of Jupiter's Moons) are both showing warming as well? Perhaps we are simply in a natural period of warming, cuased by a more active Sun.
May 9, 2007 at 2:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
No, I would not suggest forced sterilization or infanticide as being "aggressive action". That would be "extreme" under any circumstances and not something I think should be considered.
What I meant was, we must devote huge quantities of our economic and diplomatic resources to this problem. We must come up with ways to replace carbon fuels, find solutions to the problems associated with nuclear energy, and spare no expense in doing so.
About over-population, I have not answers. I can only hope that we will individually realize that we need to do something about it and then act upon that understanding.
Whether this is a natural period of warming or it is caused in part or whole by human contribution is actually unimportant. What is important is, we should return the carbon cycle to something more natural and, if we can, ease the rapidity of change that is happening. The human and other species costs of a rapid warming is alarming if not a crisis.
Warming and cooling are natural cycles. What is not natural in this instance is the rapidity of what is happening.
CAF
May 9, 2007 at 9:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
Please allow me one more comment regarding over-population.
There are things we can do that will help in a positive manner. First is economic development, here and in foreign countries. Second, is education - those who understand how to control something will more often do just that. Third, we must see to it that women and men have access to birth control measures such as condoms. And, as much as I dislike it, we must have laws that allow abortion so that women have a say even at that stage. These measures will, at least, help.
CAF
May 9, 2007 at 10:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
There were two implications in your original letter. The first was that arriving at consensus on measures about fishing, etc. is almost impossible. I believe you're right. I hear a lot of talk about wind farms, In some cases the Flint Hills is mentioned as an ideal spot for them. I suspect if legislation were pushed in that direction environmental groups around here would object. The same holds true with nuclear power. Citizen groups would fight it tooth and nail, such as the groups in New Hampshire and Long Island that derailed nuclear power plants in the late eighties and nineties. In the end the solutions that seem acceptable to some of us aren't acceptable to those whose oxes are being gored.
You also said that human over population is the most fundamental problem we face. That's the implication that links the problem of global warming with overpopulation. What I'm hearing is that not only are there too many of us, there are also too many of us unwilling to accept the solutions currently being offered. Hence, people themselves, and not political systems are the root causes of the problem The solution to one problem seems to be the solution to the other. Solving the "fundamental" problem of too many people will also solve the warming problem. It's the same thing the most vocal in the scientific community have been saying for years. Here's what Paul Erlich said in a 1970 interview, just two years after he wrote "The Population Bomb."
"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make, ... The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years."
Some, like environmentalist Lamont Cole, have said things like this:
"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem."
My questions are: What do you propose to solve the "overpopulation" problem, the one you call the most fundamental one? Will solving that problem then solve the problem of global warming?
NL
May 9, 2007 at 10:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lothar (anonymous) says...
CAFEmporia posted:
"Warming and cooling are natural cycles. What is not natural in this instance is the rapidity of what is happening."
Rapidity? Would you care to explain what you mean? In the past 100 years, the average temperature has risen by less that one degree. The 1930's were warmer than it is now. In fact, the temperature has been fairly consistant since 1998.
If you call less than one degree change in 100 year rapid, I'm not sure I want to hear your defination of slow.
May 10, 2007 at 1:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
CAFE
We already have abortion on demand in just about the entire world. In countries like China there are one child policies and forced abortion in cases where people don't comply. In this country abortion is a more common procedure than colononscopies. The millions and millions and millions of abortions haven't solved the "problem." How many more will it take?
I agree with you that economic development is important, but keep in mind that a good number of scientists who demand action on global warming are against economic development because they believe any economic development will make global warming worse.. Any time the G8 gets together to discuss development there are huge protests.
Another unfortunate thing is that too many scientists link poverty with increases in population. It's not true. If you look at wealth in the world it's almost always concentrated in centers of dense population (Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Europe, etc.). Where we have problems are places where population isn't as dense and development lags (Mali, sub-Saharan Africa, etc,). The implied solution to this problem is almost always population control in one form or another
There's also something else that's troubling to me. In the seventies the issues was global cooling.This is what ecologist Kenneth E.F. Watt had to say on Earth Day in 1970:
"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. … This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."
Where would we be now if we'd spent massive amounts of money, etc to reverse that problem on to find we'd created something immeasureably worse?
May 10, 2007 at 6:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Nobody disputes Global Warming. To even suggest that people question it shows a vast ignorance in itself. The question that is being debated, however, is whether or not WE HUMANS are the cause of global warming.
I, too, would like to know what is meant by the rapidity of change. Scientists now tell us that the ice caps on Mars, as well as the ice on Triton and several of the large moons of the outer planets are also melting faster than normal, so you may have a point, things might be warming faster than they have in the past, but I'm not sure what link there is between our greenhouse gases & the outer planets...
Again, I will post a link to this documentary for those who are open-minded enough to at least consider facts:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=...
The link to the video itself keeps changing, I'm sure the Gore crowd does what they can to keep this info from getting out.
May 10, 2007 at 9:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
Yes, as counterintuitive as it is, a 1 degree change in average world climate per century is geologically fast. Current trends are much, much faster, though, and those of us concerned about climate warming see that increase as a huge threat.
In the past, what is happening at the moment took tens or hundreds of thousands of years to occur. Life forms could adjust. The current and projected rates of change are faster than that to which life forms can adapt – major extinctions are likely to occur.
Do keep in mind that the droughts of the 30’s were regional phenomena. The world averages remained roughly the same. Now, the change is worldwide and becoming more rapid according to data being gathered.
Each nation is responsible to address and correct their own contributions, whether through creation of greenhouse gasses or more general pollution. None should wait on others or expect “fairness” – we all have to start effective programs and then apply pressure on others to do similarly. It does not matter what some grandstanding scientists said to promote themselves 30 years ago or what China is doing today. We must address the problems we cause (like buying from China) and, once that is being done, we can address those other issues.
CAFrench
May 14, 2007 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
I said that overpopulation is the fundamental problem of global warming and I stand by that. Unhappily, I have no practical solutions to offer. Ideally, education, economic development, civil freedoms, and personal responsibility would be enough, but I see no evidence that it will be. Governmental policies such as those used by the Chinese are not only ineffective but counterproductive in terms of quality of life. Personal freedom is, indeed, just as fundamental, and the freedom to make self-destructive personal decisions is one aspect of this.
A lower population would not necessarily solve climate change or environmental pollution, but a higher population would most certainly increase such problems. It is not a wholly direct relationship, but it is linked in numerous ways.
Presently, I see no way to purposefully “control” population levels. Traditionally, that has been Mother Nature’s job, through resource availability (water, food, energy), disease (usually related to population densities), and warfare. I suspect that will be how it happens in the future, too.
Craig French
May 14, 2007 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
daveedailey (anonymous) says...
Snake is back! Did you have a good weekend. Now back to the point at hand. I do believe there is global warming and man has a lot to do with it. I also believe the government has a lot to do with it. Man will destroy himself. It will not take much more of war and the cost of living to kill us all off. I understand the a gasoline station owner in Wisonsin was told to raise his prices by his government. (KFDI radio and Consumer protection)
May 14, 2007 at 12:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
That posting by Snake was one of the weirdest responses I’ve ever seen, saying simply nothing aside from expressions of anger. Weird.
Global warming is, indeed, real. The CIA is currently studying the potential security consequences as equatorial nations lose yet more agricultural production and countries like ours do, too. Migrations of human populations might make our current immigration problems look teensy. Rising sea levels threaten several of our major cities. Tropical diseases are moving to previously temperate zones. And our primary sources of energy continue to be fossil fuels which are massed under unstable or unfriendly countries.
Those denying the realities of global warming while claiming patriotism and their love of freedom as activity replacements are in a form of self-destructive denial which should be ignored except as forms of entertainment.
For reasons of halting the warming and associated trends which threaten our children’s future as well as for reasons of national security, it is critically important that we take all reasonable and prudent steps – aggressively – to replace carbon-based energy sources with energy that is less polluting as well as being renewable as possible, which may be created or obtained here in America.
Other measures to decrease pollution of our water resources including oceans which are less and less productive every year should also be enacted even if it appears at first to be expensive. The cumulative economic effects will be positive within a short time. Jobs will be created, standards of living will improve, we will be more secure at much cheaper costs, and our environment will be cleaner and more stable.
If you prefer to wave your flag and slither through the woods playing patriot, by all means do so. But do, please, stay out of the way of those who wish to do things that protect our country and its people, raise our credibility among our allies, and allow us to take a leadership position in making the world a better place.
French
May 14, 2007 at 8:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
Well, gosh, snakey, I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings, little guy. Or girl? I don’t know which you really are, what with all the false names, and I sure don’t want to cause you more pain.
And I’ll apologize for presuming you were angry. It sure sounded that way so, well . . . I’m sorry about that. But I’m glad you weren’t, too. That’s good.
So stop and think about it a moment. If we who are concerned about this particular climate change are wrong and it all levels out in a few years at, say, “very balmy” instead of continuing to get worse, any steps we take will be for our national and international good, right, even though they were not completely necessary to saving our lives. Jobs will have been created, major programs to clean up the environment will have been launched, we may well be free of foreign oil imports and may even be exporting billions of dollars worth of atmospheric scrubbers to other countries because, hey, we’re America and, when the going gets tough, well, we’re even tougher.
It’s possible.
On the other hand, if we are right and this really is a critical problem, then Earth might actually be saved or, more accurately, just most of the mammals. Earth is going to be ok. I know that. It’s the life forms on it that will get hurt, things like you and me. And man, I’d hate that, seeing us dehydrate in the heat and die. It would be such a bummer, you really must admit.
So, yep, I’m going to keep writing about this and, when I see stuff like what you wrote, whether angry or not, trying to make it look silly or mean or stupid, I’m going to be encouraged to write more. I’m going to write in places where people agree with what I say and I’m going to write in places where people like you hang out, and I’m going to do it because I think global warming really is a potentially life-threatening development. I fear for our children and grandchildren and want to do something that will help make this a better planet because I don’t think we’re going to get a chance to go to another one even if humans are allowed there. This feels like a moral obligation to me, something that, if I shrink from it, I will be committing a great wrongness for which I will suffer.
So, glad you’re not mad and I apologize for the slight.
C A French
May 14, 2007 at 11:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
UserName (anonymous) says...
Hmmm....tough choice here.
a) believe the majority of scientists across the globe who say global warming is a fact, or
b) believe the political talking heads who have a financial interest in saying global warming is a myth
Choice is pretty easy for me, but then again, I'm not easily influenced by the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reily.
Those who would say global warming is a "liberal" or "conservative" issue would do well to remember that this is a global issue; it's not something Al Gore invented. Governments from all over the world consider it to be an issue serious enough to address.
How sad that our nation's leaders are more interested in thier own financial gain than working for a better future for our children.
May 15, 2007 at 5:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
daveedailey (anonymous) says...
If all the politicians, city and county commissioners would just keep their mouths shut the world would cool off!!!
May 15, 2007 at 8:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
One thing to note, as "equatorial nations lose yet more agricultural production and countries like ours do, too", northern climates are gaining agricultural production and longer growing seasons. Maybe once again Iceland will be fertile, and vinyards will be plentiful in Britain, as was once the case in the past.
As for the "majority" of scientists across the globe saying global warming is a fact, there is quite a large number of very reputable scientists who dispute that, and are not "in the pay" of large corporations. Quite the contrary - dispute global warming, and your funding gets cut off. Global warming ITSELF has turned into quite the political bandwagon. The imminent Ice Age that we were heading into just a few decades ago was ALSO a global issue, being considered by governments all over the world.
I just have a problem that when data and facts are presented that, for instance to use an example, history has shown repeatedly that CO2 levels rise hundreds of years AFTER a warming trend begins, and scientists point out that we have been warming for 400-500 years now, (notwithstanding the little downtic in the 70's), I fail to see the logic in the current conclusion that we are starting to warm now BECAUSE of CO2 levels. Nobody on the current bandwagon wants to explain that. Nor do they want to explain any of the other points brought up by the video I have posted links to. It's agree or be shouted down. Kindof reminds me of some other issues the US has had in the last few years...
But if all this is true, since the populations of China & India dwarf ours, and their economies are rapidly industrializing, and the US offshores more and more manufacturing all the time, shouldn't we be blaming these countries? Shouldn't they be the ones getting the pressure put on them? We're sending all our jobs overseas to them after all...
It's a double edged sword. While it is true that "How sad that our nation's leaders are more interested in thier own financial gain than working for a better future for our children.", making a better future for children/people in the world also involves raising the standard of living in undeveloped 3rd world countries, which involves increased technology/manufacturing/modernization/etc.....
But as for measures to correct it, I'm all for things that will reduce pollution in our environment. So, as has been stated, maybe some good will come of it either way.
May 15, 2007 at 10:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )