Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

GLOBAL WARMING - FACT OR FICTIONIntroduction to Global Warming:

Greenhouse warming has existed for quite some time, arguably since Earth was firstformed. Greenhouse gases, or gases conducive to the greenhouse effect, act like a blanketor the panes of glass in a greenhouse's walls; they reflect the heat the earth would radiateinto space back down towards the earth, holding it in. You see, the balance of heat on earthis maintained by different processes. Solar radiation approaches the earth, and clouds andthe atmosphere reflect some of it back into space. More radiation is absorbed by theatmosphere, clouds, and the surface of the earth. Then the earth radiates the heat back asinfrared radiation. To maintain a certain, constant temperature, the rate that Earth emitsenergy into space must equal the rate it absorbs the sun's energy. The greenhouse effect'srefusal to allow a certain amount of this terrestrial radiation to pass keeps the Earth'saverage surface temperature at about 60°F (15°C). If there were no greenhouse gases inthe atmosphere, most of the heat radiated by the Earth's surface would be lost directly toouter space, and the planet's temperature would be 0°F (-18°C), too cold for most forms of life (Greenhouse).There are several atmospheric gases that act as greenhouse gases (GHGs). The mostinfamous is carbon dioxide, which is emitted through the respiration of humans andanimals, the burning of fossil fuel, deforestation, and other changes in land use. Carbondioxide is the main focus of many greenhouse gas sanctions, since it is the greenhouse gasthat has most been released into the atmosphere. However, some other gases may have agreater effect upon climate than CO2. If one examines research into the possible warmingeffect of other GHGs relative to CO2, one finds that over a 100-year period, there are gasespresent in far smaller amounts that have a much more concentrated effect. Methane, a gasproduced by livestock (flatulence), oil and gas production, coal mining, solid waste, and wetrice agriculture, has 11 times more warming potential per volume than CO2 (Science), or 25times more per molecule (Clarkson). Nitrous oxide, produced mainly in connection withcurrent agricultural practices, has 270 times more warming potential per volume over thisperiod than CO2 (Science). Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the gases used as refrigerants andin aerosol spray dispensers that were banned some time back due to their ozone depletionpotential, have 3400-7100 times more warming potential per volume than CO2 (Science).Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), the CFC substitutes,have a slightly smaller warming potential at 1200-1600 times larger per volume than CO2(Science).And so, as one might infer, studies are showing that additions of GHGs may cause the earthto get warmer than it naturally would. This is what is referred to as anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming. Many times, the terms global warming and climate change areused interchangeably. (We will do the same, for continuity's sake.) But, this is not correctand the concepts are different. Climate change includes precipitation, wind patterns, andtemperature. It also refers to the whole climate, not just weather conditions of one place.Global warming is an indication of climate change. It is an example of a climate change thathas the atmosphere's average temperature increase. Earth has experienced much warmingand much cooling throughout its history. There is a great deal of debate as to whether ornot the earth is experiencing a globally warming climate change and, if it is, whether theunderlying causes are man-made or natural. Different research has given different results.However, even when greenhouse gases were arguably at a stable level, before the onset of the Industrial Revolution, Earth's climate tended to fluctuate widely. A period from 5,000 to3,000 BC (when civilization began) is called the Climatic Optimum and another period from

900 - 1200 AD is called the Little Climatic Optimum or the Medieval Climatic Optimum, bothso named for their unusually warm temperatures. Likewise, a period from 1550 to 1850 isknown as the Little Ice Age for its unusually cold temperatures (Pidwirny). At this time,glaciers in southern Norway reached their greatest extent in 9000 years (Keigwin). Withsuch large variations possible, it is difficult to know where the next natural fluctuation couldtake us. Perhaps those who find that global climate is warming are simply measuring anatural fluctuation. Or perhaps a natural fluctuation is masking the real effect of GHGs onthe globe.

Global Warming: Big Questions, Big Research

As mentioned previously, there is a great debate over whether or not humans are causingglobal warming. Some activists and researchers have resorted to name-calling or accusingthe opposing side of having "sold out" to one special interest or another. As mentionedpreviously, we have attempted to cut away the personal attacks between the opposingsides, search for the kernel of truth (or logic, where truth cannot be discerned), and getdown to the heart of the matter.In order to properly read any of the reports or research on global climate change, one mustkeep in mind that nothing (or almost nothing) is certain. Everything has a certain degree of uncertainty, a certain flavor of the unknown. There really is no conclusive evidence of globalwarming, and many scientists in favor of the global warming hypothesis say that it will be adecade or more before it is possible to develop any substantial evidence. As an anonymoussenior climate modeler has said about global warming, "The more you learn, the more youunderstand that you don't understand very much" (Kerr - Greenhouse Forecasting). Globalclimate is by nature always fluctuating, and that only adds to the confusion aboutanthropogenic global warming. If there were an anthropogenic global warming, we couldn'tbe sure what temperature we were supposed to be at, as climate shifts are a natural part of life on Earth. Compounding that confusion is natural variability, which is always working toconfuse researchers just as they come close to attributing a perceived change in averagetemperature to some external factor, such as atmospheric composition (GHGs) or solarvariation. One reason for this variability is the long adjustment time of the oceans' heatstorage and current systems. It is estimated to take several hundred years for water tocirculate from the deepest portions of the oceans back to the surface. This means that if, forexample, a pool of extra cold water is singled out and stored in the depths by some freakmechanism, it could stay there a century or two before resurfacing and producing a local,cool climate change (Clarkson, North, and Schmandt).Since no one can create another Earth (let alone one that behaves exactly like ours) andperform atmosphere-altering experiments on it, we are left with the alternative of theorizingbased on observations. In other words, the only way we can purport to know anythingabout what might be changing in our climate is by playing with data, such as records of temperature, borehole measurements, etc., and seeing what scenarios the data will agreewith.Most of the body of global warming theory is based on computerized climate models calledglobal circulation models or GCMs, for they are almost the only tools global warmingresearchers have. GCMs are difficult to make as making them properly involves a deep-rooted understanding of the way the atmosphere works and how its actions areinterconnected with other planetary bodies, such as the oceans or the terrestrial biosphere.But our understanding of the inner workings of the atmosphere and the ways it relates toother planetary bodies is not very good. Renowned NASA climate modeler James Hansen,the man whose summer 1988 congressional testimony kicked off the climate change

debate, states in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: "The forcings[outside factors] that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracysufficient to define future climate changes." One of the fundamental illustrations of chaos,the butterfly effect, displays the interconnectedness of the atmosphere system when itstates that a butterfly fluttering through the air in China could cause rain in New York thefollowing spring.GCMs are made by formulating mathematical descriptions of the interrelationships betweenthe atmosphere/ocean/biosphere/cryosphere system and conducting numericalexperiments. They certainly are unable to form a mathematical description based on thekind of interconnections, or feedbacks, that the butterfly effect would suggest. Indeed,Michael Schlesinger, modeler at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, tells us that"in the climate system, there are 14 orders of magnitude, from the planetary scale--which is40 million meters--down to the scale of one of the little aerosol particles on which watervapor can change phase to a liquid [cloud particle]--which is a fraction of a millionth of amillimeter." Of these 14 orders of magnitude, only the two largest (the planetary scale andthe scale of weather disturbances) can currently be included in models. Schlesinger notesthat, to include the third order of magnitude (the scale of thunderstorms, at about 50 kmresolution) a computer a thousand times faster would be necessary, "a teraflops machinethat maybe we'll have in 5 years." Including all orders of magnitude would require 1036-1037 times more computing power (Kerr - Greenhouse Forecasting).Because GCMs are so hard to make, often they account for the same processes differently;two models may have two different mathematical descriptions of what effect clouds have onwarming, for example. Processes with a resolution smaller than a few hundred kilometerscannot be represented directly in the models, but instead must be parameterized, orexpressed in terms of the larger scale motions, since the models do not have the resolutionnecessary to properly represent the actions of important weather systems such as tropicaland extratropical cyclones. To offset this downfall, a few parameterizations (such ashorizontal eddy viscosity, large-scale precipitation cumulus convection, gravity wave drag,etc.) are calibrated. Added to these parameterizations are adjustments commonly referredto as flux corrections, and they are an important "fudge factor" for the GCMs. These factorskeep the models from floating off into nowhere. As Kerr (Model) stated, "Climate modelershave been 'cheating' for so long it's almost become respectable." Through theseparameterizations, GCMs attempt to represent certain climate features reasonably well, butit is possible that they may be getting the right numbers but have the wrong underlyingreason for them. As a result, such models' ability to simulate climate change properly wouldbe negatively impacted.Lately, a model has been designed and tested at the National Center for AtmosphericResearch to eliminate the flux corrections. This model better incorporates the effects of ocean eddies, not by shrinking the scale, but by parameterization, passing the effects of these invisible eddies onto larger model scales using a more realistic means of mixing hearthrough the ocean that any earlier model did. This model doesn't drift off into chaos evenafter 300 years of running. This model gives a 2oC rise in temperature due to a CO2doubling. (Some of the more popular GCMs assume that the concentration of CO2 willdouble in 70 years or quadruple in 140 years and use the assumption to try to predict whatthe climate will be like in decades or even centuries based on that doubling or quadrupling.)This figure is on the low side of estimates and puts the model's sensitivity to greenhousegases near the low end of current model estimates (Kerr - Model).GCMs are very sensitive to the representations of the effects of clouds and oceans, as theireffects are complex and not understood well. While some GCMs are being specially made to