Philip Hwang (123-72-8019)
Natural Science I: Energy and the Environment
The Greenhoax Effect
The greenhouse effect and global warming. To address these two topics, one must understand what they are and how they are distinct from one another. The greenhouse effect is caused by the atmosphere absorbing and reflecting the earth’s own heat b ack toward the planet, keeping it at a constant average temperature of 15°C. This phenomenon is beneficial and quite necessary, otherwise life would not be able to exist on this planet. Global warming is the increase of the greenhouse gases in the atmos phere, which in turn increase the amount of heat absorbed and reradiated back towards the earth. This basically means that the temperature will continue to increase according to the level of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide.
In 1996, the United Nations came out with three Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, claiming to have the endorsements of 2,500 scientists, forming the "scientific consensus" that President Clinton and Vice President Gore always speak of. On the other hand, in 1995, skeptical scientists had signed the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change, stating that they "cannot subscribe to the so-called ‘scientific consensus’ that envisages climate catastrophes and a dvocates hasty actions."1 With two extremely opposite stances taken by credible scientists all over the world, how does one choose which to believe in? I hope to show you through comparison and analysis of data that the IPCC reports are more alarmist than informative.
The IPCC reports claim to have the endorsement of 2,500 scientists, however, this turns out to be a great exaggeration, for "most of the several hundred listed "contributors" are simply specialists who allowed their work to be cited, without necessarily endorsing the other chapters."2 Among these scientists, there are very few who are actually climate scientists, compared to the 100 climate scientists who signed the Leipzig Declaration. Among the few IPCC climate sc ientists, there are some who "have expressed doubts about the validity of computer models and about the main IPCC conclusion"2 for "unannounced and possibly unauthorized text changes"3 were made to the reports and "some very pertinent information had disappeared between final approval and printing."3 Three independent surveys were taken of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and they each found that "about half did not support the Policymake rs’ Summary."2 Furthermore, it has been found that the IPCC report "uses scientific articles that have not even been published"3 to support its main conclusion.
Turning away from the IPCC’s reports though, we must decide for ourselves whether the data that was used was credible or not. One of the leading authors of a recent IPCC report, T. M. L. Wigley, along with R. Richels and R. J Edmonds, calculated t he effects of unchecked carbon dioxide emissions, and found "a spectacular refutation of the IPCC’s apocalyptic scenario."4 He calculated 550 ppm carbon dioxide and found no change in the environment after 30 years. He then calculat ed the same scenario for a time span of 300 years and "found a difference in the sea level of less than 5 centimetres and a change in temperature of about 0.2°C."4 This was "a lethal blow to global warming predictions" for it made "a mockery of the IPCC’s claims that the next century would see temperatures rise by 3°C and sea level by 65 cm, causing massive environmental damage."4
Now that we have refuted the IPCC’s bleak predictions of our future, we must also analyze their evidence. The problem with the data that the IPCC collected was that it was taken mostly in cities and towns, where Urban Heat Island Effect occurred. This is the "localised warming from expanding urban asphalt and concrete."5 It only measures the land and does not take into account the temperature of the oceans and their affect on the global temperature average. A second, and be tter way to measure the global temperature is by use of satellites. They perform a uniform sweep of the earth, and therefore take into account the ocean, cities, as well as other landforms. This method showed no significant global warming, and this &quo t;is further supported by data from radio sonde balloons."5 There are graphs5 at the end to support these arguments. The IPCC’s findings of increasing global temperature is therefore, inaccurate and misleading.
The global warming that did occur happened before 1940, which was "before most of the rise in carbon dioxide levels."6 The temperature since then has been somewhere between flat and falling since the 1970s. The warming is mos t "likely a natural recovery from a previous, natural cooling."2 This shows no correlation with increased carbon dioxide levels, because they have not happened yet.
Although the temperature increase has been dismissed as inaccurate, there is still other data to be examined, such as the sea level. This is a difficult change to measure, for there must be "adjusting for waves, storm surges and tidal variati ons."7 In addition, "the mand surface may be rising or falling."7 Putting this difficulty aside, if one found that there had actually been a rise in sea leve, there is no conclusive evidence to associate it with the climate. "The best estimates based on geologic data indicate that this has been going on for several centuries"7 and most believe it is "connected to slow tectonic changes in the shape of the ocean basin."7
This brings us to the question of melting polar ice caps. If a warmer climate does come into being, people believe that the gigantic glaciers in the poles would melt, and raise the ocean level a significant amount, however, the warmer climate also means more water would evaporate. This leads to increased rainfall and snow, and through this way it "thickens the polar ice caps, thus lowering sea levels."7 This may seem like reverse logic, however there is evidence to support t his. "The warming of 1900-1940 shows a drop in sea levels, while the subsequent cooler period shows a sea-level rise."7
Even with so small an increase of temperature, one may wonder how such an increase might occur. The temperature fluctuations are not linked to human influences. Rather, they are believed to be caused by "subtle changes in the sun’s radiation ."7 Some attribute it directly to sunspot. "The more sunspots, the brighter the sun shines."6 During the "Little Ice Age", "there were hardly any sunspots in the late 1600s, and the weather got really cold."6
It still remains what to do about the excess carbon dioxide in the air. Surely there must be sum side effect of the rapid increase of carbon dioxide. This is certainly true, however the results are not as dismal as some may have you believe. The carbon dioxide is used by the plants. "The more carbon dioxide in the air, the more plants there will be, and the faster they will grow."6 From this increase of vegetation comes an increase of animal life. "The result of burn ing coal, oil, and gas is to turn them into living plants and animals."6 "Man’s fossil fuel burning is his biggest, and by far his most successful recycling project!"6 Beside the ecological benefit, "correlation s between climate and human development and well-being over the last 10,000 years…suggests…no credible threat and, on balance, may yield major benefits."8
With all this aside, one must still wonder if this is in actuality a hoax, what would be the reasoning behind it. Some believe that it is an international economics maneuver. "The global warming treaty provides a pseudo-scientific cover for the international redistribution of income."9 Some even go so far as to say "the U.S. economy will be devastated by a treaty to be signed in Japan in December"9 and that it will turn the United States into a non-indus trialized country."9 There are also those who believe it is to "stampede you into supporting more regulations, more bureaucracy and higher taxes."6 The treaty would be a binding agreement by "only the industrial ized countries to roll back carbon emissions,"8 but this would "accomplish little in the terms of reducing carbon emissions"8 because the "industries would move out of the ‘first world’ (the United States and Euro pe) to ‘Third World’ or ‘developing’ countries not subject to the treaty’s restrictions or to the current restrictions that already exist in the United States and Europe."9 As cynical as these may seem to be, it does seem possible, for th e economic impact of trying to reduce carbon emissions is irrefutable.
In conclusion, global warming has yet to prove itself to be true, and even once it has done this, it must prove itself harmful enough for us to take the costly steps against it. Afterall, what would be so bad about a warmer climate? The sea level would also decrease, as shown above, and plant life would flourish, which is good news for all life on this planet.
These graphs are included to demonstrate:
a) The global temperature according to satellites
b) The difference between Surface collected data, and Satellite collected data
c) The similarity in readings of the Satellite and Balloon measurements
Endnotes
Back Home