Climate Disruption - Term Paper Example

?Synopsis Climate change is definitively happening, and the consensus is that the major cause of this climate change is man-made. The theory as to why climate change is occurring centers around greenhouse gases. Karl & Tremberth (2003) explain that these gases, which include carbon dioxide that results from burning fossil fuel accumulates in the atmosphere, and this is what causes global warming. This effect has been seen worldwide. They also state that the concrete jungles of cities makes the cities hotter than more rural areas, because of the pollution in these areas causes urban heat islands. Other places where there are regionally warmer temperatures includes Amazonia and Sahel, because of deforestation and desertification. Cloud feedback, in which clouds trap long-wave radiation, is another cause of warming. Alternately, cloud feedback may cause global coolling if the clouds reflect solar radiation (Karl & Tremberth, 2003). Man has contributed to the global warming problem in a significant way. One way is through emissions from fuel burning, which causes oxidized gases which can become strongly absorbing aerosols, such as black carbon or soot. This interacts with the clouds and moisture, and this leads to neat heating. These aerosols also affect the climate by reflecting solar radiation and affect the climate indirectly by changing the reflective properties of clouds and the clouds’ lifetimes (Karl & Tremberth, 2003). The overall consensus is that global climate change is due to man-made activities, and that climate change has dire consequences for our ecosystems and land masses throughout the world. Evidence Regarding Climate Change The scientific consensus is that the cause of climate change is due to an increase in greenhouse gases. There are a variety of studies which support this claim, and Oreskes (2004) contends, essentially, that the debate on climate change is not over, for there are no significant dissenting opinions on the matter. Climate change is real, it is caused by greenhouse gases and it is not the result of a natural warming trend. In her article “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Oreskes takes on the individuals who would deny climate change and refutes their arguments, one by one. She begins by stating that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program, has stated unequivocally that the scientific consensus on the matter is that human activity is affecting the earth’s temperatures. They state that the observed warming over the past 50 years is due to the greenhouse gas concentrations. Oreskes observes that the IPCC was formed for political reasons, not to foster new research, and this is because the matter of climate change is one which is highly political. This might make the panel suspect, ecept that Oreske contends that all the major scientific bodies in the United States with expertise on the matter have issued reports stating the same thing – that greenhouse gases has caused the earth’s temperature to rise. They also have consensus that the rise in these temperatures are over and above natural warming trends that might have happened within this period (Oreskes, 2004). Oreskes has also reviewed the contents of scientifically reviewed papers which have been published in recent years, noting that these papers must be scientifically sound, as they are published in peer-reviewed papers and must pass the scrutiny of critical, expert colleagues. Oreskes notes that the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) has indeed all the papers which have been refereed by scientific journals, and are able to sample the scientific literature on any given subject, which provides an unbiased view of the subject. The ISI examined abstracts for 928 papers published between the years 1993 and 2003, and found that, after using the keyword phrase “global climate change” to discern the contents of articles about this subject that not one of the papers explicitly refuted the consensus opinion regarding climate change. This has led Oreskes to conclude that, within the scientific community, the number of scientists who have refuted the consensus opinion regarding climate change are exceedingly small (Oreskes, 2004). Oreskes dismisses the contrarian view about global warming, noting that the contrarians are either not climate scientists or they are politically motivated, in that the research is funded by companies like ExxonMobil, who obviously has a stake in the debate. For instance, Oreskes points to Frederick Seitz, who was a physicist and climate change contrarian. Seitz never actually researched climate change, yet boldly was a contrarian on the consensus regarding climate. Michael Crichton, who was a novelist, was not a scientist, yet he, also, was a contrarian regarding the global climate change consensus. Oreskes states that the two men were not credible on the issue, as they were not producing new evidence or arguments, but were, rather, simply attacking the work of others (Oreskes, 2004). Oreskes was definitive in pronouncing that global climate change is real and is caused by the increase in greenhouse gases. Her evidence was based upon the fact that there is little to no dissent on the issue amongst scientists who are neutral and experts in the field. Crowley et al. (2000) concurs with Oreske. Crowley et al. stated that greenhouse gases is most likely responsible for climate change, and he also examined other factors which might influence climate change, such as solar irradiance and a reduction in volcanism, which are the factors which were most responsible for climate variations before the year 1850. The data that he used for his study consisted of physically based resconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and indices of volcanism, solar variability and changes in greenhouse gases and tropospher aerosols (Crowley et al., 2000). With regards to the Northern Hemisphere temperatures, Crowley notes that there have been periods where the earth was naturally warmer then in other periods, and periods where the earth was naturally cooler then in other periods. The periods where the earth was warmer includes the years 1885-1925. Another time that the earth was warmer then usual includes the era between 1100 and 1300. The earth was colder then usual in the 17th Century and the early part of the 19th Century. Crowley also state that the so-called “Medieval Warm Period” between the years 1100 and 1300 had peak temperatures that were less then the the temperatures during the mid-20th century warming period occurring between the years 1935 and 1965 (Crowley et al., 2000). Next, Crowley examines possible natural reasons why the earth might be warmer or cooler during a given period. One of the factors that Crowley looks at is volcanic activity. The evidence is clear, according to Crowley, that volcanic activity has contributed to climate variability during the Little Ice Age. Another factor that Crowley examines is solar variability. They compared these natural phenomena to warming related to the increase of greenhouse gases. They concluded that, after taking into account the effects of volcanic and solar variability, and isolating the effects of greenhouse gases, that greenhouse gases is responsible for contemporary climate change and that only about 25% of the 20th Century temperature increases may be explained by natural variability. They also stae that “the bulk of the 20th century warming is consistent with that predicted from greenhouse gases increases” (Crowley et al., 2000). While the above provides a good basis for the thesis that global warming is real, and that it is based upon the actions of man, in that greenhouse gas increase explains the current warming of earth temperatures, Walther et al. (2002) concur with this analysis and also provide a look into how these warming temperatures are affecting the earth’s ecosystem. They begin by noting that the Earth’s climate has warmed by about .6? Celsius over the past 100 years, and that the two main periods of warming occurred between 1910 and 1945 and from 1976 onwards, and that the warming of the period of 1976 onwards has been approximately double that of the earlier period between 1910 and 1945. That said, they contend that regional temperature changes are more relevant to study then overall global changes, and that certain regions have experienced more warming then other regions and these regions’ ecosystems have been affected in ways different from regions that have not experienced as much of a climate temperature variability (Walther, et al., 2002). Walther et al. notes that, over the past 30 years, the increase in global temperatures has caused differences in plants and animal life and how species are distributed and how many range they have. For instance, Walter notes that in the Slovak Republic and the Balkan Region, that plants and birds have been delayed and that the Anarctic has seen vegetational changes and colonization of soil invertebrates not previously seen before. Also affected are coral reefs, which have undergone mass bleaching since 1979. Mass bleaching of coral reefs occurs when the temperature of the earth is more then 1.0? Celsius warmer then usual, for a period of several weeks. This bleaching has resulted in 16% of the coral reefs dying in one year, 1998. This has resulted in the almost total removal of coral in some places. Another example of an ecosystem change that has resulted from climate change is seen in fish populations. For instance, the Walley Pollock has seen a phenomena where the young are separated from the adults at an earlier age, which has led to cannibalism and weakened class strength. This has effected the entire Bering Sea food web, because the Walley Pollock is an important forage species in this area. Another example is that krill, which is a key food source for predators such as seals, whales, and penguins, have been reproductively affected, which has consequences for the food web in the Anarctic Peninsula as well as human economic consequences, as krill has been a prime fishery target (Walther, et al., 2002). Walther et al. (2002) provided anecdotal evidence that the ecosystems of the world are being affected by climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides a more comprehensive view of the situation. Their report in 2007 definitively states that climate change is affecting a great many ecosystems and land masses around the world. For instance, glacial lakes have enlarged and increased, and there have been increasing ground instability in the permafrost regions. This has led to a change in the Arctic and Antarctic ecosystems, in that the predators high on the food chain are affected, such as polar bears. These incidents provide a microcosm of how climate change is affecting the world, and the IPCC also make broader statements. For instance, they state that many ecosystems throughout the world will no longer be resilient because of the affects of climate change, including flooding, drought, wildfire and ocean acidification. They also state that coastal systems worldwide will be affected by increased erosion. And, perhaps most ominously, climate change will adversely affect humans throughout the world, as increased heat waves, flood, storms, fires and droughts will result in increased deaths (International Panel on Climate Change, 2007). Albert Gore Jr. has also weighed in on the climate change debate with his documentary An Inconvenient Truth. This award-winning movie describes climate change in great detail and in the language of the masses. The movie has also made a number of bold statements, some of which are dubious, but the overall affect of the movie is to show that, without a doubt, climate change is occurring and that greenhouse gases are responsible for this. One of the statements that Gore made was that the United States has less fuel efficiency standards than all other countries, even China, and that the fuel efficiency standards for the United States in 10 years will match what China's fuel efficiency standards are today. An independent analysis shows that this is correct. Right now, China's fuel efficiency standards are 35.8 MPG, and they plan to increase their fuel efficiency standards to 42.2 MPG by 2015 (Treacy, 2009; Bradsher, 2009; Blanco, 2009). Therefore, this statement is true – China's fuel efficiency standards are, at the present, virtually the same as what the US standards will be in five years. The other statement that was evaluated was that all scientists agree that global warming exists, that CO2 emissions are responsible for this, and that this is a serious problem. This is in concordance with the thesis of Oreske (2004). However, this claim is somewhat inaccurate, in that 650 scientists have signed on to a senate minority report that claims that there is not a consensus on the cause of global warming (Watson, 2008). Moreover, at least two reports debunking global warming theories have been published on the internet by scientists. One of these reports is by Dr. Patrick Michaels, who is described as a “leading climatologist,” who stated that “[t]his idea that most of the warming is due to greenhouse gases caused by man just isn’t right” (Majestic, 2010). A Dr. David Evans, who is a mathematician and an engineer, has written on how the earth has started a cooling trend that will continue until around 2030 (Evans, 2009). Critique It is clear from the articles that global warming is real and that it is man-made. Oreske (2004) makes perhaps the strongest argument, as she presented evidence that has been produced by the consensus of scientific articles and found not one of the almost 1,000 abstracts selected featured climate scientists going against the consensus about climate change. She also states that the few contrarians are not experts in the field or perhaps not even scientists at all. Because her evidence is gathered from a consensus of scientific journals, which are peer-reviewed, the provides evidence that the scientific community considers the matter of climate change to be irrefutable. Therefore, because her article provides a wide-ranging view on the matter, this article is even more persuasive then the two articles cited which are produced by scientists who are studying this issue. The two articles in question are the ones written by Walther et al. and Crowley et al. These two articles are written from the point of view of researchers who are studying the issue of climate change. They provide two different perspectives on the matter, as Walther’s articles is about whether climate change exists and what the cause is of it and Crowley’s article assumes that climate change exists and the article is focused upon how ecosystems are adversely affected. Walther’s article was helpful in the debate, as he specifically looks at alternative explanations for climate change, including volcanic and solar activity, which are responsible for earlier climate changes, and concludes that greenhouse gases are still mostly responsible for the recent climb in temperatures. This article is helpful because it helps to debunk two factors which are used by dissenters, who claim that natural causes are behind climate change. Walther’s research proves that this is not true. Crowley’s article was also interesting, although it could be more comprehensive. The article mainly focused upon anecdotal evidence that climate change is affecting our global ecosystem, by looking at the change in certain ecosystems in certain parts of the world. While this is an approach that is helpful to the masses, in that it is easier to explain the impact of climate change on world ecosystems by focusing on a few examples, its overall lack of comprehensiveness regarding how ecosystems are affected somewhat diminished the impact of the article. Nevertheless, the IPCC in its article fills in the gaps, as it reviews the impact of climate change on land masses and ecosystems on each of our seven continents, and even has sections for polar regions, Latin America and small islands. Because the article surveys each of these major land masses in some detail, it provides an overall view of the climate change problem and presents it on a more global scale then did the Crowley article. It more definitively demonstrates that our land masses all over the world are being affected by climate change by going past anecdotal evidence and focusing worldwide. Al Gore’s documentary is similar in this regard, in that he took care to show how land masses and ecosystems all over the world are affected by climate change. Moreover, he provided concrete proof of climate change and man’s role in climate change as well as providing concrete facts about why this occurring and what we can do about it. And, because he provides these facts in an entertaining way that is palatable to the masses, he is perhaps even more effective in explaining the phenomenon then the articles cited above. The one criticism is that Gore is not a scientist, and, like Michael Crichton, has not produced research on the matter. Rather, he is presenting the research of others. This would make him less credible, in the estimation of Oreske (2004), who specifically states that non-scientists, as well as scientists who are not experts in climate science, are not credible in adding their voices to the debate. This edict presumably cuts both ways, which means that Oreske would consider Gore to be an unreliable narrator. Because the evidence seems to overwhelmingly support the theory that greenhouse gases are creating climate warming, I agree with this position on the topic. Bibliography Crowley, T. (2000) Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years. Science, 289, 270-277. Guggenheim, D. (Director) (2006) An Inconvenient Truth [Motion Picture]. United States: Lawrence Bender Productions. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Available at: http://www.meteotrentino.it/clima/pdf/rapporti_meteo/IPCC_Impacts_Adaptation_and_Vulnerability.pdf Karl, T. (2003) Modern global climate change. Science, 302, 1719-1723. Oreskes, N. (2004) The scientific consensus on climate change: How do we know we’re not wrong? Science, 306, 1686-1711. Walther, G., Post, E., Convey, P., Menzel, A., Parmesan, C., Beebee, T., Fromentin, J., Hoegh-Guldberg, O. & Bairlein, F. (2002) Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature, 416, 389-395. Read More