Global Warming: Fact or Fiction - Term Paper Example

Global Warming Fact or Fiction Global Warming Fact or Fiction The concept of global warming has been under debate for many years among the global countries and arguments from proponents’ side as well as opponents’ side have changed the concept from a realistic theory into an imaginary idea. At one end, the group considering itself ‘green’ and advocating for the existence of global warming bewail the catastrophe that human activities are contributing to the overheating of the planet earth while the group on the other end refute the global warming theory presented by the ‘green’ group. Behind the arguments presented by both groups there lies misunderstanding, confusion and want for knowledge (Gasaway, 2009). The theory propounding the concept of global warming holds that anthropogenic sources have been existence for more than a century and that evidence supporting global warming has been collected by scientists for at least the past half century. Despite the collection of the evidence, the general public still remains in the dark, continually in awe as to whether the concept of global warming is fiction or fact. This paper investigates the controversial topic of global warming exploring its numerous impacts on society and the scientific evidence supporting it as well as its counter arguments. Global warming is described as the earth’s temperature increment as a result of augmented greenhouse gases’ emission into the atmosphere; the greenhouse gases, inclusion of carbon dioxide, make a layer in the atmosphere of the earth that ensnare heat responsible for increased global temperatures. This theory was first presented by Svante Arrhenius in the year 1896 who stipulated that increasing the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide levels by twofold would lead to a rise in global temperatures by a number of degrees. Even then, people were doubtful as other factors could play a role in global warming. Since the start of global warming theory, discussions about global warming have increasingly become complex as to its causes and consequences because of the address of the issue by media and scientists. The scientists research on climate changes and report their findings while the media exaggerate the scientific findings to the public in their daily articles combining with ignorance of the public to yield confusion. Science versus the media The main cause of confusion about the issue of global warming stems the media as during the interlude of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods, the media profoundly discuss the issue of global warming whereas in their absence, the media shallowly covers the issue with some media not reporting it all. At the beginning of the concept of global warming, scientists, politics and culture were the main sources of information to the media about the issue but these initial sources have changed from the people directly researching on the topic to those not directly engaged to its research- politics and interest groups. For instance in the year 2006, the production of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ documentary by Al Gore conveyed certain predictions and facts about global warming to millions of people and earning more than $49 million. Its influence outweighed that of scientific papers on the same topic as it was available to many more people than any other scientific paper. The politician replaced scientists as the public’s informer. The continuing absorption of politicians and scientists as sources of information regarding global warming increases uncertainty about the topic. A survey carried out by an associate professor and PhD student from the university of Utah on the public’s response on conflicting global warming articles found that scientific content yield significant certainty while controversy yield greater doubt about the topic. They also concluded that the discrepancy between political opinions and scientific findings shrinks the understanding of and importance attached to global warming. Numerous articles and blogs are posted on the internet with or without verifying the credibility of their content; some argue that global warming is a hoax while others highlight its weight. All these lead to public confusion on what to believe about the global warming issue as people have no adequate bases to evaluate the authenticity of the controversial information obtained from the media. Scientific evidence The scientific community is also plagued by controversy surrounding the global warming issue; all scientists buy the idea that global warming theory make sense in that the green house effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contributes to increased global temperatures, however, they do not universally agree how it has occurred. Scientists possess a myriad evidence to back up the theory that global warming has been caused by human being; meteorological stations’ records, atmospheric studies, climate changes and polar ice melting. Temperature recordings, rainfall amounts measured and climatic changes predicted at meteorological stations indicate a rise in global temperatures, amounts of rainfall and adverse climatic conditions, trends that scientists associate with increased human activities that are said to add greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Through ice core studies that involve measurement of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere within a given year, scientists have recorded increased levels of carbon dioxide in the planet’s atmosphere. By plotting the temperature recordings and carbon dioxide levels on a graph line, scientists have concluded that they both have a positive relationship and that they have been responsible for global warming since 1980. Publication of changes that occurred between years 2005 and 2007 were produced in the year 2007 indicating that the sea level had rose, polar-ice melting had bulged and warmth in the Antarctica weather balloons had steadily increased (Leroux, 2005). Similarly, scientists found that the interval between cyclic climatic changes in the many past millenniums occurred After 23,000 years but this duration has of late increased to 100,000 years leading to a consensus between the scientists that the planet earth is warming (Shakun et al, 2012). However, they are a few scientists who claim that global warming does not stem solely from activities of human beings; there are other factors also playing a role in the warming of the planet. Opponents argue that most of these predictions are made with the help of computer simulations which do not vividly explain the sequence followed to arrive at the final answer. As much as computers are known to be accurate, their accuracy depends on the data input, the famous ‘GIGO’ principle; garbage in garbage out. Regarding the rise in sea level, opponents argue that it is a trend that has been happening dating back to several millenniums even before industrialization era begun. For example, sea level around the bridge connecting Alaska to Siberia is presently rising just as it has been doing over thousands of previous years. Recent researches on the sea level rise found that the change averaged 1-2 centimetres per century in the past 3 millenniums. Some studies indicated increased rises throughout the 20th century averaging 10-25 centimetres while other studies have reported the change at lower rates (Saniotis & Bi, 2009). The basis here is not to deny changes in sea levels but to point out that the changes occurred before the industrialization era that is claimed to be the main human activity contributing to emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Global warming opponent scientists have evidence supporting their argument that human beings and human activities are not the only or primary factor causing global warming. Such scientists consider global warming as a purely natural issue thereby marking down the evidence presented by the majority scientists that human beings are responsible for global warming. The opponent scientists allege that some of the stations providing the measurement records relating to temperature hide and falsify some information concerning global warming. Moreover, temperature does not represent a larger portion of the earth’s geography and is greatly influenced by urbanization through the ‘heat island effect’. They further claim that future climatic predictions made by climatologists omit significant natural processes that are beyond their scientific measurement/approximation capacity. Most environmentalists suggest that weather-related disasters have intensified in severity as well as frequency seemingly because of human being activities. No records are available to back up their claims; on the contrary, a number of recent statistical surveys have established no increase in natural disasters such as blizzards, typhoons and hurricanes (Hollander, 2003). What is on the rise is the cost of the property lost in incidences involving the natural disasters owing to the increasing domination of rich people in the society and their construction of luxurious properties in areas exposed to natural disasters such as forest areas and coastlines. These survey findings punch holes into the credibility of the arguments made by a group advocating for the control of human activities. The general public are left in confusion as to understanding whether global warming is factual or fictional. Another contentious basis complicating understanding of the arguments of the divided groups of scientists is funding relative to the interests of the funders. The group of scientists advocating for the control of human activities to avoid global warming argue that the opposing group of scientists are funded by fossil-fuel industries to undermine global warming curbing efforts as control measures largely affect such industries’ activities. The proponent group hold that fossil-fuel industries care much less of the impacts of global warming whereas the opponent group counter by arguing that the proponent group has not presented clear illustrations correlation explaining the relationship between global warming and carbon dioxide a part from the greenhouse gases’ blanket formation. Therefore, while there is a universal agreement among scientists that the earth is warming, there is a disagreement as to the causes of global warming; further research is required to establish the definite causes that would be universally acceptable among all scientists. Contradicting influence of water vapour Water vapour has been associated with two contradicting roles in the atmosphere; contributing to earth’s warming as well as cooling, on one hand advancing the global warming concept from the greenhouse perspective while on the other hand disparaging it. At higher altitudes, the water vapour has same effects as greenhouse gases in that it traps heat from the surface of the earth restricting it from escaping into the atmosphere thereby contributing to global warming. At lower altitudes, the water vapour has a reversal role in that because it results in the cooling of the earth’s surface instead of warming; when it accumulates in excess amounts, it prevents the heat from the sun reaching the surface of the earth and also falls in the form of rain that cools the earth’s surface (Spalding, 2010). These two opposite roles are also linked to the greenhouse effects arguing that as much as they contribute to global warming by trapping the heat from the surface of the earth, they also prevent some heat from the sun reaching the earth’s surface thereby contributing to cooling. These contradicting roles complicates understanding of the global warming phenomenon as no absolute values are attached to the positive and negative effect of greenhouse gases to sufficiently help a person discern the eventual effect. Global warming as a bane and a boon Both scientists and the media calling for the control of human activities contributing to global warming emphasize the negative impact of global warming while ignoring the positive side. They paint global warming as having only negative effects with no merits at all when in reality it is wrong. Global warming has constructive as well as harmful effects. The increasing global temperatures are likely to contribute to elongated growing seasons in most parts of the globe because extremely cold weather conditions in some regions are eliminated whereas increased carbon dioxide levels support more plant growth and stretched growing season. Also, the cold weather/ ice cold related delays to transportation means such as aeroplanes and vehicles will be reduced. These are positive effects on the community. The effect of reducing the cover of ice is some regions is accompanied by further increase in temperature in already warm and hot areas. In the cases of global warming, such areas will record dramatically higher temperature unfavourable for farming. Increasing sea levels, ice melting and global temperatures associated with global warming are bound to destroy the earth’s ecosystems; aquatic species suited in shallow waters are likely to be deprived off their habitat just as terrestrial species suited to cold weather conditions. For example, disease vectors that lived in the previously cold areas are likely to move to the warm areas settled by human beings thereby leading to increased cases of illness, and even death in extreme case. Habitat destruction and increased temperatures are likely to loss of life and reduced food supply respectively. Thus, global warming has both positive and negative effects on the global society and the environment that make it difficult to be precisely categorized as a boom or a bane; people are left wondering as to whether its positive effects are sufficient enough to reverse its negative effects. Conclusion Global warming is both beneficial and destructive to human life and the environment; on one side eliminating ice/cold weather related transportation delays and increasing growing seasons in cold areas while on the other side causing ecosystem destruction and worsening growing season in already warm regions. Scientists have universal agreement as to its existence but not to its causes, however, universal agreement does not always mean that the subject of the agreement is always real/true. Some of the arguments of the opposing hold weight against each other. Yes, there are increases in sea level, global temperature and ice melting, but these increases have been recorded even before the onset of industrialization and human activities are not the only set of activities responsible for such changes; no definite cause/causes have been established. This lack of clarity coupled with confusion in media makes it difficult to reach a consensus as to the presence, causes and effects of global warming; as for me, global warming is real despite the divided opinions as to its presence, effects and causes because the consequence of human activities has been shown. References Gasaway, R. (2009). An inconvenient purpose: Linking godly stewardship and alternative energy. Enumclaw: WinePress Pub. Hollander, J. M. (2003). Rushing to Judgement: Global Warming. Wilson Quarterly, 27(2): 22-34. Leroux, M. (2005). Global warming: Myth or reality: the erring ways of climatology. Berlin: Springer. Saniotis, A., & Bi, P. (2009). Global warming and Australian public health: Reasons to be concerned. Australian Health Review, 33(4), 611-7. Shakun, J. D. et al. (2012). Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. Nature, 484(7392), 49-54. Spalding, F. (2010). Catastrophic climate change and global warming. New York: Rosen Central. Read More