Sometimes King Dinglefritz would like to change his focus and expound upon a serious subject. Today's subject is climate change, and in particular global warming. I have a BA in Geography, a minor in Geology and a concentration in Environmental Studies from SUNY Geneseo so I am no dummy in this area. This blog is in response to an essay by fellow blogster "Repoman" whose blog I follow and enjoy to the extent a left leaning middle of the road person can. While I agree with the first two full paragraphs and the first sentence of the third of what he wrote I disagree with the a lot of the rest of his essay. He is concerned that taking dramatic steps to prevent global warming will reduce our standard of living. Well, if Al Gore and the scientists that he supports are correct then doing nothing will reduce our standard of living even more. What happens if the climate changes in a way that people cannot continue to thrive in areas in which they do now? What happens if the monsoon in India stops and its winds do not bring the much needed seasonal rain? What happens if the breadbasket of our country turns into a desert? What happens to our beaches when the warming Earth's icecaps melt and oceans rise? What happens if the Gulf Stream gets cut off by the cold Labrador current thereby denying the northern Hemisphere of its moderating influence? These are questions that may be faced if we continue to pump greenhouse gases into our atmosphere at an alarming rate.
Lets look at the three biggest greenhouse gases there are. The first is Carbon Dioxide and one only has to look at the planet Venus to see what too much of this gas can do. The planet's surface swelters at 900 degrees because the gas lets infrared radiation in but does not let it out. It acts as a blanket. Let me make an example of this using an everyday thing that people use...a car. Lets say that a car with its windows down is the atmosphere of the earth before man started using fossil fuels and pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. As more gas gets pumped into the air the windows start rolling up until it reaches a point where the heat builds up more quickly than it can escape. We have all opened a car door on a hot day in the summer when the windows have been up. We have all felt that blast of hot air that is released when that door is opened. This is the gas we have the most control over its release into our atmosphere.
The second greenhouse gas is water vapor. All you have to do is walk outside on a clear, crisp winter night. It gets damn cold out there. It gets nowhere near as cold when it is cloudy out and why is that? Water vapor holds in heat just as well, if not better than CO2. If the Earth heats up from more CO2 in it's air then it is inevitable that the rate of evaporation increases too as a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor in it.
The third greenhouse gas is methane. We have all had a chuckle at the cow tax proposed but while I do not support a cow tax this is one mean greenhouse gas. I would bet either Rush Limbaugh or Nancy Pelosi can pump more greenhouse gases through their mouths and butts than the average cow. It would behoove us to keep its release into the atmosphere at a minimum. BUT, this is the gas that we probably have the least control of as the earth creates its own methane through the decay of organic materials, especially in the ocean.
Repoman goes on by having us look at some charts. Well, anyone can make a chart read what they want it to read so it does not matter whether you are for it or against it. I could make a chart that makes Oprah Winfrey look thin but that would be altering the facts to fit what I want you to believe.
Repoman also states that the Earth goes through climatic cycles of warmth and cooling. I totally agree with this statement. Recently the Earth has gone through a couple of cooling cycles. The first of three examples in recent history I will write about is called the 'Maunder Minimum'. It lasted for a period of a little over 50 years from the late 1600s to the early 1700s when sunspot activity on the sun was at an extreme minimum. The Earth's climate went haywire. There were terrible droughts and extremely severe winters in the northern hemisphere during this period. Second, In 1815 Mt. Tambora in Indonesia blew its top, it made Mt St. Helens look like a little firecracker in comparison, and 1816 became known as the year without a summer. Crops failed and there was snow on the ground year round in areas. Third, Mt Pinatubo's blast in the early 90s brought Earth's global temperature down by over a degree Celsius for a couple of years. You could see a pink aura around the sun for a couple of years from the aerosols pumped into the stratosphere by this blast until they finally dissipated. As you can see a lot of the recent cooling cycles can be explained naturally but the overall trend is towards a warmer climate. Our climate is just like the stock market with ups and downs but the overall course is upwards (at least we all hope when it comes to our 401ks).
Even the Earth's axis has a natural wobble that in the course of its meanderings affects our climate in ways that we have only begun to understand. The Earth has been in a warming cycle for the past 11,000 years since the last ice age ended but lately the warming has been exaggerated. Is man the cause of this?? This question must be answered before it is too late.
We do not need a multi billion dollar carbon tax. What we need is to recoup some of the money being thrown away at AIG, our banks, the car industry and a war that we never should have gotten ourselves mixed into and devote some of that cash into the development of cheaper technology to control greenhouse gas emissions. I know people do not want the government to get bigger than it already is and I agree with that but in this case it should get involved. The government can create jobs in this field by employing people once better technology is developed to go to various industries and help them convert to lower emission systems that could be develped using the money that is being thrown away at this time. The companies would not have to spend their money to do this. Hell, if we are going to get taxed I would like to see the money spent wisely.
In Conclusion, I agree there should be debate. Both sides must be heard and answers must be found. If the naysayers are right and we do nothing and we will be fine. If the naysayers are right and we take steps to reduce the crap we put into our atmosphere we are left with a better planet. If the global warming advocates are right and we do nothing, well I do not want to think of what would be the result of this scenario. If global warming advocates are right and we start taking steps to reduce emissions, in the hope that we can reduce it before we get past the point of no return, we can prevent a catastrophe. This reminds me of the movie "When Worlds Collide" when the scientists present their ideas at the UN in regards to the upcoming collision with the star Bellus. One group claims that the Earth will collide with this star while the other group calls them a bunch of attention seeking crackpots saying the Earth will survive what will be a close encounter. The group for the collision started building a spaceship to reach a planet circling the rogue star and when it was too late the other side agreed that the collision was imminent but there was not time for them to do anything. Does this sound familiar?????
Repoman speaks of taking irretrievable steps. Most any step the Government can take is reversible. The only irretrievable step is to do nothing if the global warming advocates are right. Carbon taxes can be rescinded if passed. People dying from starvation can not.
The choice is clear.... we can do something to help ourselves now or do nothing... and face obliteration....with my apologies to Klaatu.
1 comment:
I wonder if you or Al Gore can tell me what temperature is the optimum temperature of the Earth, and, how often has the Earth been at that optimum.
Perhaps there is an optimum range rather than a single point.
But, would your answer change if you were a dinosaur? By the way, I'm speaking of the real, reptilian dinos, not old guys like me.
Since many species are extinct today which lived in very different climactic enviorns, isn't it rather arrogant and selfish of man to try to modulate the temperature of the Earth for our own benefit?
Finally, I do want to be clear that I am in favor of environmentalism in general. it is vitally important that we do what we can to preserve clean air and water, and generally take care of the planet.
I am, however, with Professor Dyson (see last week's NY Times magazine) in saying that the idea that man-made climate change is occurring has not been proven by the scientific method and,as such, taking drastic, economy wrecking steps to stop this unproven phenomenon is a bad idea.
Post a Comment