 |
| by frontpagemag.com |
SOME of you might agree with me that global warming is mentioned so much on TV that it’s become a more sensational and controversial news than Paris Hilton’s pre-party flashings. And unfortunate for the REST of you, this post is not about the latter. So what is global warming? It is a repeated occurrence where the Earth warmed and cooled, due to the greenhouse gases and aerosols in the atmosphere. Since it’s a repeated occurrence, what’s the fuss about then? The controversy lies in the WHO, not the What. The public frequently asked, “Is global warming anthropogenic or natural?” Most scientists would answer anthropogenic. Most scientists would argue that humanity is the chief culprit of global warming. They would explain that records today show that there is an unusually rapid increase in the Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century that is caused primarily by the increased level of HUMAN-MADE greenhouse gases. *Pause and think*
I accept that global warming and climate change is happening and humanity has, without a doubt, played a PART in it, but I believe that humanity’s role in global warming and climate change is minute compared to that of NATURE. Could scientists have blown the seriousness of the situation out of proportion? Do their claims have a financial motive behind them? YOU be the judge.
CARBON DIOXIDE is one of the human-made greenhouse gases that makes Earth liveable and sustainable but scientists are now involved with the idea that humans have been artificially raising the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at an ever-increasing rate by mainly burning FOSSIL FUEL, and by cutting down carbon-absorbing forests. But is it a serious enough plight? This is doubtful because despite the United States’ and the rest of the developing world’s accelerated rise of staunch economic growth with little emphasis on energy efficiency in the past 20 years, the rate at which carbon dioxide increased was small. The concentration of carbon dioxide was so small that in actual fact the atmosphere contained very little carbon dioxide- only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.
 |
| by www2.mcdaniel.edu |
The other human-made greenhouse gas claimed by most scientists to be a contributor to global warming is METHANE. Methane is a greenhouse gas that is twenty times more potent than carbon dioxide. Though more potent, it has a shorter lifetime of about eight years and according to some scientists there is less of it in the atmosphere compared to carbon dioxide; we have established earlier that carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere is in fact very little. The impact methane has on the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas is not the issue. The issue here is that scientists often brush aside the fact that NATURALLY produced methane is as accountable, if not more, for global warming as human-made methane. A NATURALLY occurring source of methane that could cause a catastrophe if released into the atmosphere is thawing peat tundra. The peat tundra in Siberia covers about 1 million square miles, and as it thaws tons of methane could be released into the atmosphere. Similar occurrences can be found in the arctic tundra. THESE METHANE EMISSIONS ALONE WOULD OUTWEIGH THAT PRODUCED BY THE HUMAN INDUSTRY.
************************Interval***************************
That’s not too much to digest, is it? I’ve been told that my entries can be a bit overwhelming (long). Shall we continue?
 |
| by greenbristolblog.blogspot.com |
Next. SULPHATE and BLACK CARBON AEROSOLS are asserted by NASA scientists to be one of the biggest human-made contributors to the increased average atmospheric temperature. Black carbon, which is a human-made aerosol, has an atmospheric lifetime between 4.6 to 7.3 days, meaning it does not stay in the atmosphere longer than 8 days. Compared to carbon dioxide, which has a long atmospheric lifetime, black carbon poses less threat to global warming in the long run. Although black carbon is known to absorb and therefore radiate more heat, it is not as significant as sulphate because the extent of black-carbon-induced warming is dependent on the concentration of sulphate (SO2) and organic aerosols. Sulphate aerosol, however, is produced both naturally and by humankind, and close to three-quarters of all aerosols found in the Earth’s atmosphere come from natural sources. Yet most scientists asserted that to reduce the concentration of sulphate and black carbon aerosol from the atmosphere, an approach to cut down the burning of FOSSIL FUEL and BIOMASS should be taken. That theory is flawed and disagreeable. Most scientists tried to steer away from the fact that nature does play a larger part in this matter. Evidence that nature produces more aerosols than humankind is presented in a simple table drawn up by scientists Ramanathan, Crutzen, Kiehl and Rosenfeld. The table shows that the rate of aerosol produced naturally is higher than that produced by humankind. A recent scientific research also affirms that the natural environment is a major source of atmospheric aerosols and examples of the natural sources are sulphate from volcanic eruption, soil, desert dust, sea salt and marine sulphide emissions.
 | ||||
| by thegeogblog.edublogs.org (2008) |
 |
| by www.marinebuzz.com (2009) |
 |
| by trivoxphoto.photoshelter.com (2010) |
It seems that more scientists are blaming global warming on humanity than not. Those scientists presented similar “scenarios” and called for the same measure to be taken, and that is to reduce the burning of FOSSIL FUEL. Now, the million dollar question is, to maintain and power this advancing technology of ours, what are FOSSIL FUEL and BIOMASS going to be substituted with? Costly hydrogen-powered fuel cells, a technology funded and now used by NASA? Questionably reliable wind turbines that would cost millions of dollars and paid with tax payers’ money? Or nuclear power which waste disposal’s cost would be exuberant? It seems like certain parties have more to gain, financially, from this plight than others.
Financial gain or not, what is for certain is that the plight on global warming have been blown out of proportion, and scientists are persuading people that global warming and climate change is primarily driven by human-related activities. HUMAN-RELATED ACTIVITIES are NOT the main cause for global warming. In fact evidence shows that humanity’s part in this plight is miniscule compared to that of nature. NATURE plays a COLOSSAL role in global warming and climate change, but scientists, though they have acknowledged it, decline to accept it. Why? It could be due to poor judgements or miscalculations. Or simply because there is no financial gain in preaching to the wind.
In saying all this, I'm not implying that we shouldn't do anything about global warming. Regardless if we are the cause or not, it is still our responsibility to make this world a better place to live.
