Global Warming: Green with Controversy

Every decade of our recent history is marked by at least one dominant controversy. Since December 1997, when Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, aiming at reducing Green House Gas emissions, a controversy is ranging about the science of global warming. As legitimate uncertainties exist in the vast field of study, such as the science of climatology, the skeptics take full advantage of those uncertainties to create doubts in the minds of law-makers and the public at large. Funded or recruited by big energy conglomerates, they are making every effort to stop actions directed to curtail the use of fossil fuels. Historians will remember this controversy as the controversy of the first decade of the 21st century.

This point was brought home to me when, out of the blue, a colleague of mine propounded that having more CO2 in the atmosphere is better for the greening of the earth. After many years of working with him, and trusting him as a committed energy conservationist, it was a rude shock hearing him voice this statement. Saying ‘the more CO2 the better’ is like turning the theory of global warming on its head. This is the newest bait the skeptics are throwing out—and their hook is catching some fish. In their propaganda blitz, they question whether CO2 emissions and rising average earth temperatures are related; whether global warming is the result of human activities and not due to natural phenomena; whether global warming might not have a positive impact rather than a negative one; whether, in fact, having more CO2 might be good for plants and therefore for greening of the earth.
To get to the truth of the matter we must look beyond the rhetoric and understand the fundamentals of global science. We must consider how scientific work is carried out in this field. The bedrock of the theory of global warming is the science of the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse effect is produced by the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere. Although the amount of CO2 is very small compared with that of the major atmospheric gases—oxygen and nitrogen—CO2 (along with methane, water vapors and clouds) absorb, and thus stop, the earth’s infrared radiation from escaping back into space. “Of the energy coming from the sun, about half … is radiated back (from the earth) as heat or infrared radiation.� In the absence of the greenhouse effect, Earth will freeze at an average temperature of 0 degree Fahrenheit. �The presence of a balanced greenhouse effect causes the earth's surface to warm up to an average of 59 degree Fahrenheit.� On this front there is no point of contention among the different views.
The contentious issue is if that fine-balance of the climate system is disturbed by excessive CO2, what the consequences are, and how serious they are. The majority of scientists believe that the higher the CO2 level in the atmosphere, the warmer the earth becomes and, the warmer the earth, the higher the environmental damage. The list of possible damages includes: melting of the ice caps and rising of the sea levels, freak storms and frequent tornados, landslides and droughts, increasing acidity of the oceans, and the disappearance of many species, along with hoards of other known and unknown effects. Skeptics, however, keep challenging these assertions and that prompts a lot of intense scientific work that goes into proving the truth.
Scientists have conclusively proven that the average global temperature is increasing. The current temperatures have been unprecedented in the last 1,000 years all over the globe. The current atmospheric CO2 level is the highest in the last 450,000 years. The unprecedented levels of CO2 and global temperature coincide with the unparalleled industrial and commercial activity of the last 25 years. In contrast, during this past quarter century, the sun spot activity should have caused the global temperature to slightly cool. The above fact clearly suggests a link between CO2 level and human activity. The majority of scientists now believe that the present global warming is human made and not due to natural causes.
Scientists embarked upon massive undertakings to prove the above facts. Knowing a little about those projects is not only interesting but also inspires confidence in the truth of global warming. Initially, the climate historians gleaned tons of data in Europe. These records yielded a detailed picture of central European areas going back more than 1,000 years. A historian of the University of Bern, Christian Pfister, said, “We had other periods which were also very warm … but I would say it was a period of warm natural climate. With the period between 1988 and 1997, there's absolutely no equivalent as far as I can look back.� But that was only in Europe. To prove global warming, two other major ventures were undertaken. One in the Canadian Arctic, about 500 miles from the North Pole, by the University of Massachusetts, and the second one, thirty-five hundred miles to the south, by Scripps Institution of Oceanography. In the first, samples from the bottom of Lake Tuborg were taken which showed year by year layers of sedimentary records. The variations in thickness were used to estimate past temperatures. The second one was based on examining the trees in Mammoth Park, California. “Because trees grow all over the world, they are one of the most powerful natural recorders. Their annual rings not only give scientists a built-in date, they also contain a record of past temperature and precipitation.� The thickness of the two portions of the annual ring in a tree indicates the type of weather experienced by it year by year: drier, moist, hot or cold. Also, investigations on coral reefs have shown similar results. The combined data of all this work has conclusively shown an increase of global temperatures by one degree in the 20th century—an increase that scientists consider ‘dramatic’.
To predict trends of global warming, super computers at the world’s top centers for climatology, The National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, offer “the only means of thinking through the climate consequences.� Their simulations show that when the present level, which is one third higher than previous ones, is extrapolated to double or triple in next 100 years, warming of the globe ranging from 2.5 to 10.5 degree Fahrenheit is indicated. The skeptics vehemently attack even the outcome of these computer simulations. They point out that models do not exactly match each other. This line of reasoning takes undue advantage of the complexities involved in a computer model of such complex phenomena and, it ignores the obvious, namely, the trend of increasing risks with increased global temperatures. As Tom Wigley of NCAR explains, “A climate model starts by trying to capture all the many factors, natural and human …The model is … complicated by the feedback which it receives in terms of outcome of the original parameters. … (With more CO2 and resulting warming) the oceans would warm, and the amount of water evaporating from the oceans would increase (which amplifies) the effect of carbon dioxide alone.� Other complicating factors includes cloud covering, the heat flow in the oceans, the amount of exposed dark surface to sunlight, and many more. With such legitimate uncertainties, skeptics play on the idea that, if the warming was only a degree or so, it won’t have much impact on the environment. In fact, that it may have a beneficial impact. Obviously, they play a dangerous game of half truths and ignore even already visible impacts such as the melting of the ice caps, freak weathers, and landslides.
Besides creating confusion about simulations, and ignoring simple reasoning and available evidence, skeptics have come up with a new argument: they claim that CO2 is good for plants; it is a fertilizer—so, the more the better. This is the bait by which my colleague was hooked. It is true that a higher level of CO2 helps plant growth. But that does not mitigate the presence of CO2 in stratosphere and therefore its effect on global warming. It has been shown by experiments carried out by the Duke University that doubling the amount of CO2 in an enclosed jungle accelerated plant growth. However, it also showed tendencies of increased decay catching up with photosynthesis. Eventually, according to Pieter Tans, of the Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, carbon locked in wood finds its way back into the atmosphere as CO2.
Moreover, skeptics also sound alarm bells about the economic catastrophe sure to take place if we curtail our use of conventional energy such as oil, gas and coal. They ignore the economic cost of inaction. At the base of these skeptics’ economic argument lays the question about the viability of renewable energy resources such as solar, wind and tides; a whole new topic exceeding the scope of this article.
Words of James Trefil of George Mason University nicely recap the controversy. He says, “You're dealing with something that's very complicated. You're dealing with something where there's legitimate uncertainty in the science. …You're dealing with something that has enormous consequences for people. And you're dealing with something whose effects will happen 30 years down the road, you know, when they happen. And then you say … "Okay, do something about it."