Roy Kristoffer A.

Sumang Biology I

09-06351 Prof. Amparado

GLOBAL WARMING: An Inconvenient Truth or a Convenient Lie?

The Controversy of Global Warming

I. Introduction:

Hurricane Katrina, Typhoon Ondoy, Sudden flashfloods on Queensland Australia,

Fish and Bird Kills on Arizona are the recent disasters that occurred in the past five
years, and many of us blame it to a natural phenomena coined by many scientists as
“Global Warming”. They’ve been apprehending that this phenomenon is the leading
cause of why the ice caps of the North and South Pole started to melt at a rampant
rate. But is it really Global warming the leading cause of such natural disasters? Or is it
just a natural occurrence that’s happening even the prehistoric times? Does mankind
be the one to be blamed for the sudden warming we all are experiencing? This paper
would discuss the said allegations regarding Global warming and the underlying
circumstances with the issue.
II. Presentation of Issues:

The issue we now face is that “Is Global Warming the root cause of the sudden
disasters and changes we are experiencing or is it just a natural phenomenon that
happened even before” another is that “Are people going to stick with the status quo
of the issue about global warming or are they going to look deeper into the issue and
further rationalize the facts presented by the scientists?”

III. Presentation of controversies

Controversy: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years,
adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

Explanation: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human
and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the
industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE
of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the
present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the
past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global
warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels
move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF,
NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this
causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down
naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the
warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

Controversy: Our climate is warming

Explanation: Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or

minus 0.18°C) since the late-19thcentury, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of
0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years.
The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the
southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over
the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia
between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have
occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995. An
enhanced greenhouse effect is expected to cause cooling in higher parts of the
atmosphere because the increased "blanketing" effect in the lower atmosphere holds in
more heat, allowing less to reach the upper atmosphere. Cooling of the lower
stratosphere (about 49,000-79,500 ft.) since 1979 is shown by both satellite
Microwave Sounding Unit and radiosonde data (see previous figure), but is larger in
the radiosonde data likely due to uncorrected errors in the radiosonde data.

Relatively cool surface and tropospheric temperatures, and a relatively warmer lower
stratosphere, were observed in 1992 and 1993, following the 1991 eruption of Mt.
Pinatubo. The warming reappeared in 1994. A dramatic global warming, at least partly
associated with the record El Niño, took place in 1998. This warming episode is
reflected from the surface to the top of the troposphere.

Controversy: El Nino is a part of Global Warming

Explanation: El Niños are not caused by global warming. Clear evidence exists from a
variety of sources (including archaeological studies) that El Niños have been present
for thousands, and some indicators suggest maybe millions, of years. However, it has
been hypothesized that warmer global sea surface temperatures can enhance the El
Niño phenomenon, and it is also true that El Niños have been more frequent and
intense in recent decades. Whether El Niño occurrence changes with climate change is
a major research question.

Controversy: The atmospheric/oceanic circulation is changing

Explanation: A rather abrupt change in the El Niño - Southern Oscillation behavior
occurred around 1976/77. Often called the climatic shift of 1976/77, this new regime
has persisted. There have been relatively more frequent and persistent El Niño
episodes rather than the cool episode La Niñas. This behavior is highly unusual in the
last 130 years (the period of instrumental record). Changes in precipitation over the
tropical Pacific are related to this change in the El Niño - Southern Oscillation, which
has also affected the pattern and magnitude of surface temperatures. However, it is
unclear as to whether this apparent change in the ENSO cycle is related to global
warming.

Controversy: Sea Level is Rising at a rapid rate

Explanation: Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1.7
mm/year (plus or minus 0.5mm) over the past 100 years, which is significantly larger
than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. Depending on which
greenhouse gas increase scenario is used (high or low) projected sea-level rise is
projected to be anywhere from 0.18 (low greenhouse gas increase) to 0.59 meters for
the highest greenhouse gas increase scenario. However, this increase is due mainly to
thermal expansion and contributions from melting alpine glaciers, and does not include
any potential contributions from melting ice sheets in Greenland or Antarctica. Larger
increases cannot be excluded but our current understanding of ice sheet dynamics
renders uncertainties too large to be able to assess the likelihood of large-scale
melting of these ice sheets.

Controversy: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

Explanation: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They

consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the
remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the
largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the
minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds,
the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are
thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.

Controversy: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global
warming.

Explanation: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some

of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive
feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models
predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun,
cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the
earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in
cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated
very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the
Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface
temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some
of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing
the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

Controversy: CO2 is a pollutant.

Explanation: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We
could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than
nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since
increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many
trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian
Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances
listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

Controversy: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

Explanation: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports

such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and
infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be
the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a
function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever
more media reporting.

Controversy: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global
warming.

Explanation: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of
years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of
the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of
at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides,
glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

Controversy: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and
melting and the sea level rising.

Explanation: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat
warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and
Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting
warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are
increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica. Sea level monitoring in the Pacific
(Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

IV. Analysis of Data Presented:

 As far as we’re all concerned these occurences happened and is happening not only
because of the said “global warming” but also the forces of nature itself. Further
discussion about the warming effect is an imperative to address that Earth is not the
only planet to be experiencing climate change in our solar system currently. In fact,
many astronomers have announced that Pluto has been experiencing global warming,
and suggested that it is a seasonal event, just like how Earth’s seasons change as the
various hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun. We must remember that it is the
Sun that determines our seasons, and thusly has a greater impact upon the climate
than we could ever even try to achieve.

Claude Allegre, a leading French scientist, who was among the first scientists to
try to warn people of the dangers of global warming 20 years ago, now believes that
“increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural
phenomena”. Allegre said, “There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science
is settled." He is convinced that global warming is a natural change and sees the threat
of the ‘great dangers’ that it supposedly poses as being bloated and highly
exaggerated.

For those who saw Al Gore’s “documentary”, it was very convincing of its
hypothesis that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that has the potential to
kill us all and end humanity. After all, the film was filled with graphs and charts, so it
must be true. Let’s just get something straight here, Al Gore is not a climatologist,
meteorologist, astronomer, or scientist of any kind; he is a politician. And as we all
know, politicians always tell the truth. However, as Al Gore’s popularity grows and with
his recent winning of an Academy Award for his movie, the issue has spiraled into
massive push for quick action and stifled debate, forcing many scientists to speak out
and challenge the political status quo. A group of scientists recently stated that the
research behind Al Gore’s film and in fact,the concept of greenhouse gases causing
global warming, is “a sham”. They claim that in fact, there is very little evidence to
prove that theory, and that the evidence actually points to an increase in solar activity
being the cause of climate change. In Gore’s movie, he presented evidence that was
found in the research done on ice core samples from Antarctica, which he claimed is
proof for the theory of CO2 being the cause of rising temperatures. However, this
group of scientists state that “warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800
years before rises in carbon dioxide levels”, meaning that a rise in Carbon Dioxide
follows a rise in temperature, rather than increasing temperature following rising CO2
emissions.

In examining that there is more evidence to prove the basis for a conclusion that
changes in climate are more related to an increase in the temperature of the Sun
rather than influence of people, we must examine why efforts to expose this myth are
stifled and those who speak out are attacked. In fact, there are reported cases of
scientists who speak out against the man-made theory as having received death
threats.

V. Conclusion:

I am not saying that it isn’t a good idea to take action to help the environment, but I
ask you to consider this: if the majority of scientific data points to the fact that global
warming is caused by the Sun, then how will a tax on carbon emissions help to stop it?
How does us driving cars cause climate change on Mars and Pluto? Can Al Gore please
fill that question? If CO2 increases as a RESULT of temperature increases, then how
can we hope to accomplish anything by taxing emissions? That’s like saying we will
prevent the process of humans ageing by dying their grey hairs. It’s not grey hair that
causes people to age; it’s ageing that causes grey hair. And nothing that you do to
your hair will have any affect on how long you live. Especially since ageing is a natural
process that cannot be stopped and has always occurred and will always occur. Just
like climate change.

It seems worrisome that politicians are all too eager to grab onto this man-made
myth of global warming in order to make us afraid and guilty. Guilty enough to want to
change it, and afraid enough to give up our freedoms and undergo massive financial
expenses in order to do so. So this lie, being pushed by big money and big
governments, is a convenient lie for those who want to exert control and collect
money. However, it’s inconvenient for the mass amount of people who are already
experiencing the problems of a widening wage-gap and fading middle class.

we have to first be realistic, mature, and have debate about the problems we are
facing, and then, and only then, can we even hope to achieve any sort of solution.

Sources
T.A. Boden, R.J. Stepanski, and F.W. Stoss, Trends '91: A Compendium of Data on
Global Change, ORNL/CDIAC-46 (Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
December 1991).

IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group
I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Edited by J.T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai,
K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change [PDF],

2005

The Latest Myths and Facts on Global Warming [PDF], Environmental Defense, 2005.

http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/