I'm going to start this blog entry off with some statistics about climate change.:
Climate change is happening. All around us. GCM simulations and multiple lines of evidence point to a warming trend on planet Earth. This warming is directly related to human-generated greenhouse gases over natural climate variations. Here is some evidence that points to human cause over natural cause from the textbook Global Climate Change: Convergence of Disciplines by Arnold J. Bloom:
1. A number of recent analyses indicate that the rise in the global average surface temperature since 1987 is predominately associated with changes in anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosols and that the contribution of changes in solar electromagnetic radiation to this temperature trend is negligible. Changes in solar radiation from 1750 to 2005 account for a warming force of only 0.12 (ranging from 0.06 to 0.30) watts per square meter, whereas human activities account for 1.7 (ranging from 0.6 to 2.4) watts per square meter.
2. Global nighttime minimum temperatures show a greater increase than daytime maximum temperatures. One would expect the reverse if changes in solar electromagnetic radiation were driving global warming. Higher concentrations of greenhouse gases enhance back radiation of electromagnetic energy from the atmosphere to the surface during the night.
3. Temperatures in the lower stratosphere - the region of the atmosphere that extends from 10 km to 22 km above Earth's surface temperatures are rising. Again this is consistent with higher concentrations of greenhouse gases retaining more energy near Earth's surface. Stratospheric and surface temperatures would rise at similar rates if changes in solar electromagnetic radiation were driving global warming.
4. A portion of the measured rise in global temperatures may derive from an "urban heat island" effect, whereby many weather stations that were once in a rural setting are now surrounded by asphalt. Nonetheless, measurements from sea-based weather stations indicate that Earth's oceans have warmed during the last century in a manner that parallels the warming of landmasses. The global warming observed during the past 50 years amounts to about 0.9 degree C over land and 0.4 degree C over oceans (IPCC 2007c), whereas urbanization near weather stations can account for about a 0.03 degree C temperature rise over land and a negligible temperature rise over the oceans during this period. Therefore, an urban heat island effect around weather stations does not seem to commensurate with the global warming that has occurred.
5. Jet airplanes flying at high altitudes generate contrails. These behave like clouds in that they reflect incoming solar radiation and decrease daytime temperature maximums but absorb long-wave radiation from Earth's surface and increase nighttime temperature minimums; they therefore have the potential to diminish temperature differentials between day and night. Commercial air traffic was shut down in the United States for three days after the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001. During that interval, day-night temperature differentials in the continental United States jumped by 1.8 degree C above those during the 3-day periods immediately before or after this episode. (Travis et al. 2002) This change was significantly greater than any observed for similar intervals during the preceding 30 years. Moreover, the change in day-night differentials during the shutdown was twice as large in the regions of the United States where contrails are normally most abundant. These results highlight the extent to which human activities can effect regional surface temperatures.
These various pieces of evidence dispel many, if not most, of the issues raised by SKEPTICS who do not believe in global warming or who believe that it derives from variation in natural forcing factors. Over 75% of climate scientists agree that Earth is significantly warmer today than it has been in many centuries and that human-generated greenhouse gases have been the major driving force for this warming (Bray and von Storch 2008; Lichter 2008; Doran and Zimmerman 2009). Although uncertainties remain as to the extent of the warming and the relative contributions of each factor, the accumulation of additional data is steadily diminishing these uncertainties and is pointing directly at human activities.
I want you to notice the word I put in all CAPS in the section above. It's the word: SKEPTIC. Who are these climate change skeptics, these global warming deniers? Who are these people that can nearly drown in all this data, all these climate models, all this evidence of human-caused climate change and still think the jury is out on human-caused climate change? Who are these skeptics who need much more evidence. There is always a "missing piece" of evidence with these people. If only we had these pieces of data we could THEN maybe say humans are having a direct effect on the climate. If only we had this specific missing link we could then see that humans came from lower level primates in the evolutionary chain. Where's the crockoduck?! (Half crocodile, half duck) These are the same people, asking for ridiculously impossible "evidence". "Evidence" that shows their clear ignorance in both climate science and biology. For the most part, the creationists, the I.Ders are the global warming skeptics. They are one and the same. Make no bones about it, these people are devoid of proper scientific understanding. They do not know what they are talking about.
The interesting thing is that the same people who are so "skeptical" (even in the face of sound evidence) of human-caused climate change are the same people that are so eager to accept an "alternative" biological "theory" to evolution with not a shred of evidence to support it. So we see these people for what they really are.: P.R. people for a religious, corporate, or political agenda. They can try to hide behind the lie of being a "skeptic". I mean, isn't being a skeptic a great thing?! Isn't it what I've been preaching about since I started this blog? Isn't a skeptic someone who is thinking scientifically about the world? Yes. But these global warming deniers are not actual skeptics.
A Christian (someone I grew up with) once argued that us "pro-evolutionists" that usually lean towards liberal politics always preach social acceptance of all lifestyles (LBGT: Lesbian, Bi-sexual, gay, transgender) yet when it comes to science education only seem to think there is one game in town in biology - Evolution. I wrote a quick blog entry about this previously, on this virus-meme of "fair and balanced" Fox News philosophy running a amok in our American culture. It is laughable to think this "accepting of all theories" or "all theories should be treated as equal" in the sciences should be taken seriously. This is absurd. That isn't the way science works. Science isn't a democracy. It follows the evidence no matter if it conflicts with anything else. And theories with the most sound evidence stick.
The problem is government with the global warming deniers. They are almost solely Republicans which means they tout "Big government is evil." Government is broken. Government can't run anything. The problem is always the government. The government wants to control everything you do - Only Democrat-elected government, mind you! When George W. Bush was in office they loved big government then. Big government only destroys free markets and business with all it's regulations. As usual, in reality things aren't so black and white. There is a kernel of truth to this line of thinking, however there is also a time and a place for regulation. I, personally am pro-cap and trade or any regulations that will effectively help curb climate change because I am convinced its happening based on solid evidence. Some of which I presented at the beginning of this blog post. I also think the E.P.A. is a good thing. I know the conservatives among us would love to live in a concrete world with no wild ecosystems, covered in concrete and smog clouds, just as long as jobs were being created. Jobs always matter more then the natural environment. Don't ever forget this! I am of course being facetious, but when talking to citizens of this country that think this way it's hard not to see a dystopian future for planet earth. Ice caps? Melt them all. Natural rain forests - cut 'em all down. Drill baby drill. Just keep creating jobs!
Even if this line of thinking is correct and the government is completely suffocating free enterprise due to it's hopefully upcoming carbon emission regulations does it ultimately matter? I prefer to live on a planet where hundreds of thousands of people don't die due to flooding, famine, or drought. I want to keep our coastlines above water. I don't want to see Bangladesh disappear to the ocean. I don't want to see the ice caps completely melt away. If you live in Australia, you may want to move in the next few decades, because it's about to become too hot for all things living. Global warming is an absolute risk to the entire world's economy, not to mention our national security (that should get MOST Republicans on board right there! One would think.) Science doesn't always give us the results that we FEEL are right. We have to make tough, terrible, uncomfortable choices sometimes. Choices that may really hurt the economy if need be for the survival of future generations. The typical Fox News Republican will tell you they are so concerned about this national debt President Obama is inflating with each new year of his presidency, but in the same breath will deny global warming and laugh at the doomsday predictions. Isn't it strange how they can care about our children's financial future but not their actual future (their very real threat to surviving at all).
I'll close with a few links that may help shed some light and "turn up the heat" (oh, bad pun) on this topic. It's become a joke to me to even have to address this notion of an "alternative scientific theory" in biology to evolution. For anyone with even the most elementary understanding of biology, genetics, paleontology, and geology there is no other scientific theory that rivals evolution. Those that even mention Intelligent Design as "an alternative" to evolution are 100% religious which should tell us something instantly about the motives of such "scientific theory". All these religious people that may be reading this blog about evolution being completely true with disgust don't understand science doesn't align itself to what "feels right to you" it doesn't align itself to what "your holy book says". Science is a working tool that constantly self-corrects itself and evolves to take us where the evidence leads. Unbiased and unaffected by philosophies or religious beliefs. It take a re-wiring of your brain. You have to start to understand how to use reason, skepticism, and logic as tools to test this natural world. Once you grasp the importance of this and can apply it, Intelligent Design will be as funny and silly to you as it is to me. Try it. Here's some links:
Meanwhile we have Republican Representative Paul Broun saying evolution and big bang theory are all lies from the devil:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBy3MbP4WDo
His biology theory of choice: Creationism. *which is not an actual valid scientific theory. Not a single scientific paper has been published on this. How can it be a scientific theory when it hasn't even been peer-reviewed by other scientists? Lawrence Krauss correctly characterizes creationists here: (mentioning Marco Rubio - *Also a global warming denier)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTedvV6oZjo
Facts of evolution - Common descent is a fact (every living thing on earth is related to every other living thing on earth: geneologically and genetically) All modern organisms have descended from one original species. Changes within a species occur while species as a whole come and go.
Here's an excellent video on the facts of evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tQIB4UdiY
It has often confidently been asserted, that man's origin can never be known: but ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
- Charles Darwin
No comments:
Post a Comment