Climate Change - is it a true phenomenon or over-hyped science with no scientific merit? My take on it? Well. It's hard to tell.
I don’t know that we have enough recorded scientific data to really come to the conclusion that Climate Change is an over-hyped science or not. In the late 1960s, Syukuro Manabe and Kirk Bryanthe developed the first general circulation climate model that combined both oceanic and atmospheric processes at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey. (NOAA, 2008) This model would become a very influential tool for the simulation of Global warming. “Earlier knowledge of the oceanic and atmospheric circulation, and their interactions, was based purely on theory and observation” (NOAA, 2008).
It was only 35 years ago that Syukuro Manabe calculated that the Earth's average temperature should rise a few degrees if the level of carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere doubled. (Broccoli, 2010) In the following 10 years, this theory was confirmed by increasingly realistic models, which led most experts to find the predictions of overall global warming plausible. (Broccoli, 2010) Yet these plausible predictions have yet to be confirmed. Even though these great minds created the first general circulation climate model that have instrumental in addressing Climate Change, changes in the Earth's climate over time are a very normal and "Earthly" phenomenon. “Reports of rapid disintegration of Greenland’s ice ignore the fact that the region was warmer than it is now for several decades in the early 20th century, before humans could have had much influence on climate” (Michaels, 2006). There is no doubt humans have been adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, more than the Earth’s natural processes normally supply, but other evidence supports that Climate Change is a normal planetary process. It is also difficult to deny that the Industrial Revolution brought upon a significant increase in carbon dioxide production. “Human activity–now primarily fossil fuel combustion– has increased carbon dioxide concentrations from °280 to 355 mL/L since 1800; the increase is unique, at least in the past 160,000 years, and several lines of evidence demonstrate unequivocally that it is human caused” (Vitousek,1994).
I think all the evidence for or against Climate Change have yet to be link together. I think they are all pieces to a very complex puzzle that had yet to be fully figured out, but I do not think that any of the evidence or findings should be dismissed. In the great scheme of things, preserve and conserve is the name of the game regardless of any possible catastrophic event. Why does everything have to be a management by crisis ordeal anyway? As a precaution, I think we should avoid emitting excess greenhouse gases to avoid throwing off the balance of yet another planetary process, but I really don’t think the sky is falling…not just yet.
NOAA. (2008, May 22). The first climate model. Retrieved from http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/climate_model/welcome.html#model
It was only 35 years ago that Syukuro Manabe calculated that the Earth's average temperature should rise a few degrees if the level of carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere doubled. (Broccoli, 2010) In the following 10 years, this theory was confirmed by increasingly realistic models, which led most experts to find the predictions of overall global warming plausible. (Broccoli, 2010) Yet these plausible predictions have yet to be confirmed. Even though these great minds created the first general circulation climate model that have instrumental in addressing Climate Change, changes in the Earth's climate over time are a very normal and "Earthly" phenomenon. “Reports of rapid disintegration of Greenland’s ice ignore the fact that the region was warmer than it is now for several decades in the early 20th century, before humans could have had much influence on climate” (Michaels, 2006). There is no doubt humans have been adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, more than the Earth’s natural processes normally supply, but other evidence supports that Climate Change is a normal planetary process. It is also difficult to deny that the Industrial Revolution brought upon a significant increase in carbon dioxide production. “Human activity–now primarily fossil fuel combustion– has increased carbon dioxide concentrations from °280 to 355 mL/L since 1800; the increase is unique, at least in the past 160,000 years, and several lines of evidence demonstrate unequivocally that it is human caused” (Vitousek,1994).
I think all the evidence for or against Climate Change have yet to be link together. I think they are all pieces to a very complex puzzle that had yet to be fully figured out, but I do not think that any of the evidence or findings should be dismissed. In the great scheme of things, preserve and conserve is the name of the game regardless of any possible catastrophic event. Why does everything have to be a management by crisis ordeal anyway? As a precaution, I think we should avoid emitting excess greenhouse gases to avoid throwing off the balance of yet another planetary process, but I really don’t think the sky is falling…not just yet.
NOAA. (2008, May 22). The first climate model. Retrieved from http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/climate_model/welcome.html#model
Broccoli, A.J. (2010, December 15). Syukuro manabe receives 2010 william bowie medal. Eos, Retrieved from http://www.agu.org/about/honors/union/bowie/manabe_syukuro.shtml
Michaels, P.J. (2006). Is the Sky really falling? a review of recent global warming scare stories. Policy Analysis, 576. Retrieved from http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6622%3Cbr%20/%3E
Vitousek, P.M. (1994). Beyond global warming: ecology and global change. Ecology, 75(7), Retrieved from http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.2307/1941591
