I've been reflecting about the global climate
scenarios--after all, I am going to college to get a Bachelors degree in Earth
Science! Last Spring, I took
Environmental Geology at NWACC and we had discussed global climate change for
about two weeks.
There is a concern about crossing that tipping point, to
where contents inside the "kettle" spills out. At which point is such that there is no reversing the damage and we will just have to deal with the outcome? Have we come to that point? I'm not sure there is anyone who knows
exactly where and when that point is...
(we may have already reached that point, in which case, what we need to
focus in on is damage control, though it doesn't seem likely that we are there
yet.)
Furthermore, what complicates the issue is that we KNOW
human activity has some role to play in global climate change. How much our activity affects the climate is
anyone's guess because there are other non-human factors that contribute (like
volcanoes, especially the super variety that releases an awful amount of carbon, sulfer and methane into our atmosphere). Plate tectonics has its role as well, when one recognizes that the continents are constantly moving about, reshaping and resizing our oceans, which in turn affects global climate. We also have what are called "carbon sinks," which is a
phenomenon (like plankton) that absorbs carbon dioxide, keeping it from being
trapped in our atmosphere. We know much
about these sinks, who and what they are, but there are a few unknown ones out
there. We know this because there is still quite a bit of carbon dioxide that
is left unaccounted for.
Another thing to consider is
that greenhouse gasses (GHG) are not necessarily a bad thing in of
themselves. Water Vapor is our biggest
GHG. Carbon dioxide is another
culprit. So is methane. Without these gasses, life on earth would be
very difficult, if not impossible. GHG
traps heat which gives Earth a blanket effect, keeping us from plunging into
another ice age. Otherwise, this planet
would be really really cold. The problem
is, how much is too much? How hot do we need it to go?
Finally, to call it "global warming" is right to a
certain extent. We do know that overall
the Earth will have warmer temperatures and drier conditions, though in some
local areas, there will be more flooding (coastal areas) AND in others, such as
Great Britian and Ireland, they could see another ice age, in spite of the
trends. Both of these scenarios defy
"global warming" because temps are getting colder, not warmer. There is a reason why both of these cases
seem likely. It is because with warmer
temperatures, the glaciers will continue to melt, raising the sea levels (which
is why coastal areas will be flooded out) and with this rise in the sea level,
the warm current that flows off the Atlantic, the "Gulf Stream" will
be buried underneath the sea and will no longer be able to give the moderate,
yet wet conditions that jolly England is known for!
In all reality, what makes this issue so difficult to see clearly is our insatiable dependency on carbon based fuels like petroleum and coal burning. What to do? What are we going to do? Ultimately, the decision rests upon us. How much carbon based energy do we require to be burned? There are alternatives, like solar, wind and water power; but as of this date, each cannot produce the amount of energy that we demand when we look at cost efficiency and practicality. Solar cells are still quite pricey these days and not everyone gets the amount of wind or water needed to sustain calm and/or arid areas. What can we do to curb our dependency on carbon? What is it that we are willing to sacrifice?
Herein lies the rub.
Herein lies the rub.
Just my thoughts,
Jack Douglas
