Global Warming

Dear Dr. Rosche

The surface temperature of the Earth over the past century has increased 1.1 oF, and seven of the 10 hottest years occurred between 1990 and 1999. These facts strongly suggest that the world is heating up. Further research has also shown that mountain glaciers are receding, sea levels are rising more rapidly, and also that the arctic ice cap has lost 40% of its thickness in the past 40 years. With more droughts, floods, and heat waves, the changing weather poses a great threat to our ecosystem as well as our lifestyle.

Should we be worried? If this change in temperature is part of the Earths natural cycle, then we can only do so much as the heating of the Earth is inevitable. However, recent studies have shown that the rising temperatures are correlated directly with human activity. With the invention of the automobile and a dramatic increase in the use of fossil fuels, carbon dioxide emissions have increased 35% since the industrial revolution, and 20% since 1958. Without cutting back on the emission of carbon dioxide, by the year 2100, the temperature of the earth is expected to rise by 11 oF.

In addition to carbon dioxide, chemicals such as methane, nitrous oxide, CFC’s, Perfluoromethane, and Sulfur Hexaflouride contribute to global warming. Although these chemicals are not as prevalent as carbon dioxide, the magnitude of their effect on the environment is thousands of times greater due to their molecular structure and the duration of their stay in the atmosphere. If steps are not taken to lower carbon dioxide emissions and to deter the use of these chemicals, then serious environmental consequences will result. Therefore, emissions by humans should be capped, and strict regulations on our economies should be enforced. The Kyoto protocol is a chance for humanity to take responsibility for their actions. Although there might be a few logistical problems with the Kyoto Protocol, the Earth is our world, and we should take care of it.

Sincerely

James Albrecht

Dear Dr. Albrecht,

I understand your concern regarding global warming, but with further research of the facts you will understand that it is not as big of an issue as you may think. Studies have shown that although the emission rates of carbon dioxide into our environment are correlated to the rise in temperature, it does not necessarily mean that these gases are causing this drastic change.

For example, the Earth goes through cycles in its temperature and it is proven that at this point, temperatures should be rising. Earth has been in periods of cold and warm, and slight global warming should not be of huge concern. Furthermore, climate models are still evolving and not accurate until they can predict volcanoes and solar activities, which is nearly impossible to do. Solar and volcanic activity are large contributors to the effects of temperature and weather. Without taking this into consideration, the studies conducted are inconclusive and the results are most likely exaggerated. One unlikely statistic is the assumption that the earth’s surface temperatures will rise by 11 degrees Fahrenheit. How can we project a hundred years into the future accurately?

Global warming is not purely an economic issue. There is a high correlation between GDP and green house gas emission, so if strict regulations are enforced to cut back emissions it has the potential to destroy our economy. When it comes down to it, people will suffer more from the worsened economy than from an increase in temperature. The Kyoto protocol, which is one of the most prominent solutions to global warming, is facing this exact problem because it is not economically feasible for large countries to cooperate. Unfortunately, the large countries are the major producers of greenhouse gases. Therefore, not only is global warming an inexact science, but it is also an issue that is extremely hard to regulate, as seen by the failures of the Kyoto Protocol to reach their goals.

Sincerely,

Dr. Rosche

Dear Dr. Rosche,

Although you make some valid points such as the difficulty of implementing policies, your fundamental reasoning behind the global warming issue is flawed. You conclude that since there is lack of evidence, a policy of inaction is sufficient. However, this mentality puts the burden of proof on the environment, rather than humans. This is a bad idea because humans are the only people that can defend the environment. We should instead switch to a policy where the environment has top priority, and we can only do things after they have been proven safe.

Beyond your general argument having problems, I see some specific flaws in the examples you give. You say that the models of the earth in the coming century are inaccurate because they fail to include solar and volcanic activity. However, solar and volcanic activity only account for one percent of the increase in temperature. To say that the earth is merely in a cycle is wrong because in recent years we have fallen out of the cycle, with significant increases in temperature over the past ten years as compared to the rest of the twentieth century.

Although the economy is important, there is no substitute for the environment. You say that strict regulation of greenhouse gas emissions will lead to a severe downturn in the economy. However, regulation will not necessarily lead to a recession if proper steps are taken. Moreover, these gasses can be captured and recycled with minimal costs and their production can also be minimized by substitute processes that are environmentally friendly. You argue that since the Kyoto Protocol is hard to implement, we should just do nothing. Even though the Kyoto Protocol might not be the best solution, steps must be taken to help our environment before the effects become irreversible.

Sincerely

James Albrecht

Dear Dr. Albrecht,

Humanity and life have flourished for thousands of years through worse conditions than the slight increase of Earth’s surface temperature. Do you really believe global warming is an issue of great importance when people are suffering daily from more prominent issues such as AIDS? Also considering the Kyoto Protocol, the countries that do not follow its policies will benefit the most. So what incentive do they have to follow the rules? Global unification is good in theory, but in reality it just doesn’t work. Therefore, political solutions do not seem feasible. Furthermore, you argue that substitute methods can be used to replace and minimize the emission of greenhouse gases. People have already looked for substitute methods and nothing practical has been found. Alternate methods are not only expensive but just not as efficient. Therefore the only practical way to minimize emissions is to minimize production levels, which is completely out of the question considering the continually increasing population. Moreover, existing solutions are not only impractical, but also unnecessary considering that people, plants, and animals have survived this long adapting to the environment and will continue to do so. Also, some research suggests that emission of the greenhouse gasses will eventually cap itself just like the human population is predicted to cap itself. Also with the continual recycling of carbon dioxide by trees, all we have to worry about is the other gases such as sulfurhexafloride, methane, and nitrogen monoxide. Fortunately these gases are not emitted as readily. Moreover ninety five percent of global warming is caused by natural water vapor and only five percent by these other gases. Global warming is natural and will continue despite human efforts to minimize it.

Regards,

Dr. Rosche