
My wonderful intelligent spouse wrote a little piece on Global Warming. It was printed in the newspaper and received some good responses.
Editor,
When tackling weighty issues of natural science, like global warming, I find myself encouraged by the example of men such as Eratosthenes. He was a Greek living over 2000 years ago, who, using only his powers of observation and reason, fairly accurately calculated both the circumference of the Earth and its distance from the Sun. I believe the discussion of global warming could benefit from such cold, clear reasoning.
From our studies of natural science, it is clear that the Earth goes through periods of dramatic warming and cooling, the fact that Washington is currently occupied by humans and not glaciers is solid evidence of that. From our historical studies we know the Earth also goes through more moderate cycles of heating and cooling. A thousand years ago, the Vikings discovered Greenland and named it Greenland, not ColdBarrenLand. Over two thousand years ago, the Romans were able to grow wine grapes in now chilly England.
Our scientific measurements indicate the Earth has been warming the last 30 years or so. For 30 years before that, it seemed to be cooling. Are we heading into a thousand year warming cycle? We should know for sure in a few hundred years. Are we headed for another Ice Age? That should take a few millennia to really nail down. The point is that the climate gets warmer or cooler and we can neither control nor even accurately predict it, any more than we can stop it from raining here so damn much.
Are humans causing any of this change? We can measure the energy coming from the Sun, where the Earth gets virtually all its heat. We know that it varies, by as much as one tenth of one percent, and that it seems to be a little hotter than usual, as evidenced by shrinking ice caps on Mars. The amount of heat generated by all human activity, from body heat to burning fossil fuels to nuclear energy, can also be measured. It is far less than that tenth of a percent variation in the Suns energy, so it seems doubtful that even ceasing all human activity entirely would much alter the natural variations in the world’s temperature.
Some believe that humans are responsible for the recent rise in carbon dioxide, and predict a “greenhouse effect”, where gases trap more heat, leading to more greenhouse gases, leading to hotter and hotter temperatures, a disruption of “the balance of nature”. It is not entirely clear that humans are the cause of the increase in carbon dioxide, or that increased levels of carbon dioxide automatically cause higher temperatures. But even if there is some effect, it is important to remember the reason we use the term “the balance of nature.” Just as having too many critters leads to the rise of more critter-eaters, too much carbon dioxide leads to a spurt in plant life, leading to a decrease in carbon dioxide. A study of natural history will assure you that nature is self-balancing, extremes are moderated, and despite meteors and volcanoes, earthquakes and Ice Ages, nature never spins out of control, but instead moderates back to the norm.
Will humans be responsible for a 10 degree increase in the world’s temperature over the next 100 years? Not unless the Laws of Nature and Thermodynamics are repealed. Will we be responsible for a 1 degree increase? Perhaps, but history shows that the human race tends to thrive during warmer periods, so overall I would tend to consider that a good thing.
Brett Malin
Seaview