Global_Warming

Global Warming is the increase of the earth’s atmosphere causing climatic change. The subject is not new and in fact was first recognized in the early 1800’s. However, the debate has changed. Originally the argument was whether global warming actually existed. There are some skeptics who will continue to refute that subject even though due to much evidence most would concur that the earth is indeed warming. Therefore in the last several decades the bigger controversy has not been “if” it exists, but “why”'” Are the causes human effects or is natural science the lone culprit' There is much information supporting both sides. My opinion and argument is that global warming originated by nature, but is accelerated today by man-made contributions. My belief is that we must take actions to help our planet sustain a healthy atmosphere for safe habitation. I can support my thesis using research and scientific data. Past and present politics will also be analyzed on both sides as global warming is one of the most complicated issues in front of our leaders worldwide. Due to the massive subject matter and the thousands of sources, I will concentrate on the last two decades while using a broad historical time line only when necessary to preface a more in depth fact. Through the years scientists have studied the greenhouse effects, CO2 emissions, methane, orbital rotation and a host of other climatic changes. The issues are here to stay and we must be aware of the facts as consumers and citizens. The truth is that we are responsible and need to make the necessary changes in our world including daily living and supporting political leaders at the polls. “Going Green” has been called a political ploy used by candidates at election time. Through analysis of opposing sides I have learned much and chosen to support the scientific field. For every fact supporting the effects of man in global warming, the opposition has a rebuttal. One of the more widespread arguments of the opposition includes the belief that human CO2 is a tiny percentage of total CO2 emissions. One may be persuaded to believe this because if you look at the units of measure for CO2 (gigatones – GT) emissions, humans emit a much smaller amount. The scientific facts show, however, that the nature’s CO2 emissions from the ocean and vegetation is balanced by natural absorptions. Rising CO2 levels caused by humans upsets this natural balance and the earth cannot compensate for that increasing amount. Therefore, even though humans emit less than the natural levels, it is highly significant because it is above and beyond what the oceans and land can absorb naturally. Global warming has and always will occur naturally. Why it has become such a concern in our lifetime is due to the fact that human activities and practices have contributed significantly to its occurrence and severity. Another dispute is the question of, “If it is human caused why didn’t we have global warming during the “Industrial Revolution'” In concept that seems to make sense, after all it was during that time that technology took its primary role in manufacturing, farming, mining, transport and the textile industry. The Industrial Revolution marks a major turning point in history influencing nearly every aspect of how we live. The simple explanation is that CO2 emissions were much smaller years ago and the earth’s population was a fraction of what it is today. With more consumers there are more CO2 emissions. An additional myth is that a significant amount of scientists do not believe in global warning caused by people. “The truth is that 97% of climate experts believe that humans are causing global warming.” Climate experts are not the only scientists who believe the same. Biologists, zoologists, wetland and environmental scientists hold this to be true as well. These experts are fair in their analysis weighing both sides and acknowledging causes from nature and humans. “Changes in carbon storage due to natural processes, (e.g., fire and droughts) and human actions (e.g., wetland drainage, timber gravest, soil disturbance, and burning of fossil fuels) release carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, contributing to global warming” (Tiner 94). “Going Green” has been called a political ploy used by candidates at election time. It is a very controversial subject and arguments are strong on both sides. The subject is found in political arenas around the globe. The most current political opinions and efforts are found in daily newspapers such as the New York Times. The scientific consensus appears to be secondary to the economic concerns. Some policy makers in the United States are reluctant to propose and enact changes because they feel the costs may outweigh any risks global warming poses. Many policy makers are concerned that changes in US policy in carbon production, use, and emissions may result in job loss, which would be detrimental to the economy. My belief is that economics play a larger role in political policies than they should when it comes to the environment. One must weigh the arguments through research and analysis and then take action. A economist, Dr. Peter Tsigaris of Thompson Rivers University says that by taking steps to curb global warming makes sense form both an environmental and economic standpoint. He estimates that by addressing global warming by changing our dependency on fossil fuels and other behavior would cost an estimated one percent of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per year, while taking no action could cost five percent GPD each year. Therefore, extreme climate change could result in a cost of 20 percent GDP or greater, according to Science Daily. I say, “Go ahead. Weigh the Difference. The final cost will be our world in which we exist.”