The reason there's such unanimity among the younger generation that global warming is real, is here, and is a problem is because the science overwhelmingly proves that. Also, the younger generation, with more open minds, has less problem accepting new concepts.
The only scientists who doubt global warming are on the payroll of industry. Kind of like the only doctors who doubt smoking causes cancer are on the payroll of tobacco companies.
So to ask students to debate against global warming is like asking them to argue the world is flat. An interesting intellectual exercise, but...
Just this year alone, three reports have been released establishing that global warming is man-made, it's already with us, and there are changes we can make to alleviate the problem.
They are authored by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a panel of more than 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries. The supervisory working group reflects the collaboration of 127 lead authors and 837 reviewers who incorporated thousands of comments from expert reviewers. The authors and reviewers were drawn from 74 countries.
Below is just a smattering of recent coverage on the issue:
Low Levels Concern In Lake Erie
Apr 16 2007 6:26AM
ONN
Cleveland, Ohio - Low water levels on the Great Lakes could spell trouble for the shipping industry this year.
Now's the time of year when harbors along the Great Lakes thaw and shipping begins. Vessels on the Great Lakes carry ten percent of the country's waterborne cargo.
But excitement over the start of this year's season is being replaced by anxiety over the low water levels that are forcing shippers to lighten their loads so they can move safely into harbor.
An official with the Lake Carriers Association says for every inch the lakes recede, ships must reduce their loads between 50 and 270 tons.
Lighter loads in turn mean headaches for suppliers that send their goods on vessels.
Copyright 2007, Associated Press
There's no doubt about global warming
Saturday, April 14, 2007 3:40 AM
The Columbus Dispatch
In April 1994, executives from major tobacco companies appeared before a congressional committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. Under questioning, they swore under oath that they believed nicotine was not addictive and that smoking was not proved to cause disease. Based on their testimony, one could deny that there is consensus about whether nicotine is addictive and smoking causes disease. But no responsible parent would tell his or her teenager to go light up.
In a nutshell, that is my response to the various letters that The Dispatch chooses to publish that insist there is no consensus on global warming -- most recently, Lou Hirsch's letter last Saturday. To the extent that consensus can exist on any issue, there is consensus in the scientific community that global warming is real, human-caused and a threat, and there's been consensus for some time. Anyone wishing to verify that can start with Naomi Oreskes' article, "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," in the Dec. 3, 2004, issue of Science.
The definitive source on climate-change research has been the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international body created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the U.N. Environment Program. The IPCC's 1995 report was peer-reviewed by more than 3,000 climatologists and risk experts. In February, the IPCC released its fourth report, and a summary is available at
www.ipcc.ch/. The IPCC has reported extensively on the data proving climate change, human causation and the risks we now face because of it.
Just this past week, the IPCC released "Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability." More than 200 scientists helped prepare this most recent release, and a draft summary is available at
www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf. Scientists no longer have to speculate about the effects of global warming; the effects are happening in front of their eyes.
From the front page of the April 7 New York Times: "The new report, focusing on the effects of warming, for the first time describes how species, water supplies, ice sheets and regional climate conditions are already responding to the global buildup of heat. At a news conference here, Martin Parry, the co-chairman of the team that wrote the new report, said widespread effects were already measurable, with much more to come. 'We're no longer arm-waving with models,' he said. 'This is empirical information on the ground.' "
The most respected scientific body in the United States, the National Academy of Sciences, evaluated the previous work of the IPCC and called it fundamentally sound. The organization's work is not some U.N. conspiracy. It reflects the considered results of current, data-supported, state-of-the-art science.
The crucial discussion is no longer about whether global warming is real or what caused it, but how we can minimize the damage to the planet we leave our children. That's called being responsible. It's too late to avert large-scale changes. However, scientists such as James E. Hansen, top climate-change researcher at NASA, tell us that greenhouse-gas reductions of just 2 percent a year can help us avoid catastrophic changes. We can do that. But we need to take the challenge seriously, and we need to start now. For more information on what we can do, see
www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/.
DAVID A. SCOTT
Member, Conservation Governance Committee
National Sierra Club, Columbus
Global warming no longer a question
BY THOMAS V. LOWELL | GUEST COLUMNIST
04/16/07, Cincinnati Enquirer
Given the recent explosive growth and availability of scientific information about global warming and the increased specialization of scientific inquiry, it is indeed a challenge for interested citizens to judge conflicting assertions made by scientific "experts."
Dan Nebert ("Global warming related to our Earth's natural cycles," April
is to be commended for trying to make an independent assessment of the cause or causes of global warming. Unfortunately his assessment falls short for reasons that he may not be aware of, given that his primary training and study is not in climatology.
The large climate swings, known as glacial cycles or ice ages, that Nebert examines have been of interest to the scientific community for some time. These alternating warm and cold periods are at least 100,000 years in length, as well observed in the ice cores that Nebert makes reference to. During the last four cycles, glacial intervals persisted for about 90 percent of the cycle, whereas the warm intervals were only about 10 percent of the cycle (i.e. 90,000 years of extensive glaciers followed by 10,000 years of warmer climate, on average).
Although some connections remain unclear, this cold-warm rhythm is a result of the non-perfect orbit of the Earth around the sun. Since the sun is the furnace keeping the Earth warm, we can think of these orbital changes as slight increases or decreases in the effective output received from the furnace. Since orbits are known well into the future, it can be shown that over the next several thousand years the expected trend would be to turn down the furnace. The result would be to cool, not warm, the Earth.
The issue at hand, however, is whether humans are able to, and indeed do, impact climate change on shorter timescales. In actuality, Nebert's analysis does not address this question. The earth has a natural protective blanket that keeps heat in. Technically, this blanket is provided by greenhouse gases, of which carbon dioxide (CO2) is the best known.
One way to regulate the temperature of the Earth is to increase or decrease the thickness of the blanket, which can be independent of the climatic cycles that Nebert described. The concentration of CO2 has tended to vary naturally from about 180 parts per million (ppm) to 290 ppm. Any rise above 290 ppm will increase blanket thickness above and beyond what is expected during a natural glacial cycle. The burning of fossil fuels releases CO2 into the air and adds to the blanket. In fact, the current level of CO2 is about 380 ppm, well above the natural range observed during past interglacials.
The direct correlation between this increase and the onset of the industrial revolution is well documented. Since the blanket is thicker, the temperature will correspond in kind, as concluded recently by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC;
http://www.ipcc.ch/), and by virtually every scientific organization that has studied the issue.
Regrettably political activists, from both sides, have tried to alter the answer to a basic physics question.
Rather than continue that debate as Nebert has done, should we not turn our attention to the far more challenging problem of how to adapt to this changed reality?
Thomas V. Lowell is professor, Department of Geology, at the University of Cincinnati and has received National Science Foundation and Comer Science and Education Foundation support to study climate changes associated with the ice ages.
http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/edito ... 194375.htm
Call to stewardship
Akron Beacon Journal EDITORIAL
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
In its third report, the International Panel on Climate Change frames action on two fronts to combat global warming
The International Panel on Climate Change reflects the work of the world's leading scientists on global warming. Earlier in the year, the panel reported with near certainty that the heightened warming of the planet since 1950 has been caused by increasing levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A second analysis, issued last month, highlighted significant changes in weather, water and ecological patterns already in motion and threatening harm to ways of life.
Both studies made plain the urgent need for countries, developed and developing, to take action to curb greenhouse emissions.
On Friday, the panel, in a third report, further reinforced the thinking. It explained that greenhouse gases have risen 70 percent since 1970 and could rise an additional 90 percent by 2030 (a mere 23 years) if countries fail to act. Encouraging about the report was the conclusion that tools are available now to limit greenhouse emissions. Thus, known technologies can be put to work even as advances are pursued in such areas as alternative energy sources.
One place to start would be requiring cars and trucks to burn gasoline more efficiently. The country made dramatic progress in the 1980s. The effort has stalled during the past decade or more. Perhaps gasoline prices soaring past $3 a gallon will prove inspiration enough for Congress. To his credit, President Bush has voiced support for higher fuel-efficiency standards. The Democratic majorities on Capitol Hill should press him to be more ambitious.
This course points to greater use of hybrid cars. It also signals the need to build on recent progress developing energy-efficient appliances. More, the country must embrace the contribution of nuclear power. The panel on climate change also cited the value of setting standards to encourage remedial action, say, requiring a certain percentage of a utility's power to come from renewable sources, or setting up a system of trading emissions credits, bringing elements of the marketplace to the effort.
Ultimately, the task may require a carbon tax, putting alternative fuels in a more competitive position. It certainly involves an increased investment in alternative energy sources, for instance, cellulosic ethanol, a more energy- and environment-friendly option than corn-based ethanol. The panel noted that in real terms public funding for energy research has been flat or declining the past two decades.
None of these steps will be cheap. At one point, the panel framed the burden as adding as much as $1 to a gallon of gasoline. Before you choke, consider the consequences of failing to act. In addition, consider the record: Studies have shown consistently that the benefits of environmental protection have far outweighed the costs, beginning with the development of technologies that generate new jobs.
What a boon to Ohio if burning coal becomes cleaner through the capture of carbon-dioxide emissions. The prospect should be incentive enough at the Statehouse and in Washington for action on the two fronts advised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Put current technology to work, and invest heavily in the next generation fuels and the like, knowing that a first responsibility involves sound stewardship of the planet.
Bill, those kids are gonna kick your A**