Anthropogenic Global Warming

The insiders just call it AGW. I still can't believe I am using anthropogenic in any sentence. It essentially means man made.

For anybody spending time looking into green issues you can't help but be affected by the 800 lb gorilla in environmental news, literature, science etc....global warming. But the argument is still about, if man is causing the warming.

Al Gore took the subject and made it mainstream, but his famous hockey stick graph has since been proven false. I was at one time pretty sure that man made global warming was real, and the evidence and science had finally come to agreement. But of course, it's never that simple.

So lets look at the issue and see what we can conclude. First, the reason we focus on the Arctic and Antarctic is because the effects of global warming are magnified in those areas. But anyone watching can easily get mired down in debates about what ice is disappearing, what is growing larger and how will polar bears survive?

In addition there are ice core records going back 800,000 years. Scientists look at these for signs of past warming and increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And frankly, 800 thousand years is a pretty good data slice for mankind, but it’s woefully inadequate for the history of the earth.

So we know that there are natural warming and cooling periods in history including recent time. There is a lot of good data that says we are warming. There's also some pretty good data that says we are cooling??? Earth orbit, sun spots, El Ninos etc all contribute as does water vapor, particulate matter (volcanoes) and yes carbon. Oh and there's much more, because we are talking about a hugely complex system we call global climate.

Bottom Line 1 - So first, you have to know that no-one knows. Second, you have to realize that many advocates on both sides of the issue all have an agenda. There are many holes in the data and much "projecting" (including Al's graph) that assumes we know enough to project our climate future. In my view, that's hubris on our part, we couldn't even figure out if Iraq had WMD's. And Al's graph was the victim of a "miscalculation".

So continuing the issue, once you wade through the cooling/warming arguments you get the man made or anthropogenic argument. Is it our fault? How much is our fault? Now we are really on thin ice (pun intended) when we look at the data. How are we supposed to take all of these factors that are natural into account along with our measly few hundred years of temperature data?

One then has to decide what the effect will be of more rapid warming caused by us if in fact its caused by both nature and man!? Can nature adjust to such a global double whammy? Will we be able to grow corn in Iowa or is that our next desert? Are your driving habits the principle cause of it all?

Bottom Line 2- The bad news is I really don't know if AGW is a real problem or not. But, and its a big but...can we afford to be wrong if it is? It will cost the globe trillions to fix the man made problem and it will cost trillions if we don't do anything and the man made warming continues unabated and accelerating.

There's also the idea that this planet has been warmer before and will be again and that isn't a bad thing. In fact, it has shown to be much better for the plants and animals on earth when its warm and steamy. Growing seasons are extended, plants thrive and the animals follow suit and you get Jurassic Park.

There is also a camp that says racing against our own emissions build up, to prevent the catastrophic effects projected, is fools play. We should in fact be preparing to mitigate or remediate the effects. Move people away from the coasts, prepare to modify or move crops etc etc. Some say it would be cheaper.

It’s also worth noting that our newly elected wordsmith President Obama, used the words "roll back the specter of a warming planet" in his inauguration speech. Specter is an interesting word choice dont you think?

Bottom Line 3- There is very little that we do day to day that adds carbon to the air that also doesn't have other deleterious effects on us and our environment. So the easy choice for us is to minimize these activities. When called to vote on or support a specific Carbon Tax or Carbon Cap and Trade we aren't going to be sure, but we can't afford to be wrong if in fact we are artificially heating our planet. Like buying fire insurance, you don't buy it because you will have a fire, you buy it in case you have a fire. Rapid global warming caused by us would be a terrible legacy to leave to future generations.