As I watched winter develop in Kansas this year I am now more convinced that ever that Al Gore is right about global warming. This is the coldest winter I have seen in 13 years in Kansas and we have had far more snow that ever before, certainly indicative of fallout of global warming.
I also read today in the Christian Science Monitor travel section about a cruise that goes into the northern ice fields in June to give people the thrill of being up next to the ice. The crew said that the ice was heavier than they had ever seen it. The ship got stuck in the ice and they had to send for an ice-breaker to come rescue them. Several ports that they normally visited were also ice bound. Obviously this is all the result of global warming.
I am strongly recommending to the Manhattan Christian College administration that they require students to come with skis or snowshoes for future school years. As the fallout for global warming grows I am confident the snow is going to get deeper. We won't be able to have snow days because such conditions will be normal from December to March. I told my students today to look into getting skis and snowshoes for the coming year. I think we will be able to get by without them this year. We might also recommend that students come with adequate clothing to wear during the cold weather and for those icy commutes from dorm to classroom.
My guess that to go along with this global warming we will also have more ice storms as well.
THE BIG LIE
2 years ago
3 comments:
I realize that this is intended to be sarcastic, but you may want to note that the north polar ice cap was the smallest ever recorded in the summer of 2007. It was so melted, the northwest passage was open. This ice cap affects ocean temperatures and therefore currents. Those things in turn affect the North American jet stream. If the jet stream hangs south, we get more snow, if it goes north we get less. A cold, snowy winter in Kansas could very well be a dramatic sign of Global warming.
The term global warming is deceitful. It's not just about warming. It's about fundamental changes in the chemistry of the planet because in the last 50 years we have dumped carbon into the air that used to be trapped under the ground. It wasn't in the air before and it is now. There is absolutely NO question that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to change. This is basic physics and chemistry and we can see it throughout history. The question is what does that change mean for humans?
God willing, I have another 50-60 years on this planet, and my kids have 80-90. Change is coming, and I for one am devoting myself to understanding it so we can do something about it.
In my opinion , thinking green is not just a trend, it is a moral obligation. Denying the evidence is an attempt at avoiding this responsibility.
Thanks for commenting Bryan. When you check the percentage of CO2 we are responsible for, it is less that 3 percent. Fires in mines in China are putting out more than that. If we could eliminate the 3 percent, just how much change could we accomplish?
I'm not sure where the 3% number comes from. The natural carbon cycle is huge, so if you look at fossil fuel emissions as part of the whole including natural vegetation decay and volcanic systems, the C02 emissions don't seem so large.
The reason we should be alarmed is that the C02 emissions from fossil fuels are above and beyond any natural system. You can't add something to a system and not change it. Evidence of the net result has been recorded in many studies, and is well illustrated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's observatory at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Since 1958 the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from 315.71 parts per million to 383.94 ppm in 2007. (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/) To illustrate the magnitude of that change, the concentration in 1850 was about 288 ppm, a level that had been been basically steady for 850 years (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html) This study estimates that 64% of the total increase in the concentration of CO2 came from burning fossil fuels.
Now, that's all just a bunch of numbers and while the illustrate that the atmosphere is going through dramatic change it doesn't answer your question at all. Isn't that what academics do, talk a lot and never really get to the point? :)
I agree completely with your point that the difference we can make is small. The reality is the world's economy, comfort level, and productivity are what they are today because we have had cheap, available energy from fossil fuels. On a small scale this can be seen in the US and is well illustrated at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html. Even the availability and quality of the foods we eat and our ability to feed a population that has doubled from 3 to 6 billion in the past 50 years (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.html) is attributable to the use of fossil fuels and the related technologies of the "green revolution"
So, there is a looming problem created as a side affect of great technological improvements. God blessed the world richly, but between our compassion for humanity and our desire to improve our own comfort levels, now find ourselves in a strange and uncomfortable situation.
So your question was "If we could eliminate the 3 percent, just how much change could we accomplish?" My answer is simply we can accomplish as much as we can. Having these sorts of conversations is a good start! It's kind of like illustration of the boy throwing back starfish into the ocean. He may not make much of a difference himself, but he can make a small one, and he may inspire someone else along the way to act.
Thanks for giving me an excuse to do this research and write this. I find it to be a fascinating subject. Too bad I won't get any school credit for it!
Post a Comment