Man-Made Climate Change

Man-Made Climate Change, or as it was more widely-known, Global Warming, is a top-ranking political topic. The phenomenon is now called Climate Change because certain areas of the Earth are getting cooler instead of warmer.  In this post I will analyze the arguments for and against Climate Change as well as its effect on the political sphere.  I am not a meteorologist, but I will do my best to synthesize the scientific data.  For all those scientists who are reading, please lend your thoughts.

In brief, Man-Made Climate Change is a warming or cooling of certain areas on Earth due to the proliferation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  These greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and ozone) serve to absorb and expose infrared radiation onto the Earth after collecting it from both the Sun and thermal radiation that emits from the Earth itself.  Naturally occurring gases warm the Earth, but the rise of man-made chemicals and gases have increased the amount of absorption and exposure, thus warming the Earth past what is normal.

Another argument from the pro-Climate Change camp is that soot particulates (both natural and unnatural) can have an unnatural cooling effect on the Earth.  Whether it be from volcanic eruptions or aerosol particulates, certain particles block the suns radiation and cool the area the stratosphere they inhabit covers.  Artificial pollutants have contributed slightly to this effect, while Greenhouse gases are the more prominent proponent of Man-Made Climate Change.

Those who do not agree with the prediction that irreversible damage will be done to our ozone layer rely mostly on the information gathered by those who made the study in the first place.  They say that the evidence is not clear, accurate, or able to fully predict the effect of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere.  They also say that current mitigation strategies (techniques to lower CO2 emissions) would only harm the economy more than it would lower Greenhouse Gases.  To be more specific, limiting industry for a projected anticipation based on imperfect data would do neither the climate or the job market any good.  In general, unless there is more compelling evidence, they aren't going to accept the theory.

Next, I will address both public and scientific opinion on Man-Made Climate Change.  In 2008, there was an overwhelming acceptance of Climate Change, with Scientists being in near unanimous agreement that humans were affecting the Earth in this negative way.  Many opposed it then, and a good few were unsure.  In 2012, four years later, much has changed.  The Scientific Community is still mostly in agreement, but those who oppose the theory are now being funded by like-minded non-scientists, and new studies are coming out rejecting the previously projected predictions.  Political rhetoric, mostly from the conservative side, has become more vocal in their disagreement and warning of the dangers of limiting industry.  All this has had an effect on public opinion, with more and more people becoming unsure of the likelihood of Man-Made Climate Change, as well as more of the public disagreeing with it completely.

It is here that I will give my personal belief on Man-Made Climate Change.  As usual, the truth is in the middle of all the mud-slinging.  Humans have a negative effect on the Earth, this is no secret.  Deforestation limits the benefits trees and plants have on regulating CO2 and O2 in our atmosphere.  Pollutants have a visible effect on the air and ocean.  Anyone who travels from Los Angeles to Big Bear can easily see how industry can brown the sky and create for less pure air quality.  The BP and Exon Valdez oil spills harm and pollute wildlife, and toxic dumps make water undrinkable.  These are obvious issues.  Climate Change is less obvious, but only slightly so.  I have no doubt that the artificial and extra gases we release into the air have a negative effect on the Earth.  Substances that don't occur in nature aren't handled well by it either; for instance, styrofoam can take anywhere from 1 million to an eternity to decompose.  While the evidence purported by the Scientific Community is compelling to me, there is a chance it may be exaggerated.  The opposition has a point in that the studies are not conclusive and are difficult to prove.  However, this does not mean they should be cast aside.  The studies should be refined and improved, while measures that lower emissions but do not place harmful limits on the economy should be implemented.  Measures such as better fuel economy and cleaner energy, as well as renewable energy, should have greater funding and focus.

Once again, I turn the discussion over to you, the readers.  Which side, if any, do you support?  What should be done?

Thanks for reading.