Social Indicators: Global Warming and Environment

There is a long history of environmentalism in American life. Yellowstone National Park was created in 1872. The Audubon Society, formed in 1905, was one of the earliest environmental groups. President Teddy Roosevelt (1901-1909) was probably the first "environmental president" with his conservationist policies. More modern environmental groups can be traced to events like the first Earth Day on April, 22, 1970. Conservation was reborn and concern about environmental issues become increasingly important factors in assessing quality of life.

Over the past fifteen years, global warming has become the central topic dominating the environmental debate. The concern is that industrialization has increased levels of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere and the temperature of the Earth is rising. This is believed to be responsible for everything from the polar ice-caps melting, to increased frequency of hurricanes, to extinction of species. Some environmentalists are calling for radical measures to reduce the production of greenhouse gases, most notably the Kyoto Protocol. So are we on the brink of a human induced disaster? Let’s take a look at some facts.

If burning of fossil fuels is responsible for the increase in global warming, than we should expect to see a noticeable rise in global warming correlated with the rapid increase of fossil fuel usage in the Twentieth Century. Have average temperatures risen over the last century? Yes. The average temperature has increased by about 2°C (less than 4°F.) But take a closer look at the average temperature history for the United States over the last century.

The real acceleration of greenhouse gas emission is believed to have started after World War II. Notice the trend line from 1910 to 1940. It is the steepest increase in temperature and it was before the greenhouse gases really got flowing. During the period of increased gas emissions from 1940-1970, the average temperature cooled! Since that time, the average temperature has risen albeit at a slightly slower rate than 1910-1930. What does this mean? Let’s step back and take a longer view of what has been happening and add a couple more variables.

Using a variety of data, scientists can reconstruct average temperatures from previous eras with a good degree of confidence. By analyzing data about the appearance of sun spots (which causes fluctuations in the heat from the Sun) and data such as variance in tree rings, scientists can get a fairly accurate measure of approximate temperatures in the past. The above chart shows a remarkable degree of correspondence between solar output (dotted line)and the reconstructed temperature history (solid line) from 1600 into the Twentieth Century.

Temperatures began to be recorded using thermometers in the mid-18th Century. The thermometer readings (dashed line) seem to correspond well to the other two measures until the last thirty years when thermometer readings show a rapid rise contrary to the other measures. What happened here?

About three weeks ago, in late October, I woke up in the morning with my left swollen nearly shut and my right itching and watery. Despite having taken antihistamine and trying to stay within climate controlled environments, allergies (mostly to certain trees) got the best of me. We usually have had a freeze by November in Kansas City but not this year. Last week there was a forecast for a freeze. Sure enough one came but only in the burbs. I live about a mile or so from downtown where the temperature is always a little warmer. We had roses blooming in our backyard a couple days ago in mid-November. Finally, we had snow flurries yesterday and the freeze finally came. (I have been doing a little jig around the house singing “Ding dong, the trees are dead. The wicked trees are dead.” Think Wizard of Oz here.)

My point is that it makes a difference where you place your thermometers. If you measured the average temperature at the spot where I live over the past 150 years and compared it with a temperatures measured thirty miles to the west you would get see an increasing rate of temperature change compared to the burbs. Some surface temperatures will be affected by human activity as cities expand and become industrialized. The reality is that the thermometers used for the temperature estimates are sparsely and unevenly dispersed across the planet. Fortunately, we have another option to compare to the thermometer readings. Satellite and weather balloon measurements give us another view. Satellites are particularly important because the give a more even and comprehensive coverage of the planet. What do these records tell us?

Satellite records are available back to 1979 and what we learn is the average global temperature may actually have declined by 0.1°C between 1979 and 1997. Using more accurate and reliable temperature data we get the following:

This chart shows a remarkable correspondence between solar irradiation (dotted line) and temperature changes (solid line.) Also notice the CO2 levels charted in the lower right hand part of the graph and the lack of correspondence. Finally, let’s step back and take a very broad look at the issue:

This data from the Sargasso Sea studies (the area of the Atlantic between the West Indies and the Azores) shows that we are actually emerging from a mini-ice age. Temperatures were much warmer in the Middle Ages then at present.

In short, global warming is a product of the natural ebb and flow of the Earths ecology in relation to the activity of the sun. There is no human induced catastrophe on the horizon. In fact, increased levels of carbon dioxide may actually be beneficial. Plants feed on carbon dioxide and increased levels may contribute to plant growth and crop production for an expanding human population. Yes, there may be changes in sea levels and shifts in some weather patterns but we could not stop them if we tried.

More intriguing than the climatology behind global warming, is the sociology and economics behind it. I wrote about this two months ago in Publicly Funded Science, Global Warming, and Christian Responsibility. I will not recap that here. One website has a petition signed by nearly 18,000 scientists (as I recall) who reject the human culpability angle in the global warming dialog and reject the Kyoto agreements. (Petition Project)

The real global warming danger is the enactment of legislation like the Kyoto Protocol by well-meaning, good-intentioned (and some not so well-meaning and good-intentioned) people. This type of measure risks driving the American economy into a major recession. This almost certainly would send the rest of the world into recession along with us. Those who will suffer the most are the poor around the world who are seeing quality of life improve through expanding global trade.

This is not to say that there might not be other harmful affects of the pollutants we put into the environment. Clean and safe environments are important matters. Conservation is a desirable aim. Finding less toxic and more renewable sources of energy is important to the long-term well being of society. Finding effective ways of reducing waste is essential. However, “crying wolf” only harms future environmental efforts and makes people cynical about legitimate environmental concerns.

The good news is that we are reducing our levels of pollution.

Emissions of the six principle pollutants dropped 25% between 1970 and 2001. Aggregate emissions have leveled in the past decade but per capita emissions are in decline. We have much room for improvement but we are hardly in an environmental crisis.

Conclusions

Global warming is not primarily, and probably not significantly, a human influenced phenomenon. It may bring some changes to our lives but radical changes to the world economy to stop the unstoppable will negatively impact the quality of life of millions of people around the world, especially the poor. Air pollution is in decline and quality of life with regard to the environment is stable if not improving in the US.