Earth Science - Other

Can Science Save the Planet



Tweet
Chris Handy's image for:
"Can Science Save the Planet"
Caption: 
Location: 
Image by: 
©  

When referring to science one refers to the studies of the physical world through observation, the formation of theories, and experimentation to prove or disprove those theories. Scientists though, are supposed to look at these theories with constant skepticism. For instance, Einstein took Newton's laws of gravity and said that gravity, that thing holding me onto Earth, is just a theory. So why is it that climate researchers are so sure of global warming? Should they not be more skeptical about their theories? Or is there politics involved that is driving them to the conclusions they reach. I am not writing this essay as a scholar in the field; I am writing it as a student who feels politics should not be involved in science and that scientists should be doing what they were taught to do, which is to look at the world with a skeptical eye.

First of all, I do not feel it is proper to use the term global warming because today's data confirms that while the northern hemisphere is warming the southern hemisphere is cooling. This is due to precession, which I will discuss later. Through the course of this essay though, I feel the proper term is "global climate change" which has occurred naturally throughout the Earth's 4.5 billion year history. The modern fear of global warming is about as scary as the fear of global cooling during the 1970's. While both make sense to those who don't know science, it can be easily disproven by those who do.

Probably the most well known piece to global warming is the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse states that while certain gases are in the atmosphere they will trap heat, causing the Earth to warm. If this is true than I would like to hear an explanation as to why Antarctica is growing in size. Of course though, it is apparent that I will never see a story about that because that that will make even the dumbest of people realize that the Earth is not warming. Since most people think they understand the greenhouse effect and what it does to the Earth it seems relevant to explain the fact that greenhouse gases remove themselves naturally from the atmosphere. Of course though, when I went to find out how long it takes them to exit the atmosphere the answer I get was, "CO2 has a variable atmospheric lifetime, and cannot be specified precisely"?

Another aspect to science which is completely ignored in the global warming theory is the entire scientific theory. The scientific theory says that you must have an independent variable (constant) which changes due to a dependant variable. Global warming says that distribution of greenhouse gases causes Earth to warm but greenhouse gas levels cannot be an independent variable (constant) because of the simple fact that they are not uniform throughout the atmosphere. If you search for the greenhouse gas concentration over every major city in the United states you will not find the same number, and if you look at suburbs as well as rural areas the concentration will deviate even more. So the question remains. How can you say human pollution causes global warming when the pollutants are not the same throughout the atmosphere?
Having brought up pollution I'm sure Carbon Dioxide came to your mind. Little do people know that 95% of the pollution humans cause is actually water. Water vapor is not a threat though because that is what clouds are made of. Once you exclude water vapor (as most CNN broadcasts about global warming do) Carbon Dioxide is the next most concentrated greenhouse gas. Assuming that all of this Carbon Dioxide goes into the atmosphere, CO2 only consitutes for .03% of Earths atmosphere. So why is it seen as such a threat? The answer is that no one knows that statistic and blindly believe what they read on the headlines of the newspaper and what they hear in the first 15 seconds of a news segment. In fact I would challenge any regular person who thinks they understand global warming from what they read in the newspaper to explain. All they will do is preech that pollution causes the Earth to warm because Al Gore made a movie about it.
Next, when you step outside and complain that it's hot you should think again. Most people have never heard of the medieval warm period but approximately 1,000 years ago it was warmer than it is now. Obviously pollution couldn't have caused this warm period because the industrial revolution occurred 200 years ago. So what could have made it so warm you ask? The answer: Natural causes. Humans aren't responsible for global climate change.
First is something called precession. Most people don't think of the world on a large scale but as the Earth rotates about it's axis it moves in weird ways. To understand this concept you must first understand that ALL objects in the universe with mass exert gravity on eachother. This means all the planets, the sun, even other galaxies to an extent will influence the Earth with their gravity. This causes the Earth's axis to wobble. What this does is it moves the Earth's poles closer to or further from the sun. This is why while the Northern hemisphere warms, the southern hemisphere cools. Another cause has to do with the sun itself. As we all know, through nuclear fusion the sun gives off heat. What most people don't know though, is that sometimes the sun gives off more heat than other times. Through periods of 22 years (called the solar cycle) sunspots on the surface of the sun shift. These sunspots control parts of the sun's magnetic field. What happens is over 11 years the sunspots shift so that the sun's magnetic field actually flips itself over and than over the next 11 years it flips itself back. During each of those 2 points when the magnetic field is flipped one way or the other, the sun gives off immense amounts of heat. These are actually the cause of the Aurora Borealis, which in case you don't know are the beautiful lights given off by gases in the atmosphere which are ionized by the high amounts of energy the sun hits them with.
Lastly, the politics behind global warming must be discussed. It has become apparent since the late 1970's that we have a limited amount of fossil fuels here on the Earth. I'm not sure how many people have noticed but ever since global warming became a big deal, cars that get high gas mileage and hybrids have been highly advertised. People are always talking about conspiracy theories involving the government, but what business does the government have involving itself with climate research? What business is it of an ex-Vice President to make a movie about global warming? It is clear that the quickest way to cause change is to scare people, so what a better way to cause a change than to tell them that if they don't buy hybrids and/or fuel efficient cars they will die because of global warming. Then to top it all off you have the liberal media jumping on the opportunity to scare people even though the writers have no idea what they're talking about.
I am not writing this essay as a scholar. I am writing it as a skeptical high school senior who feels that politics has no place in climate research, and that global warming is not a threat, nor does it exist. If you question anything I said go look any of it up in an encyclopedia or a text book and read about it yourself. The whole theory of global warming has so many holes in it that it is suprising that no real scientist has questioned it yet. Now my question to you is this. Will you question it, or will you follow blindly believing a "scientific" theory which does not follow the basics of science itself?

Tweet
More about this author: Chris Handy

From Around the Web




ARTICLE SOURCES AND CITATIONS