Earth science and society

Earth Science and Society

The Wabash Watershed -- For this analysis, we will be focusing on a specific geographic area, the Wabash Watershed. Chronologically, we will use 1961-1990 as our basal reference, including raw, 5-year average, and 10-year average data. The data sets include temperature, precipitation, evapotranspiration, moisture surplus, moisture deficit, and surface runoff. Our primary research questions surround what this data tells us about the region over this slice of time, and what trends it may indicate. Additionally, taken into the macro analysis, we are concerned with what this data may tell us about global warming theory. The importance of this data set is directly in relation to the idea of what it might tell us about global warming -- a phenomenon that has certainly gleaned more interest over the past few years.

The Wabash River Watershed covers over 33,000 square miles in the west-central area of Central Ohio, parts of Indiana, and the southeastern section of Illinois. Atmospheric and surface water data were calculated in monthly increments, with 10-year averages. The analysis will be conducted keeping in mind that since the end of World War II to 1980 there was a cooling period in the North American climate.

Globalism and Global Warming - One of the key changes of the late 20th century, certainly enhanced in the early 21st, is that of the economic, political, and cultural movements that broadly speaking, move the various countries of the world closer together. This idea, called globalism, refers to a number of theories that see the complexities of modern life such that events and actions are tied together, regardless of the geographic location of a specific country (political unit). The idea of globalism has become popular in economic and cultural terms with the advent of a number of macro-trade agreements combined with the ease of communication brought about with the Internet and cellular communication (Nye, 2002; Novara, 2003).

The rapid growth of the global economy profoundly effects modern economic development and stability, labor, and, most especially, the environment. In combination with the Earth's natural geologic functions, the process of human globalization radically transforms local issues into national and international problems, heightening very serious challenges, such as pollution, global warming, and overpopulation (Levin, 2009). Pollution is not a new global issue, nor is it strictly manmade. Since the Earth's very formation, contaminants were introduced into the atmosphere, water, or soil, having a detrimental effect. From prehistoric fires and trash dumps, to the blatant release of tons of toxic chemicals into the air and water following the Industrial Revolution, the various problems associated with humanity's excess wastes, however, have increased man's negative environmental impact (Markham, 1994).

After World War II, modern factories produced non-biodegradable plastics like PCBs and inorganic pesticides like DDT; these types of materials are not only toxic, but being non-biodegradable, accumulate in the environment. Over time this accumulation causes increased rates of cancers, birth defects, health problems, and a global loss of biodiversity ("History of Pollution," 2007).

Global warming is the gradual increase of the earth's median temperature for surface air and oceans. Although controversial, global warming consistently measured since the mid-20th century has resulted in environmental impacts that may be disastrous to the environment. While scientists generally agree that solar variation and volcanic activity have had an effect on the environment, it was not until the 1950s that the collective effects of greenhouse gases from industry and automobiles began to cause noticeable climactic changes, quantified globally by a community of international scientific organization. Computer models are not yet sophisticated enough to definitively predict actual consequences of global warming, but many scholars believe that there will be rapid and increasing variations in extreme weather patterns (e.g. dramatic changes in rainfall, freezing temperatures, storm systems, heat waves, etc.), possible aggravated melting of the polar glaciers causing a rise in ocean levels, disruption of global agriculture, and adverse health effects resulting from unplanned temperature changes.

Part B -- Essay

Do we see an overall warming of the environment? The data showing average annual maximum temperature 1961-1990, average minimum temperature, and average annual temperature all show slight increases in temperature, or an average warming trend, in the three decades noted. This is based not on the yearly fluctuation average, but on the 5 and 10-year averages, which tend to show elasticity in a 2-4 point increase over 30 years. While this may seem slight, if it were to become a long-term trend, over the course of a century it would have disastrous effects on agriculture and more. Also, we must keep in mind that the late 1970s were associated with some of the coldest and most severe winters in U.S. History. Even then, with the so-called "little ice age" winters, we may be seeing slight indications of global warming.

Some theorists envisioned that we would see a more pronounced warming of minimum temperatures than maximum temperatures. This might result in a reduced range of temperatures. What trends does the data show?

During individual years the maximum temperature ranged from a high of 65 to a low of 60.5, but the 5 and 10-year average dropped slightly to 1981 and then gradually rose. The minimum temperature was flatter, but began to rise in 1981 as well. The minimum ranged from a high of just over 44 to a love of just under 39. The overall shape of the data, though, is similar over time, leading us to posit that viewing temperature on a yearly basis is less valuable than longer trends, also bringing up the thought that even 5 and 10-year averages are too small a time frame to measure a geologic function.

Many theories that look at global warming envisage more drought and less surplus water conditions for inland or continental locations. Therefore, we might see some trends in precipitation amounts and the frequency of certain amounts of precipitation. What do the trends show?

On an individual year basis, there is variation in precipitation. However, again using the 5 and 10-year graph we see a slight rise over the time of 1967 to 1987, from about 39" to 42," but remaining flatter around 41-42" from 1971 onward. There is some data that indicates, though, that these trends were expressed in similar climate areas globally during these years (Weller, 1997).

In reference to actual evapotranspiration, surplus/deficit conditions and runoff/stream flow, what might we expect with a warming climate?

If a climate were trending warmer over time, we would expect to see the available snowpack, which in this area is minimum, reduced and, at the beginning of the cycle, larger runoff and more rapid stream flow. As the climate warmed, we would expect less available precipitation in the middle range of the cycle, with concurrent impact upon agriculture and a change in Spring and Summer weather patterns. Depending on the Arctic currents (which tend to bring colder arctic weather patterns down from Canada); combined with moisture over the Great Lakes, would still likely bring moisture to the area, perhaps allowing a slighter drier climate, but the square miles of the area are too small to allow for a major "trend" to be defined.

Are there clear-cut answers in the trends that we see?

Frankly, we do see micro trends, and we see macro trends based on a single defined period -- roughly three decades. This is reminiscent of the adage about five blind men who are put into a room with an elephant. Each "feels" a certain part of the elephant, and describes the animal differently -- one has the tail, the trunk, and so on. Looking at climate is similar, the timespan and range of climate and weather are so large that looking at smaller chronological time frames (even decades are small) and smaller geographic area (miles instead of regions) are giving too myopic a picture of any real and meaningful data.

What does that tell us about researching environmental issues like global warming?

On one hand we do have scientific studies that model changes in the environment over the past century that do see trends, and many of those trends indicate a gradual warming. Others view climate as being in a far vaster arena, and say that it is impossible to analyze anything smaller than millennia. We are also shown that it is desirous to bring in additional modeling information in order to develop a more holistic view.

Are there other types of data or information that we need to look at to make a worthwhile analysis? If so, what would they be?

Certainly, it would be far more helpful if we had additional climate and weather data for several thousand years. Scientists are studying cores of polar and Antarctic ice, as well as tree rings and other environmental indicators, but that shows typical major trends. In addition, there can never be too much data -- even though the analysis of said data may be problematical. For example, Edward Lorenz, researcher on atmospheric processes, brought the idea of chaos theory into the weather analysis field. Essentially, it is a systems theory that sees systems that are apparently disorganized (that is unpredictable because of the large amount of variables) as systems that do have order, it is just complex and we need to find it. Some call it the butterfly effect due to that the flapping of a butterfly's wings in China might have an effect on Peru's weather. Even the most sophisticated computers cannot analyze the number of variables that are needed to predict climate or weather. Thus, our task is to uncover more robust data and analysis systems that can take variables like industrialization, automobiles, large fields of grain, large herds of cattle, etc. And plug into a model that makes sense ("Chaos Theory, " n.d.)

What are the implications of the results of this study?

Clearly, the implications of the study are twofold: more data needs to be analyzed prior to making any gross judgment about the problem and the parameters are perhaps too small to make meaningful conclusions.

Can you link any of the climate trends to human agency?

It is often because environmental and ecological issues are so very apparent that they are often at the forefront of discussions revolving around the impact of globalism. These paradigms range from the alarmist viewpoint that believes the planet is already doomed -- both from a global warming and resource standpoint and the earth's inability to sustain human's growing population. A more pragmatic side, however, sees that intervention is necessary, conferences like the Copenhagen Summit vital, and dialog critical to ensuring humans are on a path towards greater sustainability. Nowhere is this debate more virulent ecologically than with the concept of global warming.

Global warming advocates believe that because of the Industrial Revolution and resultant amounts of carbon dioxide placed into the atmosphere because of automation, the Earth's average temperature is rising, and projected to continue to rise. The reason for this issue being a central paradigm for the ecological consequences of globalism is complex, but essentially focuses on the fact that the developing world is at a different cycle of technological wisdom and, through their push to industrialize, places less value on long-term ecological effects than in rapid economic growth. Add to this the number of factories and automobiles in the developed world and we note that weather patterns carry pollutants all across the globe. If the adherents to the global warming theory area correct, most of the noticeable warming will first be noticed in the polar regions, which will cause ice to melt and sea levels to rise. This will also change the amount and pattern of global precipitation, extreme weather events, some species extinction, and of course, drastic changes in agricultural yields (Hegerl, 2007, 665-712).

The difficulty with predicting climate change arises with the current level of modeling. Despite sophisticated super computers that can process millions of bits of data at one time, climate is so complex that it almost defies concrete representations. Scientists rely on fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, and a host of complex mathematical formulas, and certainly attempt to include as many processes as possible. However, since complete and accurate data is lacking prior to the 20th century, models of climate and macro-geological changes are not always accurate. The models do show that, when using 20th century data, warming is the end result from the interaction of greenhouse gases with geological processes on Earth (Lanza, 2000, 8-64).

Thanks to increased media attention, and the efforts of people like former Vice President Al Gore, the increased publicity of scientific theories of global warming continues to stir political and economic debate -- some of it quite virulent (Weart, 2003-2009).

Scientific discussions now became entangled with fierce political debates over scientific uncertainty and the costs of regulating greenhouse gases. It was not until around 2005 that American media reported clearly that scientists had resolved the controversy, while films and ominous weather events gave citizens a better idea of what global warming might mean. The majority of Americans (except on the political right) had moved gradually to a vague feeling that some kind of action should be taken. Stronger worries had grown among people in most other countries, and among many thoughtful policy-makers in the United States itself (Ibid.)

The geopolitical debate results from the great divide that still exists between the developed and developing world. It is the developing world that is most at risk due to threats of global warming (less water, fewer areas of agricultural land, at risk for starvation, single item economies, etc.). When previous summits met, for instance Kyoto, some of these developing countries were exempted from the same standards as the developed world, causing a lack of cohesiveness. For example, the United States believes that if the developed world is to bear much of the costs regarding ecological clean up and technological innovation to prevent global warming, emerging countries like China and India should be expected to constrain their emissions -- particularly since China's CO2 emissions now exceed those of the United States. China and India contend that they are less obligated to reduce emissions quickly because the West had a longer period of development and that its per capital "carbon footprint" is far less than the U.S. -- of course bringing in the entire argument about population control and responsibility (Brahic, 2007).

Of course, public awareness of global warming is much higher in developed countries -- Japan and Finland show almost everyone is aware of the situation; compared with fewer than 20% of the population in countries in sub-Saharan Africa. In fact:

Respondents who reported knowing something or a great deal about global warming were asked about their views on the causes of global warming. Their responses reveal that public knowledge of the concept of global warming is not the same thing as the public belief that global warming is a result of human activities.

For example, Latin Americans are in the middle of the international pack in overall awareness of global warming. However, focusing on people who say they know about global warming, Latin Americans lead the world in the belief that rising temperatures across the globe (a part of global warming) are a result of human activity. In fact, 13 of the top 20 countries where more people believe global warming is a result of human activities are in Latin America (Pelham, 1).

Whether or not the facts focusing on the consequences of global warming are indisputable or not, debates still arise regarding limiting industrial emissions and slowing down the rate of development for the Third World. How fair is it, the developing countries posit, that the developed world has had over 200 years to develop its economic structure without environmental regulation, and now that the developing world is poised to grow, new rules are placed upon those countries. Still others emphasize that the world has changed, and that 21st century ideas, communications, and above all, economic alignment, are such that it is impossible to operate within a vacuum (Weiss, 2009).