Paper Example Undergraduate 1,457 words

Rapid Growth of the Global

Last reviewed: February 23, 2011 ~8 min read

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).

In recent years, numerous claims have been made that the earth's temperatures have risen because of technology -- the carbon footprint of human society. This increase is known as global warming and is the gradual increase of the earth's median temperature for surface air and oceans. Scientists generally agree that solar variation and volcanic activity have had an effect on the environment, but because of our limited abilities to track temperature variations over geologic time spans and the lack of available data from the time of human habitation, there remains controversy regarding the veracity of the notion that CO2 emissions are the death knell for humanity.

Medieval Warm Period Project- the Medieval Warm Period Project is an effort by scientists to document the robustness of spatial and temporal distribution of a warming period that has lasted for the past 1,000 years. The idea is to determine whether the period is/was: 1) global in extent, 2) less warm, equally as warm, or warmer than the Current Warming Period, and 3) whether it was shorter or longer than the Current Warming Period. Obviously, because of the lack of cogent and verifiable data from the Medieval world, there are some problems with accurate reconstruction. This group believes the only true objective measurement on climate projects is to compare them with real-world data.

The Quantitative temperature differentials are presented in graphic form and show the degree by which peak Medieval temperatures varied from current Warm Period temperatures. For example, the graph on the right shows that 60 level 1 studies show that peak Medieval temperatures exceeded modern Warming periods by .5-1.0. We can interpret this in a few ways; 1) modern climate may be cyclic in nature, finding peak warming periods every millennium or so; 2) the warming may have little to do with C02 emissions; 3) it would be interesting to see if we could find climactic indicators (tree rings, etc.) going back another 1,000 years (C02 Science, 2011).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)- Contrast this view with the IPCC, who says it is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations. They also believe they are balanced and scientific. In their 2007 4th Report, they note that 1995 -2006 rank as among the twelve warmest years of global surface temperature since 1850. Their view is that C02 through automobiles and industry has so impacted the world that the atmosphere is warming and C02 production rising, global sea levels are rising, decreases in snow and ice are consistent with warming, and even over the past 50 years cold days, cold nights, and frosts have become less frequent, contributing to agricultural and climate change the world over. This cadre views global carbon emission as the direct cause of this warming, with resultant ecological disasters looming. In general, this view holds four basic precepts that point directly at human involvement: 1) humans have contributed to the rise in sea levels in the latter half of the 20th century; 2) human activity has contributed to changes in wind patterns, which in turn affect tropical storms and temperature fluxuations; 3) human activity, specifically C02 emissions, have increased temperatures of hot nights, cold night, and cold days; and 4) human activity has increased drought and heavy and odd precipitation events (Climate Change 2007: Synthesis, 2007).

The Hockey Stick Argument - the Hockey Stick controversy is a debate over the scientific validity of the implications made for the global warming argument. Specifically, it is about graphs showing reconstructed estimates of the temperature record of the past millennium and how that data is used politically to convey complex science to the public, and whether many of these interpretations show only a small portion of the entire picture. The term "hockey stick" was given to this controversy by Jerry Mahlman, a climatologist who described a patter that is relatively flat to 1900 (the shaft) and then a sharp increase after 1900 that corresponds to the blade (see above) (Climate Legacy, 2004). This graph has been the key piece of evidence in views supported by the United Nations and IPCC regarding greenhouse gas emissions and environmental change.

Arguments against using the Hockey Stick as the only answer to climate claim that it is taken out of context when it comes to global climatic time. In addition, graphing the last 150 years causes, what some scientists say, is noisy data in which relatively minor changes appear to be over exaggerated because of the template of the graph. This, called small-amplitude variations, may be true from an empirical sense, but have little meaning statistically when dealing with macro-science like climate (Von Storch, et.al., 2004). In other words, we can change the actual interpretation of the shape of the graph by expanding or contracting the scale to represent either a small portion of a larger even (a), a medium portion of a century like event (B), or a macro, millennium event (C) and the "hockey stick" becomes shaped differently, and therefore interpreted differently as well. For example:

A) Small portion of the graph accentuating the rise in temperature:

B) Median view of graph over centuries:

C) Macro, or millennium view (stretched and exaggerated purposefully):

Thus, if we can imagine stretching this graph back 2-3 millennia, then the past 150 years would not appear as quite an anomaly, but rather likely a regular spike and valley pattern of climate warming and cooling periods.

The actual controversy over global warming and C02 emission impact on the environment is far more pronounced in the popular media, partially thanks to former Vice President Al Gore and his movie an Inconvenient Truth.

No scientific body disagrees that in recent decades temperatures have increased -- this is measurable. Where the disagreement lies, however, is the nature and seriousness of the data. Is this a small or large trend, and how sensitive is climate to human interference. This is no longer a scientific argument, but a geo-political one as well. Too, there will likely not be a definitive answer or proof anytime soon -- the number of complexities and millions upon millions of micro-effects that may influence climate foil even the most advanced computers. Predicting current weather is almost like chaos theory epitomized -- reconstructing past and future weather even more complex.