Coon 1

Robert Coon Steffen Guenzel ENC 1101-0011 10/7/13 Climate Shift and the State of the Global Warming Issue The topic of global warming is a decades old issue that was greatly opposed for years on end. Over the years, the pool of evidence supporting this theory of human-induced climate change has grown larger and more complex. There are still detractors but the scientific community is practically in agreement that this increase in average Earth temperature is humaninduced and a growing issue that must be dealt with. The scope of something as extensive as this has proven quite a challenge for all. This particular paper shall look at the Wikipedia article on the subject. But first, it should be clarified by approximately how much the temperatures on Earth have changed. According to the Wikipedia article on global warming, it has been recorded that between 1906 and 2005, the average surface temperature has increased by 0.74 C, 0.18 degrees (sec. 1). While this amount may not sound like much, this is the average surface temperature of the entire planet. This results in some areas being struck harder by the rise than others. An interesting nuance to consider is that the rate of warming over the second half the period was nearly double that of the whole period (0.130.03 C per decade, versus 0.070.02 C per decade) (sec. 1). This would correlate to the increase in global industrialization over the decades. In the textbook, Writing about Writing, an article written by Keith Grant-Davie briefly views at various rhetorical concepts. One of the terms defined is stases, questions that help explain whats at issue (Page 102). For example, What if the Earth is simply going through one

Coon 2

of its natural cyclical climate changes? Compare the Ice Age to the days of Christopher Columbus and see the stark difference. But lets consider the findings many independent scientific groups have observed. They have found that sea levels have risen, snow and ice melt has become widespread, heat content of oceans and humidity have both increased, and the timing of spring events have been occurring earlier than was usual. Wikipedia states The probability that these changes could have occurred by chance is virtually zero. (sec. 1). Its unclear as to why that is so. Is it simply because all of these events are all occurring at the same time or are there other factors involved? The next question in this particular stases that a few have considered is Could the Sun have anything to do with this? On Wikipedia, the sun has been monitored since 1978. The measurements taken since then have not shown any increase in the Suns output. This is compounded by the fact that models cannot simulate the rapid warming seen in the past decades when accounting for solar and volcanic power alone. Come to think of it, if the Sun were to inexplicably produce significantly more heat, it wouldnt take satellites for us to notice. The line of evidence continues on for much longer but there is simply not the space to cover it all. Instead, lets discuss the audience. Originally, the audience for all these different observations and findings were other scientists through scientific journals and magazines. The issue spread as more and more tested the findings while also developing other results. The summarized observations and conclusions were moved on to the audience of the common public and public officials in a less direct manner. The reactions were mixed. The scientific community and country leaders generally agree that this is a concern but part of the common public and many large businesses were opposed to the theory. Many of the large businesses have since turned around and are asking for government regulations but a fair number people are still

Coon 3

speaking against global warming. They are decrying several things, including but not limited to the causes of increased global average air temperature whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, whether humankind has contributed significantly to it, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements, as described by Wikipedia (sec. 8.3). The objective of Wikipedia is to provide the most information on a topic and so far in this topic, it has done a great job but the amounts of evidence supporting the theory of global warming is much larger than against it which seems one-sided. If the evidence against the theory is significantly smaller, it should be noted in some way. Its much better to state outright that the proofs are one-sided than to only imply with the amount of writing and effort for each side. Keith Grant-Davie quickly looks at discourse, situations that are shaped by language that try to get people to do something (Page 101). Perhaps the most notable example of the discourse created over the issue is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, held in 1992. Wikipedia indicates that [t]he ultimate objective of the Convention is to prevent dangerous human interference of the climate system. (sec. 8.2). That requires the stabilization of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere so to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to the climate change, food production is not endangered, and economic development can continue in a suitable and sustainable fashion. However, emissions still have increased which indicates either that the developed countries arent doing as much as is required on their part or countries that did not sign are continuing practically as is. Later on, a lobbying group called G77 pushed for a mandate which would require developed countries to effectively lead the charge in reducing emissions on the basis that they

Coon 4

have been producing for longer than developing countries and that the developing countries emissions would grow to meet their growing needs. The mandate was sustained the in Kyoto protocol and entered legal effect in 2005. US president of the time, George W. Bush, rejected the treaty because it exempts 80% of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy. If the US were to have agreed to the treaty, it could very well mean the US losing a lot of its economical power in the world in transitioning to more planet friendly measures. The loss of power would be seemingly insufferable, particularly for those in power. One of the constraints (limiting factors on the response to a problem (Writing about Writing, Page 102)) has been the people. There are all kinds of hard sciences, models, and effects involved so comprehension has been a bit fickle. Predictably, public opinions have been mixed. Wikipedia declares that a poll done by Gallup Polls in 2007-08 revealed [o]ver a third of the world's population was unaware of global warming (sec. 8.3.1). Even with those aware of the issue, the cause and even the event are questioned differently. For example, Latin America believes the global warming to be caused by people while Africa, parts of Asia, the Middle East, and a few Former Soviet Union countries believe just the opposite. Europe is debating what actions to take while US is still debating about whether the climate change is happening at all. The presentation of the issue by politicians might be an explanation along with educational values. Current event watch in various countries could also affect awareness and comprehension. A whole slew of solutions have been proposed in an attempt to reduce emissions. Wikipedia lists energy conservation, energy efficiency, and leaning more of societys energy demand to be accomplished with renewable or nuclear energy as currently used solutions and all have been proven to be valid alternatives to current energy usage (Sec. 7.1). There are also acts

Coon 5

to enhance natural sinks with one approach being reforestation. However, this all has had relatively limited funding. This could very likely be because we are moving from one overall methodology to the next which, as with many things, must happen gradually. Another valid reason is the process of obtaining the land for projects like nuclear power plants and wind farms can be difficult since they require a lot of space to be effective and could be harmful to human health. This in summation should provide a helpful glimpse into the topic of global warming. While it remains a theory, it is still a compelling one with gobs and gobs of evidence to support it. There is still some debate as to the exact causes of how this warming came to be but the overall agreement is that humans are chiefly responsible for the warming of the planet. That being said, there are still some natural occurrences that contribute to temperatures rising that was not covered but have a notable effect. While some mystery exists, the effects could eventually wipe out life.

Coon 6

Works Cited: (Global Warming) (Grant-Davie, 1997)