Environmental Effects Of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide example essay topic

It is ironic that fifty two years before hosting the 1997 United Nations Conference on Climate Change, the city of Kyoto had barely missed being destroyed. It was one of four cities considered as primary targets by President Harry Truman's secretary of war, Henry L. Stimson. The others were Kokura, Hiroshima, and Niigata. Gale E. Christianson describes Kyoto in her book Greenhouse as a magnificent city surpassed only by Tokyo in the number of its institutions of higher learning. Kyoto served as the seat of the emperor for more than 1000 years until the Imperial Household moved to Tokyo in 1868. All Japanese try to visit the city at least once in their lives.

The city remains the heart of Japanese culture. Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines dominate the landscape. Japanese theater was founded in Kyoto. It was in this setting that the Nations of the world gathered to discuss the issue of global warming in late November of 1997 (Christianson 254). From the beginning the United States was viewed as the villain.

Undersecretary of State, Stuart Eizenstat, and head of the U.S. delegation, let it be known that no amount of pressure could force the administration to flinch. "We want an agreement, but we are not going to Kyoto at any cost" (qt d. in Christianson 255). Vice President Al Gore added: "We are perfectly prepared to walk away from an agreement that we don't think will work" (qt d. in Christianson 255). It was quite obvious that the United States did not want to be there - and for good reason. The reason had everything to do with cost and benefit. The Protocols would require that the United States reduce its 2008-2012 overall greenhouse emissions by about a third of the current levels.

The economic costs are quite significant and the benefits are not. Tom Wigley, a senior scientist at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, calculated "saved" warming under the assumption that every nation met its obligation under the Kyoto Protocol. According to his calculations, the earth's temperature in 2050 would be 0.07 C lower as a result (Wigley). According to Patrick J. Michaels, a professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, a warming of such an infinitesimal amount cannot accurately be measure on a thermometer. "The benefits of Kyoto are so minuscule as to be immeasurable. The costs, on the other hand, are not" (Michaels 12).

The effects of global warming, if any, are insignificant and do not provide concrete reasoning for a radical U.S. response. Furthermore, even if the earth is warming, it is not cause for alarm. Historic evidence supports the idea that warmer climates are beneficial for human activities, food production, and health. Cold periods have had the opposite affect. The argument against global warming is divided into two schools of thought. The first is that scientific evidence proves that the earth is not warming and the issue has been artificially manufactured.

The second school of thought is that warming is occurring. However, this warming is naturally occurring regardless of how we treat the environment and this warming is beneficial to us for a variety of reasons which I will explain. Scientific data collected over the over the last 140 years suggesting that there is global warming has been replaced with satellites. Satellites, which measure temperatures all over the world, show no real trend in any direction, in fact in recent decades, they show a global cooling. Jerry Taylor, director of Cato Institute's Natural Resource Studies, observed that NASA satellites and weather balloons show a slight cooling trend over the past 19 years.

Taylor points out that previous land based data "only unevenly covers the three quarters of the earth's surface covered by oceans and virtually ignores polar regions" (Taylor 2). University of Alabama climatologist John Christy, the originator of the satellite data, points out that the satellite data matches up almost perfectly with temperatures of the lower atmosphere taken with satellite balloons. If the satellite data are in error, then the balloons launched around the world are somehow making the same exact errors day after day (Christy). On June 23, 1988 NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the House of Representatives that there was a "strong cause and effect relationship between observed temperatures and human emissions into the atmosphere" (qt d. in Michaels). He produced a model that predicted global temperatures between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.41 C (Hansen). Ground temperatures recorded by the IPCC showed only a 0.11 C rise or only one quarter of what Hansen predicted.

According to Michaels Temperature Variations Chart, the only real change in temperature variability has been a trend toward stabilization and reduced year to year variability (Michaels). This information was gathered through the use of weather balloons and highly accurate NASA satellite information. The chart proves that we are entering an era of stable and predictable weather patterns and not the opposite. Recent weather patterns seemingly contradict Michaels chart predictions. The summer of 1997 was considerably warmer than average. 1998 followed with an even more unbearable heat wave.

Some scientists began to boast that the recent heat waves prove their theories that global warming does actually exist. Patrick Michaels points out that this warming, shown in the adjusted satellite data of 1998 is "an anomalous spike rather than a continuous warming trend. That is clear testimony to its El Nin~o relation" (Michaels 9). El Nin~o. The boy child. Named by Spanish speaking fishermen, it was once regarded as little more than a rough current along the coasts of Peru and Ecuador around Christmas.

All that changed during the winter of 1982 when sea temperatures off the coast of Peru rose by 4 C overnight. Over the next several months El Nino was related to the deaths of over 2000 people and $13 billion dollars in damage (Christianson 222). Patrick Michaels and other scientists have tied irregular warming to this demon - El Nino. However, El Nino has not shown this kind of wrath in the past. Why the sudden intensity of the weather pattern formerly regarded as little more than some rough current that disrupted the abundance of fish along the Peruvian coast for a month or two, every couple of years?

Kevin E. Trensberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research points out that "this opens up the possibility that El Nino changes may be partly caused by observed increases in greenhouse gases" (qt d. in Christianson 224). Green house gases have been labeled as the number one cause of global warming. Greenhouse gases occur naturally in the environment and also result from human activities. The most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor. Carbon dioxide is the next most abundant gas. It is released in the atmosphere through many natural processes including volcanic eruptions and human respiration.

We breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is also released through many unnatural processes such as the burning of fossil fuels, solid waste and operating motor vehicles. Encyclopedia Encarta states that the concentration of carbon dioxide molecules in 1750 were about 281 ppm (parts per million). Today our atmosphere contains 368 ppm, a 31 percent increase.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase at an annual rate of 1.5 ppm. At this rate carbon dioxide concentrations will reach more than 540 ppm by the year 2100 (Encarta). Yet, is there a correlation between rising greenhouse gas concentrations and temperatures rising? According to this theory, the global temperature should have risen far more than the 0.6 C since 1861. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) believes that some other industrial pollutant is preventing the warming from being observed.

Sulfates released into the air by aerosols have been blamed for the lack of warming presently. Scientists claim that these sulfates act like mirrors, reflecting heat out of this atmosphere. They are prolonging the inevitable rise in temperature. Activists and government programs have been successful at reducing the levels of sulfates in the atmosphere through awareness programs and labeled warnings on aerosol cans. The theory is that eventually the sulfate screen will diminish and the true effects of greenhouse gas emissions will be exposed. Michaels suggest that this sulfate hypothesis is not reliable.

He writes, "I would simply point out that the southern half of the planet is virtually devoid of sulfates and should have warmed at a prodigious and consistent rate for the last two decades" (Michaels 6). If sulfates do not explain the lack of warming then the best explanation according to Michaels is that the sensitivity to climate change was overestimated. Furthermore, the atmospheres sensitivity to carbon dioxides is also largely over-exaggerated (7). Carbon dioxide is essential to the agricultural industries. Plant life relies heavily on the consumption of carbon dioxide. A study conducted Robert Mendelsohn, Yale University Professor and author of "Global Warming and the American Economy", show the effects of carbon dioxide on crop productivity.

He finds that a $10.38 billion increase in annual net revenue was found in the United States alone for the year 1998 at those current carbon dioxide levels (Mendelsohn 51). One of the basic errors made by scientists is that plants would not be able to absorb the increased amount of carbon dioxide. On the contrary, we find that not only have plants adapted accordingly, they have also benefited from the "enriched" atmosphere. Mendelsohn conducted another study in which he evaluated the financial impact of a 1.5 C (higher than any prediction made by computer models) warming by the year 2060. Accordingly, we would see a net benefit (in billions of dollars): agriculture would increase by 31.4 annually; forestry by 6.7; energy by -4.5. Another model using a 5.0 C warming would still yield overall 14.1 billion dollar revenue in the agricultural industry (Mendelsohn 193).

His studies prove that a mild increase in temperature is beneficial to our economy. A continued increase in temperature yields a lower and lower net revenue. Currently, scientific data confirms that no such radical increase in temperature is going to be seen in the near future. His studies also help reveal that carbon dioxide is not causing warming since we underestimated plant and oceanic abilities to absorb the gas at a higher rate. Our ecosystem has adapted to human life over thousands of years and has proven flexible and versatile to human needs.

Its ability to absorb greenhouse gases comes as no surprise, especially since the earth has been absorbing these gases for thousands of years. Overall, Mendelsohn finds that a 1.5 C increase would have a per capita benefit of 124.5 USD by the year 2060 (197). In his paper titled "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", Arthur B. Robinson writes, "We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animal life as a result of carbon dioxide increase. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution (Robinson). However, carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas overloading our atmosphere. Methane is an even more effective insulator, trapping over 20 times more heat than the same amount of carbon dioxide.

Methane is emitted during the production of coal, natural gas, and oil. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the amount of methane in the atmosphere has more than doubled (Encarta). Therefore, even if carbon dioxide is not having a negative impact on the ecosystem, methane emissions will surely prove far more damaging than carbon dioxide could. Patrick Michaels refutes this idea by pointing out that "the rate of increase of the second most important greenhouse emission, methane, began to decrease in 1981" (Michaels 5). A recent study by E.J. Dlugokencky found that the concentration in the atmosphere is rapidly stabilizing because "it is coming into chemical equilibrium with other atmospheric reactants" (qt. in Michaels 7). Global warming advocates base their propaganda campaign on several false premises.

They say that greenhouse gases will cause this planet to warm and have severe negative consequences to our entire ecosystem. The real culprit in global climate change is the sun. According to Dr. Arthur B. Robinson, long term studies show that fluctuations in the intensity of solar radiation are closely related to warming and cooling trends in the earth's temperature (Robinson, Orient 2). Historic records show that temperatures are not unusually warm today. Studies show a period of higher temperature 1000 years ago and a period of lower temperature 300 years ago (3). Furthermore, the atmospheres ability to absorb CO 2 has been largely miscalculated.

Scientists ignored the fact that while the atmosphere contains 750 gigatons of CO 2, the ocean contains about 40,000 gigatons and is easily able to absorb any excess amount in the atmosphere (6). Mendelsohn found that CO 2 is vital to plant life and an increase in CO 2 levels benefits us ecologically, biologically and financially. Another false premise propagated by global warming advocates is that the warming of the planet will cost us billions. Several studies have proven this prediction to be false. Yale economist William Nord haus, an advisor to the Clinton administration, calculated that a doubling of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cost us $14.4 billion dollars.

He concludes that the gains would be somewhere around $14 billion (Taylor). Basically, a doubling of carbon dioxide would have no impact. As discussed earlier, Mendelsohn found that a 1.5 C increase in temperature by the year 2060 would have a net benefit of $31.4 billion annual impact on our economy. The conclusions of many other similar studies have yielded similar results. Global warming would indeed be a great benefit to our society. All of the reasons discussed had a strong impact on the decision by the United States to disregard the Kyoto Protocol.

The restrictions on greenhouse emissions agreed to in Kyoto are not in any way minor. Jerry Taylor found that reducing emissions 7 percent below what they were in 1990 by the year 2012 means reducing emissions almost 40 percent below current levels. If you adjust for population growth, a 50 percent reduction per capita in greenhouse gases is necessary to fulfill the requirements laid out at Kyoto (Taylor 10). However, this does not mean that reducing greenhouse gases would not be a good thing to do. There are many other reasons to keep greenhouse gas levels down.

Their association with temperature is what has been questioned and the severity of the problem has been blown out of proportion. As for now, we can all relax". Global Warming,' Microsoft (R) Encarta (R) Online Encyclopedia 2004 web (c) 1997-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Robinson, Arthur B. and Jane M. Orient. "Science, Politics and Death".

The New American 20.12 (June 2004): 37 par. 24 November 2004 web Taylor, Jerry. "Global Warming: The Anatomy of a Debate". Diss. John Hopkins University, January 16, 1998 web Boyachek, Karen. "Argument Against the Global Warming Theory" U of Saskatchewan Newsletter 26 Jan. 20 web Mendelsohn, Robert.

Global Warming and the American Economy. Northampton: Edward Elgar, 2001. Moran, Edward, ed. The Global Ecology. New York: Wilson, 1999.

Christianson, Gale E. Greenhouse. United States: Walker, 1999 James Hansen et al.", A Common-Sense Climate Index: Is Climate Changing Noticeably?" Proceeding of the National Academy of Science 95 (1998): 4113-20 Thomas Wigley, "The Kyoto Protocol: CO 2, CH 4, and Climate Implication", Geophysical Research Letter 25 (1998): 2285-88 Michaels, Patrick J. "Long Hot Year Latest Science Debunks Global Warming Hysteria". Policy Analysis 329 (1998): 1-12.