While watching movies like Everything’s Cool, The Great Global Warming Swindle, and An Inconvenient Truth, something that hasn’t been very clear to me is when the issue of global warming became very big, and while I say big, I mean when everybody in America started hearing about it and actually know the term. I thought that it would be somewhere about the 1990’s, but it turns out that the first American controversy over global warming was in the year 1799! Before we dive into that topic, here is some backstory.
In the year 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote a book titled “Notes on the State of Virginia” which was about Virginia’s natural resources and its economy. By the end of the book, Thomas Jefferson gave his belief in global warming:
A change in our climate…is taking place very sensibly. Both heats and colds are become much more moderate within the memory of the middle-aged. Snows are less frequent and less deep….The elderly inform me the earth used to be covered with snow about three months in every year. The rivers, which then seldom failed to freeze over in the course of the winter, scarcely ever do so now. An unfortunate fluctuation between heat and cold . . . very fatal to fruits.
According to the book, Thomas Jefferson believed in global warming before the world had invented gas eating hummers. That said, the key to a controversy is having to opposed sides; so who is Thomas Jefferson’s counterpart?
Is the human race compelled to care? Are we actually caring people? Yes, yes we are. The human race really does care about what happens in the community of our world. Do we act like we don’t care? Of course. I have to admit; sometimes I act like I don’t care. Even though I do act like that sometimes, every time I see a cute animal, I am compelled to help.
All sorts of animals are going to be hurt or at least affected by global warming. When humans see the conditions of our planet, they feel compelled to help, but who has the time? Everyone is running around to sports, attending parties, or simply doing their homework. We don’t have much time to care about the environment. Yes, we recycle, but when you really think about it, how much is that doing? Well, I will tell you…
Recycling reduces the amount of landfills that are in the world. Products that are not biodegradable can stay in the landfill for centuries. Centuries… What a long time! Recycling cost much less than throwing everything away. Recycling reduces pollution. It takes less manufacturing to recycle than it does to crush all the trash. You can save so much money by purchasing recycled items than non-recycled items.
Now that you know there is at least one thing you can do, you can help the environment. Each thing makes a difference. Start now!
I was recently reading an article in the National Geographic about a “super volcano” in Yellowstone National Park, and I started thinking. Scientists in the article say that it is called a super volcano because it has shot out hundreds of cubic miles of lava and ash in one single eruption:
The Yellowstone region is often referred to as a “supervolcano” because it has spewed more than 240 cubic miles (a thousand cubic kilometers) of ash and lava in a single event. The most recent of these massive blasts occurred some 640,000 years ago.
When I heard this, my first thought was, “Are volcanoes in any way linked to global warming?” I kept pondering this question, and finally I decided to do some research.
According to a website called mi2g, volcanoes are linked to global warming in a few specific ways. The first of these ways is that global warming could cause more volcanic eruptions. Now I bet you’re thinking, “Why?” The explanation for this is that global warming causes ice caps to melt, and once the ice caps melt, that takes a huge weight off magma below ground. This act of nature would make it much more likely for lava to surge upward and pour out onto the land, thus creating a volcano, so soon there will be more eruptions:
Eventually there will be either somewhat larger eruptions or more frequent eruptions in coming decades.
More volcanic eruptions would be pretty bad for humans. Recently, a volcano in Iceland named Eyjafjallajökull erupted, and even though it did not hurt humans, it had a devastating effect on Europe’s air transport because of all of the smoke it spewed. but volcanoes are not all bad. According to scientists in the mi2g article, volcanic eruptions could cool our planet. This phenomenon may seem unlikely, but it is a possibility. Volcanoes shoot sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere. The dioxide then transforms into sulphuric acid droplets. The acid droplets would reflect sunlight, thus not letting as much light from the sun reach the planet, thus cooling the Earth.
Now it seems pretty amazing that volcanoes cool the Earth right? Well, they are not all good. The gas they release into the atmosphere causes acid rain and destroys the ozone layer, which is a much needed barrier to the sun’s rays. So, all in all, volcanoes may cool the Earth, but they are also very destructive in many ways, and we should not rely on them as a solution to global warming at all.
I read a post on National Geographic about sea otters affecting global warming. I know what you’re thinking; there is no way. That’s what I thought, too, but it’s true! The article states that when hungry sea otters whack spiky urchins against rocks on their chests, the mammals may also be striking a blow against global warming. The article says that otters preying on urchins and devouring greenhouse-gas absorbing kelp forests. This is interesting because the sea otters obviously don’t know or mean to do it but just being sea otters are affecting global warming in a reasonably big way for just little animals.
The result? An otter-assisted kelp forest can absorb as much as 12 times the amount of CO2 from the atmosphere than if it were subject to starved sea urchins.
That is amazing that an otter-assisted kelp forest can absorb that much CO2. One thing that we haven’t discussed as a class is other topics that may be affecting global warming not just the big ideas like cars and main topics like that, but little ideas like sea otters, one of the last topics we would think of when discussing global warming are actually causing a good amount of global warming.
I think that the class should start to think more about what else is causing global warming, even the little ideas which may end up being the easiest to change and to help global warming with rather than thinking about making us get rid of cars or trying to find huge solutions to global warming. If the class were to focus on little ideas that are causing global warming we would be able to get a lot more done. Back to the car example trying to get rid of cars is virtually impossible but changing little ideas would be much simpler. Now I know you’re thinking there is no way to affect a sea otters behavior or to change something there is no way to change. I agree but there have to be other topics that we can put a stop to and we should focus on those more.
In the topic of global warming there is not really a good grasp on when it will really start to have big effects on the earth. And the truth is that we can only predict and not ever really know when there will be big changes. As I was reading my RSS feed, I came across this story that really relates to this topic of uncertainty.
New studies say that there will be another eruption in Yellowstone and that scientists will be able to predict where it will occur. Well towards the top of the article National Geographic states that they can predict where there is a better probability of some volcanoes erupting someday. Well the part that caught my eye was the word “someday.” What good is knowing where it will erupt if you have no idea when it will in the future?
Well I know you might say that it is good to know where it will erupt so that we will be ready if it happens again, but the last time that two of these potential eruption sites went off was 174,000 to 70,000 years ago. But the third site has erupted in recent years. So I feel like we should be very little concerned about this problem.
Later in the article National Geographic talks about how massive eruptions have come out of Yellowstone that have had consequences that cover regions of land around it in lava. As a result, some people have given Yellowstone the name “super volcano”. In this next quote I want you to pay attention to the time period over which these huge blasts occurred.
The Yellowstone region is often referred to as a “supervolcano” because it has spewed more than 240 cubic miles (a thousand cubic kilometers) of ash and lava in a single event. The most recent of these massive blasts occurred some 640,000 years ago.”
Pay attention to the part about 640,000 years ago. Again, why should we be concerned about things that happened so long ago and have so little chances of happening in thousands of years to come. They do not have any evidence that this will happen again anytime soon. And a little bit later in the article, a scientist says that even the chances of a smaller blast occurring are 1 in 10,000. So why worry about all of this now?
So as you can see, this really relates to the topic of uncertainty in global warming. Now this uncertainty is a little more dramatic than global warming is but they share the same concept. The next eruption could happen in thousands of years and Global Warming could not have catastrophic effects in the next 100 years. But there always is that small chance that it could happen soon, and this creates the uncertainty.
I am begininning to think that maybe the majority of global warming is a big hoax. Some scientists believe that Al Gore is wrong, some believe that he is lying, and some feel that they know everything. If there are any scientists out there that are reading this and thinking to your selves that this girl has no idea what she is talking about, then I am cool with that; just no rude comments please : ). Anyways, Learning about who is right and wrong, and reading articles, blogs and watching videos and movies, are starting to make a constant cycle – a tornado, a whirlwind. You learn about one persons view on global warming, you share some really good thoughts, and them BAM! You see and interesting article contradicting what you just learned about. So then you go on and share some more thoughts and then you guessed it, a video link shows up on the middle of the page begging for you to click on it. Then the cycle starts over again.
The National Geographic web article, which was published about a year after the movie [An Inconvenient Truth] came out, one of the opening sentences to this article was:
The message in An Inconvenient Truth, the new movie starring former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, is clear: Humans are causing global warming, and the effects are devastating.
I thought it was interesting how the article says that humans are causing global warming. Yes, part of this problem is our fault, but all of this can’t be our destruction. Animals [especially cows], factories, and other things give off C02 also. In addition, the majority of the hyper links led back to their own website. Although Nat Geo covers a lot of topics about the world, and everyday things, but I think this has led me to watching out for bias.
The two different articles I just read about different views on Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, are pretty unreliable to me because they do not justify what they are trying to say. In the Skeptical Science article, it starts off and says, “Al Gore is wrong”, but I don’t believe what Skeptical Science said. Skeptical Science also said, “Al Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, was criticised by a high court judge who highlighted what he said were “nine scientific errors”. How does the judge know that there are nine scientific errors? Is he a judge or a climate scientist? Judges are not experts on climate changes and it does not justify that Al Gore is wrong because the judge does not have a degree on climate changing.
In the Newsbusters article, I don’t believe anything that is on that website because it is trying to expose liberal bias on other people. I think that saying that in the website association name makes me suspicious on what they are writing on their website. Noel Sheppard wrote an article about Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, but I don’t like what he wrote because it did not make any sense to me and plus, it doesn’t say he has any education. In Noel Sheppard’s article, it says that the court noticed eleven inaccuracies in his movie, but do they have degrees in climate changes? Are they qualified and do they have sufficient knowledge on climate changes? The court could be random, or they could be climate scientist, but we do not know.
These people that are writing these articles about the inaccuracies in Al Gore’s movie, but I don’t understand. Do you have a PhD in Climate Change or are you just a regular blog reporter who writes blog posts? If you are the second choice, you are a noob. You are a noob at writing about climate change because you know nothing about the subject. Noobs can’t write about subjects they do not know about. Look at this noob below…..
Does it look like he knows anything about climate change?? I don’t. I think he is a regular blogger that trys to find ways to exploit Al Gore’s inconsistencies in his movie and I do not think that is good. To me, he knows nothing and really can’t say anything on the subject on the matter. What I am trying to say is that some bloggers tell INCONVENIENT LIES.