Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth," Bill Clinton's recent initiative and President George W. Bush's reluctant admission have once again forced the specter of global warming into the public forum. The result has been much of the same sensationalism seen 30 or so years ago, when concerns of preserving our planet's biosphere led to the enactment of an array of environmental legislation. Naturally the naysayers have returned to battle the fear mongering. Again their arguments focus on worst-case scenarios - the disappearance of the polar ice caps, the shut down of the Gulf Stream and the ravaging of the ozone layer. However, this time around, the situation is quite different. The scientific community has a much clearer picture of what is actually going on now.
First, the term "global warming" is a misnomer that greatly simplifies our current predicament. The phenomenon that should be correctly described as "global climate change" stems not only from the warming effect of increased levels of greenhouse gases but also from drastic changes in the flow of nutrients and energy in and among the world's ecosystems. The earth holds water, carbon, nit arogen, phosphorous and other important elements in carefully balanced cycles. Disturbance of these flows - even local disturbances - can blossom into much greater effects further down the line. Energy enters the biome from the sun and is fixed into stored sources by photosynthetic plants. This, of course, forms the basis of the food chain, which, despite what many would want to believe, humans are a part of. This combination of temperature and weather, available nutrients and place in this pecking order of energy more or less determines the niche - or ecological role - of every organism on earth.
Think about that last statement carefully. Now, think again why so many scientists find such great concern in the rise of global temperature. Our rapid consumption and resulting voluminous waste has essentially put every species in the world between a rock and a hard place. We take a lion's share of available global energy. We move huge amounts of nutrients such as nitrogen and carbon from places where they're needed to systems where such an increase cannot be handled. Unfortunately for those who wish to remain complacent, net movement of nutrients of such a large magnitude cannot be blamed on natural warming periods, volcanoes or whatever the scapegoat du jour happens to be.
The temperature problem does not stem from increase itself. Many studies acknowledge that the real cause for concern is the increase in rate of temperature change. This was expressed by scientists associated with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center in 2000 - showing that a string of record-breaking highs in the late 1990s did not fit with the linear increase of 20 years of temperature data. This study is but one of many. If that is not enough, research has been conducted by global change biologists to better understand the links between climate, nutrient flow and plant and animal ecology. Radical changes to regional nutrient cycling in ecosystems - such as the boreal forest of Northern Canada and Europe - have been linked to rising temperature. The increase in range and proliferation of pest insects, weeds and diseases has also been linked to the effect. The volume of relevant research is so large, it prohibits the pinpointing of a single, all-encompassing study.
It is true that the doomsday effects of global climate change remain purely theoretical. It is also true that it is difficult to pinpoint just how quickly the rate of increase will rise. However, now is not the time to let the speculative nature of the future cloud the relevance of a large body of available, well-tested data. The earth is changing in ways that defy the governance of its natural systems, and every study places the blame directly on us. One must certainly agree that people should not be compelled to run screaming into the streets at the very mention of climate change, but to say that it is not a matter of urgent concern is shortsighted indeed. The truth is politicians should have been running it as an issue decades ago. After all, 1.4-5.8 degrees may not sound like much, but 100 years is merely a blip in the passages of time.
Brian J. Clough is a Cook College senior, majoring in ecology and natural resources.
Be the first to comment on this article!