NEW CASTLE —
A lot of questions swirl around the subject of global warming.
Here’s the main one: Is it really happening?
Despite skeptics and dismissals, an increasing body of scientific work appears to confirm warming and its impacts.
Last week, two major reports added considerable weight to the warming argument. The first — the most comprehensive study of polar ice ever — shows the planet’s ice sheets are melting at an accelerating rate.
The impact of this change varies, the report published by the journal Science notes. Most dramatic are changes seen in Greenland, while Antarctica’s melt is occurring much more slowly. Yet the receding ice sheets are adding to rising sea levels.
The second report, from researchers with the Global Carbon Project, says that 2011 was a record year for increases in carbon dioxide emissions. And 2012 is expected to surpass that level.
Carbon dioxide, of course, is the most common “greenhouse” gas believed to contribute to global warming. The amount of this gas pumped into the atmosphere rose 3 percent in 2011 and is expected to be 2.6 percent higher this year.
This latest data on carbon dioxide comes at a time nations are supposed to be cooperating on efforts to scale back its production. While modest success is seen in certain industrialized nations — including the United States — other countries, most notably China and India, are more than making up the difference with even greater carbon contributions.
The ongoing increases in carbon dioxide production indicate that international goals to limit global temperature increases to 3.6 degrees are quickly becoming unattainable, the Global Carbon Project states. Despite ongoing talks and pledges, real action on the matter is hard to come by.
Even as official rejection of global warming melts away with Greenland’s glaciers, there is still stiff resistance to calls for action. In some circles, warming is tied to natural phenomena, rather than human activity. Conversely, even among people who acknowledge the human factor in warming, many argue the overall impact on the planet will be minimal.
What will happen as a result of global warming is indeed a matter of widely diverging debate. That’s because it’s far easier to assess what has happened to the planet than it is to predict changes in the future.
Computer models — which depend on the information supplied to them to offer results — provide possible impacts that range from minimal to catastrophic. The fact is, we don’t know how bad global warming will be.
But melting ice sheets raise a concern. Right now, ice and snow at the poles reflect sunlight back into space, thus lowering the planet’s temperature. As these ice sheets melt, their reflective abilities decrease, possibly producing even greater warming.
A common question about warming involves how hot things will get. But what if warming is an ongoing process? And what if it occurs at a far faster rate than previously envisioned?
Some critics of environmental action to stem greenhouse gas emissions say more evidence is needed to show carbon dioxide is a culprit. But considering all that’s at stake, maybe it’s time to demand proof that humans are not making the planet grow hotter. Otherwise, that data now pouring in points to a growing need to reverse our carbon course.
Mitchel Olszak
Related Photos
-
Mitchel Olszak, Dear Reader
Discussion
Mitchel Olszak: Evidence of global warming grows
- Mitchel Olszak
-
-
Mitchel Olszak: Snooping threat to the free press
In “All the President’s Men,” reporter Bob Woodward conducts late-night meetings with a source in a parking garage. That source, Deep Throat (later revealed to be high-ranking FBI official Mark Felt), was worried that he would be exposed as a tipster in the Watergate scandal.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Toomey takes a chance on guns
How does a conservative Republican senator representing a state with a Democratic majority protect himself politically? One way is to take positions that tend to straddle the nation’s ideological fence.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Terrorists strive to create fear
The finish line of a road race serves as the division between one world and another. Ahead of the finish line, there is structure and discipline, with attention paid to the runners as they cross over. Spectators are kept back, mainly to avoid interfering with the participants — and perhaps to keep them from being trampled.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Kelly, allies battle arms treaty
Supporters of the right to bear arms have a champion in Congressman Mike Kelly. The federal lawmaker, whose district includes most of Lawrence County, has been making waves with his criticism of the Obama administration and its support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
-
Mitchel Olszak: I like beer, so I’m watching our state closely
I like beer. More to the point, I like good beer. In my younger days, just about any swill would do. But with the passage of time, sophistication and exposure to the possibilities, my interests in beer have sharpened and matured.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Political lessons from distant past hold value today
If you want to gain an appreciation for great thinkers, read some of history’s major political philosophies. Here you will find the works of Plato, Machiavelli, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, St. Augustine and many others. They explored difficult social issues and offered serious insight.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Do the emotional centers of the brain guide our politics?
People who hold specific political points of view like to think their positions are based on serious analysis. They view their given ideologies as careful conclusions reached through assessing the world around them and examining how things work. Thus, liberals and conservatives both manage to claim the intellectual and ethical high ground.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Will GOP survive current divisions?
Somebody asked me the other day if I thought the Republican Party was about to split apart. I said no. It was an assessment based on history. Creating a new political party in America is a challenging process. They occasionally crop up, but they don’t last.
-
Mitchel Olszak: History as a matter of chance
History is full of pivotal moments. What if Socrates had decided against drinking that hemlock? What if Gutenberg hadn’t developed his printing press? What if Washington’s army failed to survive the winter at Valley Forge? What if Edison gave up on inventing the light bulb?
-
Mitchel Olszak: Pennsylvanians shouldn’t be fooled by electoral hijinks
Back in the 2000 presidential election, Americans received a civics lesson of sorts. Much of it involved obscure terms such as hanging and dimpled chads, as well as butterfly ballots. All of this, of course, came courtesy of Florida, whose clumsy election efforts produced an extended period of uncertainty in the presidential contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
- More Mitchel Olszak Headlines
-
