As a senior student studying the meteorology, I have had to take many (over 70 semester hours) of weather classes. They range from Intro to Meteorology as a freshman to Geophysical Hydrodynamics as a senior. A few of those classes did dive into the topic of climate change. I have studied, in depth, the topic and really feel knowledgable about the situation. I have never claimed to be a doctor, nor have I done my own research, and I’ve never looked at things with a closed mind.

Global warming is a real phenomenon. The temperature has risen in the past few centuries. Why, well that is the big question that I’m going to try to tackle.

Al Gore, congrats on the Noble but I disagree with your position. You see, Al thinks that because hurricanes are strengthening, wildfires are more common, and Arctic Ice is melting that it must be because of humans. Al points to CO₂ and methane as greenhouse gases. Yes, the industries of today do contribute massive amounts of CO₂ to the atmosphere, but how much is that contributing to global warming? Al… question for you. Would you politicize a completely natural phenomenon for political benefit?

I am one person who doesn’t believe that global warming isn’t directly linked to air pollution or human sources. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to be breathing in an 18-wheeler’s fumes, but I don’t think those fumes are causing the temperature increase. At the height of the industrial revolutions, before clean coal and clean fuel laws were enacted, 1900s and 1960s saw an below average temperatures. Decreased sun activity was to blame. In 600s, the Earth saw below average temperatures, then saw temperatures rise in the 800s. 1300 was the Earth saw “The Little Ice-Age”, but by 1400 we saw temperatures back to normal.

After all of these below average spells, the Earth has rebounded. The Romans didn’t say “Hey, it’s getting cold out, let’s burn all the forests in Italy to try to reverse it.” What about in the 1300s? Did people in the middle ages realize that they were in a mini ice-age? (side note: The Medieval period was warmer than it is now…)There was NO human activity that can account for any rise of temperatures before 1800. 

That is why I am not a believer in grouping global warming with “going green”. I think the effects of CO₂ on the overall temperature is 0.0000001%. It all has to do with the normal, cyclic nature of the Earth’s temperature. 

Just yesterday in my Air Pollution and Climate Change class (which I feel is totally misnamed), the teacher presented this graph. I really had to bit my tongue not to get into a discussion with him. This is a graph of the ice core temperatures from now to 40,000 years ago. As you can see, temperatures fluctuated greatly before 13,000 years ago. But, after our last great Ice Age, something happened. And it wasn’t human related. The dramatic increase in temperature can only be attributed to sun activity and the normal Earth cycle. Mr. Gore has no explanation for that… Even the temperatures now. If you were to draw a line with the median value, the line would have a positive slope (denoting a decrease in overall temperature). 

Less than a month ago, Dr. Climate Change (who I won’t refer to by name) at the Capital Weather Gang posted a blog titled “Climate Change Is Real, OK?” (yea, he’s opening minded right?”.  In the post, he writes

“But, I do agree with the IPCC conclusion that odds are about 90% that anthropogenic (man-made) influences are and will continue to be the principal cause of warming. I emphatically take issue with so called “deniers” who take the position – with seemingly a 100% level of certainty – that human activities are not an important factor. That attitude is unassailably faith-based (no religious connotation intended or implied) where evidence to the contrary has no place.”

He goes on to say

“One can make a reasonably sounding argument that global warming could be due to natural fluctuations in the climate system (e.g., cycles in ocean/atmosphere circulations) and/or external influences (e.g., sunspot activity, volcano eruptions). However, while these mechanisms are subjectively plausible (especially to non-scientists) there is no objective, scientifically sound basis to conclude they can account primarily (let alone exclusively as some argue) for the observed global warming.”

I commented on the post with exactly the information I presented today, only to be called “closed minded” and advised that if I don’t believe in the prospect of global warming, I “will not do well” in grad school. Thanks for the advice.

For the next post… I’ll explain my idea of global cooling.