One last piece
of work
Here's your final assignment. William
Thorsell, editor at the Globe and Mail, has done us a service and written this
piece on Global Warming, on January 22, 2000:
Some Like it hot: the
good side of global warming
William Thorsell, Globe
and Mail, Jan 22, 2000
Do you react to news of
global warming and farm abandonment with instinctive enthusiasm or reflexive
fear? Does the advent of genetically modified organisms fill you with hopeful
curiosity or wary anxiety?
Reactions to change in
the environment start from deep-seated personal inclinations and premises. It
is said that optimists and pessimists are born; perhaps nature creates a
certain balance between the two in the interest of judicious evolution.
The natural reforestation
of northeastern North America due to abandonment of marginal farms may help to
explain slowing rates of increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
A lynx and black bear
were seen recently in the Caledon Hills just north of Toronto, and the
successful reintroduction of wild turkeys into the eatsern part of North
America has apparently enlarged the predatory populations of coyotes and foxes
(and maybe of hawks and vultures).
Warmer temperatures may
be contributing to increased biodiversity in the region.
On Jan.12, the US
national research council reported that surface temperatures in the United
States have risen more quickly over the past 20 years than the average for the
last century. The land is getting warmer faster than it used to, and is now
between 0.4 and 0.8 degrees Celsius warmer than in 1900.
(The same report said
that atmospheric temperatures up to five kilometres above the surface, measured
by weather balloons and satellites, show no evidence of warming since 1979,
however.)
On Jan. 13, Environment Canada
reported that 1999 was the third-warmest year in Canada since 1948, the year
comparable record-keeping began nationally. The 1990s were the warmest decade
of the century, followed by the 1980s and the 1940s. The wettest decades have
also been recent ones-- the 1990s and the 1970s.
Science magazine reported
in its December issue that ice cover in the northern hemisphere is retreating
much faster than natural variations would explain. The authors attribute it to
man-made global warming.
For many people, global
warming is fundamentally good news, whatever the source. The world is actually
quite cold in the context of the past 3000 years, when mankind has been
ascending. The climate was considerably warmer before Jesus was born and during
the middle ages than it has been since the 'little ice age' of the 16th
and 17th centuries. The modern industrial world has developed in a
relatively cool period. If "normal" is average, global warming is
getting us up to average in the context of the past three millenniums.
Will it be a bad thing?
Patterns of modern human settlement and infrastructure reflect colder times.
Mankind may face some challenging adjustments.
For nature, warmer times
may well mean richer times. Since 1959, Europe's growing season has lengthened
by an average of 11 days a year. More diverse species are seen in many North
American landscapes and skies.
Let's cast ourselves way
back. Ninety million years ago, Arctic temperatures ranged between 25 and 35
degrees in the summer, supporting crocodile-like dinosaurs and turtles in what
is now Nunavut. Certainly, the dinosaurs that rollicked in Alberta's badlands
65 million years ago didn't live with Alberta's current climate which supports
a far narrower range of flora and fauna.
Some people assert that a
warmer, wetter climate will produce more violent extremes of weather. There is
no solid evidence of this so far. Here's what the Encyclopedia Britannica says
about the geological past: "Compared with the contemporary world climate,
the climates of geological times were relatively warm, with few extremes of
temperature. Polar latitudes were cool-temperate, with open seas and with
little snow or ice to reflect solar radiation. The mid-latitudes were
sub-tropical or warm-temperate, although the equatorial zone was probably no
warmer than the modern one. It appears likely that the winter temperature
gradient between latitude 0 and 90 degrees north was comparable to that between
0 and 40 degrees north today. During these long interglacial periods of 'normal'
climate, it is likely tat modern, summer-type circulation patterns were
prevalent all year."
We've got to get
ourselves back to the garden, sang Joni Mitchell 30 years ago. Maybe in a few
centuries we will.
With the addition of
human intelligence, the garden might include much improved varieties of plants
and animals through genetic engineering, as well as many more
"natural" species and less cruel disease. Billions more people might
live comfortably and productively in relation to a much more fecund world.
Or we could all die from
awful plagues in deserts under a blazing sun.
The Canadian government
is planning for what it calls the most profound economic challenge facing
Canada since the Second World War in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Two days before
Christmas, leading U.S. and British officials stated that "ignoring
climate change will surely be the most costly of all possible choices for us
and our children… We need to act accordingly."
Maybe we won't, maybe we
can't, and maybe things will turn out for the better in any case. Weren't
things better before it got this cold?
So, same way as last time, let's work
through it.
I would summarize it like this: "Warmth
is good, global warming is warmth, therefore global warming is good." But
let's go through it in more detail.
Do you react to news of
global warming and farm abandonment with instinctive enthusiasm or reflexive
fear? Does the advent of genetically modified organisms fill you with hopeful
curiosity or wary anxiety?
"instinctive
enthusiasm" and "hopeful curiosity" versus "reflexive
fear" and "wary anxiety". While there is no argument, there is
some value judgement.
Reactions to change in the
environment start from deep-seated personal inclinations and premises. It is
said that optimists and pessimists are born; perhaps nature creates a certain
balance between the two in the interest of judicious evolution.
Here's the 'golden
mean' fallacy-- that the truth is between the extremists who like global
warming and the extremists who hate it.
The natural reforestation
of northeastern North America due to abandonment of marginal farms may help to
explain slowing rates of increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
These are difficult to
deal with. He doesn’t cite any evidence. Instead, he offers an unsubstantiated
statement (that marginal farms are being abandoned and the land being
reforested naturally) as a proof of a speculation (that carbon dioxide increase
rates are slowing). What's a carbon dioxide rate of increase? It's like an
acceleration. So if I'm in a car, and I'm going at 60 and speeding up, and then
my rate of increase of speed slows down, then I'm still not slowing down, just
speeding up at a slower rate.
It seems that he's
trying to say that global warming is slowing down. But of course the premise of
the article is that global warming is good-- so why should we care if it's
slowing down?
A lynx and black bear
were seen recently in the Caledon Hills just north of Toronto, and the
successful reintroduction of wild turkeys into the eatsern part of North
America has apparently enlarged the predatory populations of coyotes and foxes
(and maybe of hawks and vultures).
'Apparently' some populations
have changed, 'maybe' some others. Does this prove the conclusion that global
warming is good?
Warmer temperatures may
be contributing to increased biodiversity in the region.
If millions of viral
microbes arrived and replaced the existing life, that would be an increase in
biodiversity too. Is this proof of the conclusion?
On Jan.12, the US
national research council reported that surface temperatures in the United
States have risen more quickly over the past 20 years than the average for the
last century. The land is getting warmer faster than it used to, and is now
between 0.4 and 0.8 degrees Celsius warmer than in 1900.
At least he provided a
range. We can translate this statement as "global warming is really
happening."
(The same report said that
atmospheric temperatures up to five kilometres above the surface, measured by
weather balloons and satellites, show no evidence of warming since 1979,
however.)
And this statement as
"global warming is not really happening."
On Jan. 13, Environment
Canada reported that 1999 was the third-warmest year in Canada since 1948, the
year comparable record-keeping began nationally. The 1990s were the warmest
decade of the century, followed by the 1980s and the 1940s. The wettest decades
have also been recent ones-- the 1990s and the 1970s.
"Global warming
is really happening"
Science magazine reported
in its December issue that ice cover in the northern hemisphere is retreating
much faster than natural variations would explain. The authors attribute it to
man-made global warming.
"It's really
happening"
For many people, global
warming is fundamentally good news, whatever the source. The world is actually
quite cold in the context of the past 3000 years, when mankind has been
ascending. The climate was considerably warmer before Jesus was born and during
the middle ages than it has been since the 'little ice age' of the 16th
and 17th centuries. The modern industrial world has developed in a
relatively cool period. If "normal" is average, global warming is
getting us up to average in the context of the past three millenniums.
"The world was
hotter before, recently it's been cold, and global warming is making it hotter
again."
Will it be a bad thing?
Patterns of modern human settlement and infrastructure reflect colder times.
Mankind may face some challenging adjustments.
For nature, warmer times
may well mean richer times. Since 1959, Europe's growing season has lengthened
by an average of 11 days a year. More diverse species are seen in many North
American landscapes and skies.
No mention of other
landscapes, where most of the world's people live, of course. Also left out is
the species that have disappeared (have any? If they have, you won't find out
from Thorsell)
Let's cast ourselves way
back. Ninety million years ago, Arctic temperatures ranged between 25 and 35
degrees in the summer, supporting crocodile-like dinosaurs and turtles in what
is now Nunavut. Certainly, the dinosaurs that rollicked in Alberta's badlands
65 million years ago didn't live with Alberta's current climate which supports
a far narrower range of flora and fauna.
"It was warm and
rich before."
Some people assert that a
warmer, wetter climate will produce more violent extremes of weather. There is
no solid evidence of this so far.
Consider the logical
inconsistency of insisting on solid evidence for some conclusions and offering
speculation as evidence for others.
Here's what the
Encyclopedia Britannica says about the geological past: "Compared with the
contemporary world climate, the climates of geological times were relatively
warm, with few extremes of temperature. Polar latitudes were cool-temperate,
with open seas and with little snow or ice to reflect solar radiation. The
mid-latitudes were sub-tropical or warm-temperate, although the equatorial zone
was probably no warmer than the modern one. It appears likely that the winter
temperature gradient between latitude 0 and 90 degrees north was comparable to
that between 0 and 40 degrees north today. During these long interglacial
periods of 'normal' climate, it is likely tat modern, summer-type circulation
patterns were prevalent all year."
"It was warm
before."
We've got to get
ourselves back to the garden, sang Joni Mitchell 30 years ago. Maybe in a few
centuries we will.
Invoking Joni Mitchell
to say global warming is a good thing.
With the addition of
human intelligence, the garden might include much improved varieties of plants
and animals through genetic engineering, as well as many more
"natural" species and less cruel disease. Billions more people might
live comfortably and productively in relation to a much more fecund world.
I'll leave you to
evaluate this vision.
Or we could all die from
awful plagues in deserts under a blazing sun.
You can evaluate the
value judgement offered between the 'Thorsell visionaries' and the people who
believe 'we could all die from awful plagues in deserts under a blazing sun.'
The Canadian government
is planning for what it calls the most profound economic challenge facing
Canada since the Second World War in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Two days before
Christmas, leading U.S. and British officials stated that "ignoring
climate change will surely be the most costly of all possible choices for us
and our children… We need to act accordingly."
Maybe we won't, maybe we
can't, and maybe things will turn out for the better in any case. Weren't
things better before it got this cold?
"Maybe we won't,
maybe we can't, and maybe things will turn out for the better in any
case." This is shifting the goalposts.
So, to reiterate, the argument, stripped of
everything else, is:
Global warming is not happening.
Global warming is happening, but it's not
bad.
Warmth in the past meant lots of life forms.
Biotechnology means lots of life forms.
Lots of life forms are good.
Therefore warmth is good.
Global warming will create warmth.
Therefore global warming is good.