Global Warming Rethunk
I just had an 'Aha! Moment.'
For the last decade or more I've believed every word the scientists said about Global Warming. After all, the politicians immediately came out swinging, smearing the scientists and declaring their findings 'pseudo-science.'
I mean, who would YOU have believed?
I just watched a documentary I'd seen before--but, this time, I noticed something that had escaped me the first time around.
I
had known for many years about the Little Ice Age that began around the
year 1000. It ushered in such innovations as chimneys, multi-roomed
dwellings with staircases [the gentry lived upstairs where it was
warmer] tapestry-hung beds, 
buttons
on clothing, rotation of crops, an increase in animal husbandry as a
result of the mass failure of cereal crops while animal feed crops were
better able to survive the cold, etc. etc. etc.
The Black Death arrived about the same time and preyed on a population already weakened by the change in climate.
The
European mindset became paranoid. Surely, the Almighty was calling on
the populace to clean up its act. The Church and governments turned on
Jews and women and the witch hunts and purges of the Jews brought about
thousands of violent deaths.
Across the Atlantic Ocean, the Vikings' great experiment had been underway for several generations.
When they arrived, Greenland was a lush and green place--not the glacier-covered mass we're all familiar with today.
For
the first century or so of the European settlement, the newcomers
derived 80% of their sustenance from the land [goats, sheep and cereal
crops] and 20% from the sea. After the Little Ice Age began, that ratio
gradually reversed itself and the Vikings, who had never learned the
technique of winter-fishing used to tide the Innuit over during hard
times, died out.
This is the history of the early Little Ice Age. The earth actually began that cycle with a considerably warmer climate than we see today.
xxx
The part I hadn't put together before was the length of the cycle we're talking about, here.
The Little Ice Age didn't last for two or three hundred years, as I'd always assumed. Its effects, in fact, were being felt when the Pilgrims arrived in the New World in 1620.
They were still going on when George Washington crossed the Delaware
River in 1776. All that ice in the painting wasn't included for effect.
It was really there as diaries of the time attest.
In 1816, when Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein, ice imagery abounded in the novel, reflecting conditions outside as she wrote. In short, the Little Ice Age came to an abrupt end in 1850--probably fueled, at least in part, by industrialization.
The fact remains, though, that the earth has not, by any means, warmed to the level it was when the cycle began in approximately the year 1000--when Greenland was actually green and England harvested grapes every summer as a matter of course.
xxx
But, here's why this whole argument [the 'natural warming' the politicians postulate] is irrelevant:
No matter the cause, we are faced with a major crisis or even series of crises as a result of the warming we're undergoing at the moment.
After
all, with Greenland locked up in ice for almost a thousand years, with
the arctic and the antarctic massively larger than they were 1000 years
ago, we've been building on coasts that have been dry for considerably
less than that amount of time.
Whole cities have grown up on land that was covered by ocean before the Little Ice Age began [I live in one of them]. Therefore, it would behoove us to keep the Little Ice Age that we're currently living in stable--or face violent social upheavals as the climate returns to the level that may be the actual 'norm' [assuming there is such a thing] and our coastal cities drown.
I guess my point is--if conditions that existed prior to the year 1000 were
the norm--and we are currently living in a waning Little Ice Age which
may, now, be drawing to a close--whether or not we are responsible in
whole or in part for the warming--we may be fighting a losing battle as
we attempt to stabilize the climate, no matter what we do.
If we're lucky, we are the sole cause of the warming and we can slow or stop it if we clean up our acts [given our political situation, a pretty big IF.]
But, if we're not lucky and the earth just wants to warm up, my guess is she's gonna do it.
In a battle between us and Mother Nature--guess who's going to win? And those of us who live along the coasts had better invest in swim fins.
For the last decade or more I've believed every word the scientists said about Global Warming. After all, the politicians immediately came out swinging, smearing the scientists and declaring their findings 'pseudo-science.'
I mean, who would YOU have believed?
I just watched a documentary I'd seen before--but, this time, I noticed something that had escaped me the first time around.
I
had known for many years about the Little Ice Age that began around the
year 1000. It ushered in such innovations as chimneys, multi-roomed
dwellings with staircases [the gentry lived upstairs where it was
warmer] tapestry-hung beds, 
buttons
on clothing, rotation of crops, an increase in animal husbandry as a
result of the mass failure of cereal crops while animal feed crops were
better able to survive the cold, etc. etc. etc.The Black Death arrived about the same time and preyed on a population already weakened by the change in climate.
The
European mindset became paranoid. Surely, the Almighty was calling on
the populace to clean up its act. The Church and governments turned on
Jews and women and the witch hunts and purges of the Jews brought about
thousands of violent deaths.Across the Atlantic Ocean, the Vikings' great experiment had been underway for several generations.
When they arrived, Greenland was a lush and green place--not the glacier-covered mass we're all familiar with today.
For
the first century or so of the European settlement, the newcomers
derived 80% of their sustenance from the land [goats, sheep and cereal
crops] and 20% from the sea. After the Little Ice Age began, that ratio
gradually reversed itself and the Vikings, who had never learned the
technique of winter-fishing used to tide the Innuit over during hard
times, died out.This is the history of the early Little Ice Age. The earth actually began that cycle with a considerably warmer climate than we see today.
xxx
The part I hadn't put together before was the length of the cycle we're talking about, here.
The Little Ice Age didn't last for two or three hundred years, as I'd always assumed. Its effects, in fact, were being felt when the Pilgrims arrived in the New World in 1620.
They were still going on when George Washington crossed the Delaware
River in 1776. All that ice in the painting wasn't included for effect.
It was really there as diaries of the time attest.In 1816, when Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein, ice imagery abounded in the novel, reflecting conditions outside as she wrote. In short, the Little Ice Age came to an abrupt end in 1850--probably fueled, at least in part, by industrialization.
The fact remains, though, that the earth has not, by any means, warmed to the level it was when the cycle began in approximately the year 1000--when Greenland was actually green and England harvested grapes every summer as a matter of course.
xxx
But, here's why this whole argument [the 'natural warming' the politicians postulate] is irrelevant:
No matter the cause, we are faced with a major crisis or even series of crises as a result of the warming we're undergoing at the moment.
After
all, with Greenland locked up in ice for almost a thousand years, with
the arctic and the antarctic massively larger than they were 1000 years
ago, we've been building on coasts that have been dry for considerably
less than that amount of time.Whole cities have grown up on land that was covered by ocean before the Little Ice Age began [I live in one of them]. Therefore, it would behoove us to keep the Little Ice Age that we're currently living in stable--or face violent social upheavals as the climate returns to the level that may be the actual 'norm' [assuming there is such a thing] and our coastal cities drown.
I guess my point is--if conditions that existed prior to the year 1000 were
the norm--and we are currently living in a waning Little Ice Age which
may, now, be drawing to a close--whether or not we are responsible in
whole or in part for the warming--we may be fighting a losing battle as
we attempt to stabilize the climate, no matter what we do.If we're lucky, we are the sole cause of the warming and we can slow or stop it if we clean up our acts [given our political situation, a pretty big IF.]
But, if we're not lucky and the earth just wants to warm up, my guess is she's gonna do it.
In a battle between us and Mother Nature--guess who's going to win? And those of us who live along the coasts had better invest in swim fins.
Advertisement
I don't necessarily agree with your analysis ... but one thing you point out I do agree with:
Many people don't even recognize that direct heat-forcing could counteract any benefits from CO2 reduction within 50 years if all factors aren't addressed as a part of a global warming strategy. Nor do they recognize that there is likely a non-zero forcing factor not under the control of man.
I wonder when it becomes irresponsible for policy makers to not invest concrete resources planning for a response to global warming effects in the event the reversal efforts come to naught. It seems that waiting until cities are under water - when we know that is a potential outcome - would be criminal.
June 1, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, kgb999--
"It seems that waiting until cities are under water - when we know that is a potential outcome - would be criminal."
Look what happened when just two or three cities [NOLA and a couple in Mississippi that didn't get the same press] were inundated? Multiply that result by thousands worldwide.
And--given the penchant of the world's governments to discover 'unintended consequences' AFTER they take action-- well, it seems to me we may just be screwed.
June 1, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good article, good points. Yes, Mother Nature always wins. Look at New Orleans and, as you say, other low-lying areas. Tornadoes, hurricanes, lightening strikes. . .
But even if global warming is Mother Nature's way of keeping us humble, we know that what we do to the air is not good. The notion of the rapid acceleration of Global Warming being man-made has spawned an entire "green" industry. I don't know about you, but I'm all for keeping it going for a while yet. We're finally at least thinking about cleaning up our act.
June 1, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
hi Ramona--
yeah, we HAVE to clean up our acts -- or face worse consequences than have happened so far.
whether or not we can stop the warming, we have to try.
and one way I know this is true? the politicians are agin it and are even scaremongering that a cleanup would be terrible for the country. that's a give-away every time.
June 11, 2009 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink