Planck Foundation



A slightly warmer earth atmosphere could increases weather intensity, making it more extreme. If the earth's temperature could be warmed by mankind is still a matter of (on both sides not very rational) discussion. Therefore it's good to look to both sides in this discussion, because the impact of this subject is beyond imagination. That weather conditions should gain intensity and gets more extreme by each degree in rise of ocean water is something each meteorologist certainly will underwrite. That the ocean currents the oversupply of warmth of the equatorial regions transport in the directions of the north and south areas of the world is something each oceanographer and meteorologist certainly will underwrite. That if the ocean currents will stop, Northern Europe and North East USA and North East Canada will have the same climate of Alaska (both are located on the same latitude/height) is also something each oceanographer and meteorologist will underwrite. The issue on which both sides have severe opposite opinions is: 1) is there a temperature rise happening from historical perception? 2) if so, in what intensity?, 3) is the weather become more extreme from historical perception? and than the main subject of disagreement: 4) is this caused by CO2 increase in the atmosphere due deforestation and 50 years intensive fossil fuel burning (and increased population numbers) or is this caused just by sun activity cycles. The truth could be found may be somewhere in the middle, but Climate Change has become a religion and this doesn't support open exchange of data and visions between scientists. Water is one of the substances on earth that adapts much warmth before it temperature rises 1 degrees. This is why the Ocean currents are such major climate influences: they adapt huge warmth volumes in the equatorial Regions and transport these huge warmth volumes in colder parts of the world. Cooling the equatorial regions, warming the northern and southern regions of the world. The ocean currents have a top stream and an opposite flowing downstream. What ocean currents 1) has started, 2) still powers and 3) could interrupt, is subject to a lot of theories. One of them is that the pump mechanism is located on the poles and is based on the density difference (and thereby weight) van cold and warm water (when water becomes colder it 'sinks'). The climate change theory says that the melting of the poles (the North Pole seas will be ice free during summer months as soon as 2013 scientist thinks) will disrupt this pump, if this is the case we've passed point of no return. But there's a lot of scientifically resistance to this theory. Other theories thinks that rotating magna cycles between earth's surface and nuclear inside the earth power them (but we have very limited knowledge about the magma cycles). Other theories say that CO2 acts as an insulation layer in our atmosphere: keeping earth warmth on earth and block the warmth convection to space. Yes, we have a lot of CO2, we burn millions of years fossil fuel (oil/gas/coal) in just 50 years into the air, we have deforest the world the last 100 years in levels never seen, but on the other hand: CO2 is totally dwarfing in relation to natural water vapor in influence and ocean flora is the main CO2 user of the world, not forests. Reducing the use of fossil fuel and reforestation (planting as much trees as possible anywhere) would be two wise things to do. And yes, let's not talk about it, but do it. Burning less fossil fuel is difficult in a world with Emerging Nations, the prices rise and new energy technology caused by that will contribute, but planting new trees is simple. Each government should turn/push the CO2 discussion in a tree planting plan, if they believe in the not so stable/scientific build CO2 theory. An other theory is the one of the active earth and universe: climate change as factor of life i.e. the earth since ever: the effects were big in history, but are bigger now as we live not very nomadic any more: we have invested heavily in the place we live and therefore we don't like the fact that the earth is a little more active than we wish. The poles have moved slow or fast since ever, so climate change was/is just a fact of being alive on planet earth.

Author: Gijs Graafland

Back to Dangers Index

Download the full Global Resources Analysis report in PDF

Planck Foundation