Opinion
 
    
  
+Login    +Register    +Find Id / Pw 음성듣기 설치 및 이용방법    Home  l  Archives  l  Learning Times  |  Sitemap  |  Subscription  l  Media Kit  l  PDF
   Home > Newszone > Opinion > Thoughts of the Times > Saturday, November 21, 2009 | 12:26 a.m. ET
  Nation
  Biz/Finance
  Technology
  Arts & Living
  Sports
  Opinion
    Editorial  
    Thoughts of the Times  
    Today`s Column  
    Desk Column  
    Letter to the Editor  
    The Dawn of Modern Korea  
    Another Korea  
    What`s Your Take?  
    Letter from America  
    Random Walk  
    Sean Hayes  
    Michael Breen  
    Views From Overseas  
    Jon Huer  
    Tom Plate  
    Living Science  
    Pacific Perspective  
    Guest Column  
    Times Forum  
    Readers` Forum  
    Cartoon  
    Great and Simple Things  
    Back Home  
    Ideas & Ideals  
    Jim Hoagland  
    Choi Yearn-hong  
    Today in History  
    Reporter's Notebook  
    Washington Lounge  
    Hyon O'Brien  
  Community
  Special
     
  The Learning Times
     Editorial Listening
     Phone English
     Dear Abby
     Domestic News
     Foreign News
     Screen English
     Live English in Drama
     Discovery Education  
     Ancient Idiom  
     iBT Writing  
     English Writing I
     English Writing II  
     English Grammar
     Grasping Vocab
     iBT Vocab
     Korean Language  
     
     Junior Writing
     Junior Reading
     Junior Reporter
     
 
   04-19-2009 17:53
Truth Behind Global Warming


By Shin Chul-ho

Until recently, I was a fanatic environmentalist and gave my full support to the Kyoto Protocol.

But ``Unstoppable Global Warming," by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, on the New York Times Bestseller list in 2008, distanced me far away from the theory of huge CO2-driven temperature increases.

Before the two authors enlightened me on climate cycles, I could not but stick with man-made global warming because the evidence of the recent warming trend such as melting glaciers, rising sea levels, species extinction, famine, drought and more violent weather seemed entirely plausible to me.

The book tells us that the Earth's current warming is not anthropogenic but caused by warming and cooling climate cycles.

First, in the early part of the 20th century, before humans released much CO2 into the atmosphere, Earth was, unusually, warmer than now.

Second, we have no reason to expect a bigger sea-level rise because melting rates of global warming are being offset by increased humidity, snowfall and ice deposition at the poles. Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore's scenario in his movie ``An Inconvenient Truth" can't happen because there's not enough ice to trigger it.

And the frequent flooding of Venice, Italy, is not due to greenhouse warming but its buildings and bridges weighing heavily on the soft soils of the coastal region and also due to the underlying reality that Venice is on the African tectonic plate, which is gradually sliding under the neighboring European plate at a rate of 2.5cm per century.

Third, food production historically increased during previous warming periods primarily because warming climates provided more of the things plants love; sunlight, rainfall and longer growing seasons. One of the interesting examples is the ``Roman warming" which started in 200 B.C. and ended about A.D.600. The Roman Empire continued to prosper based on climate conditions favorable to agriculture. But at its end, a sudden cold age drove the Nordic barbarians into the Roman Empire and overran it.

Fourth, the glaciers of Mt. Kilimanjaro are melting so quickly that they could disappear within 10 to 20 years, but not because of CO2 emission but because clearing for agriculture and forest fires reduced forests. The loss of foliage causes less moisture to be pumped into the atmosphere, leading to reduced cloud cover and precipitation, and increased solar radiation and glacial evaporation.

Our ``modern warming (1850~present) is most likely the first half of the next cycle, and not nearly as dangerous as the public hysteria over it. We're likely fearing something we don't have to.

The writer is a teacher at an elementary school in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province. He can be reached at heemy123@hanmail.net.

Reader’s Comments
Notice From KT Website Manager
Bad language will not be tolerated. All comments considered discriminatory against race or sex, or which are considered offensive against certain people, will be eliminated by the manager. Violators will be deprived of their membership.
Please stay on topic.
barnsey   (121.163.53.11)   04-21-2009 22:05
This ostrich-like reaction to a serious problem is maybe "a truth of convenience". Just keep driving that big fat sexy SUV to the corner store. Life as usual. No worries. And who says North Americans suffer from obesity? Another myth. Hysterical environmentalists. Wadda they know?
barnsey   (121.163.53.11)   04-21-2009 21:36
I'd like to adopt this interestingly optimistic view of the situation. However, we ARE emitting uncontrollably huge amounts of CO2, and Greenland and the polar caps ARE melting. And u have totally misunderstood Archimedes... That said, the really big problem is not flooding. It is the diminution of the North Atlantic Ocean's viscosity. That my friend has already led to climate change so drastic that our economies are reeling. And the prospect of global freezing remains somewhat imminent.
Wehner   (89.247.246.14)   04-21-2009 06:13
Two things spring to mind. Firstly, I read that in 1213 the weather suddenly became cold. The planet has not been so warm since. A second point is that Alan Coutanceau-Clark, an eminent mathematician and member of the Royal Society, told me that sea levels will not rise. "Think of Archimedes", he said. I understood at once. If the ice at the poles slipped into the sea, sea-water of the arctic or rock of the antarctic continent would rise up to balance. Charles Douglas Wehner
insubkim   (210.103.55.6)   04-20-2009 23:47
inconvenient truth or convenient truth both is lead to the end of earth... there must have been the start of earth and there will be the end of the earth
ItalianCanuck1   (121.170.146.245)   04-20-2009 22:35
As for Al Gore, I can't say for certain how accurate his projections and assumptions are, but isn't he part of the problem as to create deadly greenhouse gases by jetting around the world to make his fancy PowerPoint presentations. How much of a carbon footprint does he leave by living in his one of many mansions?
Managerial regulations
◀ Back ▲Top