Is climate cooperating with global warming?

In the form of a self-opinionated blog post, author P.J. Gladnick gives a one-sided account of the news event that has stirred controversy concerning the global warming debate. In Geneva at the UN’s World Climate Conference, Professor Mojib Latif, from Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany, stated that the Earth will soon be entering a period of cooling, one to two decades long. The recipient of international climate-study prizes and one of the lead authors of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Prof. Latif’s credibility is reliable. However, the issue arises when skeptics, such as Gladnick, use the claim of a single climate scientist to conclude that the threat of global warming - as a real issue that must be dealt with immediately - can be completely disregarded. In this way, skeptics become ignorant of the facts behind and beyond the single fact that satisfies their own opinions, and become an obstacle in the way of progress towards taking action against global warming.

Obviously targeting an audience whom he believes will wholeheartedly agree with him, Gladnick writes the blog post freely, unabashedly attacking global warming and environmental alarmists. He cites quotations from a blog by a New York Times writer Andrew Revkin and, using an openly sarcastic tone, he counters Revkin’s claims that global warming remains an issue with broad facts and selective quotes from Latif’s address. The sarcasm and spite used may please readers who are also skeptics on the issue, but it comes off as arrogant to others and, his claims, uncertain.

In the New York Times blog site, Revkin makes the following statement:

“Scientists say the last decade of climate stability — which follows a precipitous rise in average global temperatures in the 1990s — is a result of cyclical variations in ocean conditions and has no bearing on the long-term warming effects of greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere…Dr. Mojib Latif…wrote a paper last year positing that cyclical shifts in the oceans were aligning in a way that could keep the next decade or so relatively cool, even as the heat-trapping gases linked to global warming continue to increase.” (Revkin 2009).

Gladnik rebukes by making the following statements:

“Left unsaid is that maybe, just maybe, the rise in global temperatures in the 1990s were also the temporary result of cyclical variations in oceanic or other conditions.” (Gladnik 2009) and “And yet those "heat-trapping gases" seem to not be causing global warming.” (Gladnik 2009).

He chooses to ignore facts he quoted from Revkin himself. Scientists agree that the cyclical shifts in the oceans will create climate stability, but without effecting the long-term effects of global warming. The new information provided by Latif is that the shifts will in fact cause temporary global cooling - not climate stability. However, Latif does not disagree with the statement of the temporary nature of the climate caused by oceanic shifts, and it being unrelated to long-term global warming effects. As a matter of fact, there is an example that indicates cooling is a repercussion of global warming. Through the analysis of ancient moss samples in Newfoundland, researchers found that 8300 years ago, a 150 year long period of cooling in North America was the result of glacial ice melting, and the ocean’s sensitivity to the newly released freshwater (Ravilious 2009). Clearly, Gladnik did not look beyond Latif’s simple statement, or even into the quotations he chose to use in his blog.

When Revkin states: “Still, those projections are based on models, interpretations of tree ring variations and other indirect assessments of past temperatures that, while persuasive to most climate scientists, are not infallible.” (Revkin 2009); Gladnik replies: “Thank you for allowing the possibility that global warming proponents might not be infallible. It might be nice if you pass that word along to the governments of the U.S.A. and the rest of the world before they toss hundreds of billions of dollars at a problem which might not even exist.” (Gladnik 2009). This is yet another weak angle Gladnik uses in an attempt to strengthen his argument. It is a widely known fact that global warming is a scientific theory. But just like the Theory of Relativity in physics or the Atomic Theory in chemistry, it is based on empirical observations; it cannot be disregarded as fictitious just because it cannot be proven true.

What critics such as Gladnick fail to realize is that the threat of global warming is not solely an issue of increase of global temperatures, but of the change in climate itself and the impact it will have on the Earth. If it is true that the Earth will undergo a decade or two of global cooling, there is the possibility that the cooling is occurring as a result of global warming, and it can be said with near certainty that global warming has been intensified by human activity. Even skeptics should consider the undeniable impact of human activity on the future of the planet - whether it warms or cools.

References

Gladnik, P. (2009). NY times writer worries that mother nature not cooperating with global warming agenda. Newsbusters, 22 September 2009. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/09/22/ny-times-writer-worries-mother-nature-not-cooperating-global-warming-a. Retrieved 29 September 2009.

Ravilious, K. (2009). Global warming could cool N. America in a few decades?. National Geographic, 14 September 2009. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090914-north-america-cooling-warming.html. Retrieved 29 September 2009.

Revkin, A. (2009). Momentum on climate pact is elusive. The New York Times, 21 September 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23cool.html. Retrieved 29 September 2009.