Welcome to another edition of Naturalists’ Corner.  At this time of year, as we stand waist deep in snow, ice scraper in one hand, fuel bill in the other, I would like to take the opportunity to educate you on the subject of global warming.

Wait, don’t slog off!  I’m not going to ask for any donations.  I’m simply going to inform…or at least relate to you the information as I understand it.

Global warming is a very complex subject which should probably be covered by a qualified scientist who could explain it to you in specific, scientific terminology which you wouldn’t understand for even the short while you were awake.  For that matter, a lawyer or politician would serve the same purpose, but I can’t afford to hire a scientist, retain a lawyer or buy a politician to talk to you…at least not without taking donations.  So let’s us laymen (that is, persons who know nothing about the subject they are covering) take a look at the problem.

There are many theories which are used to explain the global warming phenomenon.  All of them are connected to the expansion of world population of humans and an increase in the use of technology.  If this is true, at least in some part, then it would be safe to assume that one solution would be to immediately decrease the worlds population by, say 50%.  I’m only guessing here of course, but I would say this is not an acceptable solution to the problem.  With that in mind, let’s look at some other possible reasons for global warming.

One of the most obscure theories and, naturally, my personal favorite, is the “door-to-large-buildings” theory.  This theory is pretty simple and self-explanatory, which I’m sure is why it never caught on with the Scientific Community.  (I believe the Scientific Community is somewhere in California or maybe Massachusetts, but I don’t know for sure.)  This theory states that the large number of people constantly going in and out of really big heated buildings, like the Empire State Building, the Pentagon or the Mall of America to name just a few, allow many millions of BTU’s (Big Temperature Units) of heat to escape into the atmosphere.  This is based on common knowledge you most probably learned from your mother:  “Close that door!  You’re letting all the heat out!  Were you born in a barn?”  This is a useless question, because you were too small to remember and she should know without asking.

Scientifically, however, the sun already heats the earth and does so at a relatively constant rate year in and year out.  All of the extra heat we add to the atmosphere by opening these doors causes a minute increase in the global temperature, thereby melting the ice caps and flooding our homes.  As I say, this is not a big favorite with scientists, particularly those who have some type of formal education.

A good percentage of scientists like to talk about the greenhouse effect.  While it sometimes sounds ominous, it is this greenhouse effect which allows us to live on the planet in the first place.  You see, the suns’ energy comes through the atmosphere and is reflected off of the earth’s surface back into outer space.  The atmosphere acts as a greenhouse to hold some of that energy in the form of heat.  If it didn’t, we’d have to thaw our air before we breathed it and we’d never get anything else done.

As an example, let’s say you’re driving west down the highway at two o’clock on a sunny afternoon.  It’s a comfortable 64 degrees outside but the vent in your car doesn’t work and your window won’t roll down.  It’s obvious you need a new car.  It’s also obvious that some of that sunlight is reflecting out of your car, but not enough to keep the polyester in your sweater from melting.  That’s the greenhouse effect.

The theory associated with the harmful planetary greenhouse effect is that carbon dioxide and water vapor help to keep a larger portion of heat from escaping the atmosphere.  Since burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil produces carbon dioxide, we’re causing an increase in global temperature by increasing this barrier which keeps in heat.  In the northern states and Canada that sounds like a great idea.  However, scientists estimate (that’s technological terminology for  “guess”) that a continuous increase over a period of roughly 100 years would result in an overall sea level rise of two feet.  This would be disastrous for that little kid in Holland with his finger in the dike, not to mention other low lying areas such as Florida and Bangladesh.

The factual problem with this theory is that while average temperatures have increased in the Southern Hemisphere, they have decreased in the Northern Hemisphere.  In this case, any theoretical increase in sea level from the ice thaw in Antarctica would be offset, theoretically, by an increase in accumulated ice at the Arctic.  And since theoretical sea water freezes at the same temperature as factual sea water, there is no evidence, at present, that you should take up ark building as your main hobby…theoretically.

Another serious problem directly related to the greenhouse effect is the depletion of the ozone layer.  This is a protective layer, high in the atmosphere, which helps filter the harmful infra-red light from reaching the planets’ surface, which is where we tend to spend most of our time wandering around.  This infra-red light is connected to some of mankind’s most serious problems.  Things such as skin cancer, the suppression of the human immunoresponse system and those little cracks you get in the dash of your car when you park in the sun all the time.  It’s also a major source of heat energy, which is another point of concern toward global warming:  an increased amount of infra-red radiation is making it through the ozone layer to reach the earth and further increase the average temperature.

“What,” you ask yourself, “are we doing to cause this?”

Well, one thing is the chemical we have been using to cool our food and ourselves.

“That doesn’t make any sense!”, you say?  (I love these interactive articles.)  “How can a refrigerant cause our planet to heat up?  Shouldn’t this cause an overall decrease in temperature like it does in our ’78 Malibu when the air conditioning switch isn’t working?”

The answer is a resounding, “What?!?”  Sorry.  I wasn’t paying attention.

Actually, the answer would be no, it won’t cause lower temperatures.  Here again we must resort to technical scientific verbal usage (jargon) to explain that the common refrigerant of the last 40 years has been a chemical commonly known as “freon”.  This is in a family of chemicals designated CFC’s which to the layman (that’s us again) means, uh, concentrated freezing compounds…maybe.  Back in the scientific community, however, this means Cloro-flouro-carbons, a biologically harmless gas which has been used for many other things over the years including aerosol propellants, which is why, in the past when you used your spray deodorant in order to keep from emitting an unpleasant odor, you were actually polluting the atmosphere…another fact which makes no sense.

The real problem with these CFC’s is that they float up to the ozone layer where they break down into hydrogen nitrates and chlorine oxides – which is a crime in many southern states.  Anyway, these chemicals help catalyze the destruction of the ozone layer by undermining the moral character of today’s youth and by a series of complex chemical reactions.  (Just checking to see if you’re still paying attention.  Besides, everything undermines the moral character of youth.  That’s why you have to keep building it.)  In the end, one molecule of CFC’s can destroy thousands of molecules of ozone.  This is one of the reasons there is a large hole in the ozone layer over Australia and Antarctica.  While this doesn’t seem to have caused any great problems in Antarctica, at least not yet, there is evidence of increased incidence of skin cancer in Australia.  It should be noted that Antarctica suffers the same effects, it’s just that there is a lower ratio of sunbathing and general skin exposure on Antarctic beaches than of their Australian counterparts.

So even though it’s as sketchy as a prehistoric cave drawing, we can see by this evidence that depletion of the ozone layer is a serious problem which should be dealt with.  Its effect on global warming, however, is even more questionable and unsubstantiated than the greenhouse theory.

Still more scientists, perhaps those from a different school of thought or maybe from the other side of the tracks in the Scientific Community, tell us that some 100 million years ago there were no permanent polar ice caps.  Of course, the total amount of land above the surface of the water at that time was about equal to the size of Montana – only not as crowded.  It’s unlikely that the dinosaurical-type creatures alive at the time caused the higher global temperatures by burning fossil fuels and generating a prehistoric greenhouse effect…after all, those creatures are part of our fossil fuels.

More recently the earth has experienced a regular rhythm of temperature changes.  This rhythm, which has repeated itself at least ten times over the past million years or so, consists of about 100,000 years of ice age, followed by an interglacial period of 10,000 to 20,000 years.  These climactic variations are believed to be caused by changes in the orientation of the earth as it wobbles around the sun.  Oh, we can’t really see or feel it wobbling, but on a universal scale it looks like a hyperactive, out-of-balance top.  The actual tilt of the earth changes from about 22 degrees off center to roughly 24.5 degrees.  I believe this is caused by unequal population distribution or the shipment of too many goods from developing nations to countries with severe trade deficits.  Whatever the reason, it does this on a relatively regular basis (galactically, that is) and as the angle changes, the amount of solar energy reaching the earth changes as well.  This, in turn, causes the global temperatures to fluctuate.

The really irritating part of this hypothesis is that according to the pattern the planet has exhibited over the past million years, it is projected that we are at the end of one of those interglacial-type periods.  This means that the planet will gradually get colder over the next, oh, month and a half or at least over the next several thousand years until we have wooly mammoths running around all over the place and instead of the bus, we’ll just take the express glacier downtown…maybe.

All of these theories have their positive and negative arguments, from both the scientific and common-sense points of view.  And all of them, whether they’re 100% correct or not, lead to the fact that we need to be careful with our world – both in what we do to cause a problem and in what we do to correct the problem.

It’s kind of like taking down the old half-dead tree in the back yard…we really do need to be sure which way the thing is going to fall before the people next door look through the hole in their roof and catch us with the saw in our hand.