Global warming remains a hot-button issue, despite
data heavily favoring its existence. Scientists seem to surface from every nook
and cranny to take a position on the issue. Either yes – post-industrial
greenhouse gases have led to the rapid deterioration of our O-zone and warming
of our planet. Or, no – our planet has, over millions of years, undergone a
series of transitional periods from ice-ages to hot-summers, and global
warming’s just another one of nature’s faces.
The
Economist, a newspaper focusing on international politics
and business news, has stirred the debate once again with the publishing of a
recent article citing a flat-lining of Earth’s surface temperature over the
last two decades, despite carbon emissions spiraling out of control. Conspiracy
theorists and skeptics alike celebrated the article as a major victory in their
war against common-sense science. But wait – not so fast.
Scientists like Virginie Guemas of the Catalan
Institute of Climate Sciences in Barcelona have been quick to offer evidence
refuting The Economist’s article.
This past weekend, Guemas blamed the ocean for concealing some aspects of
global warming. Roughly a third, in fact. 30% of warming has been absorbed by
the deepest, darkest depths of our oceans. (Like wearing dark clothes on a hot
day) The planet is still getting warmer. The oceans merely offer the temporary
illusion that temperatures have flat-lined. By 2020, Guemas believes the heat will
rise, and then the fury will really be felt. More vicious hurricanes. Taller
tsunamis. Drought. Famine. The list of apocalyptic scenarios goes on, and on...
The
Economist’s article centers on “climate sensitivity,”
or variations in air temperature in relation to the change in radioactive
forcing (RF), and the responsiveness of our ecosystem to this change. The
article rebuffed the popular belief that greenhouse gases have more than
doubled since the 18th century Industrial Revolution. Most
scientists agree that carbon dioxide levels have devastated the atmosphere;
the extent of that devastation, compared to the planet’s periods of natural
climate change, has yet to proven though.
|
The debate rages on. Politicians, however, seem
to have come to the consensus that pumping CO2 into the air we breathe is a bad
thing. Three years ago, governments around the world united to seriouisly
address climate change. They agreed to work towards lowering the rate of global
warming by 2 degrees Celsius by the year 2015. Yet, even if this goal is
reached, the damage we’ve done to the planet may be irreparable. The ice caps
have all but melted. Super-storms have ravaged our Coastlines, coasting
tax-payers BILLIONS in relief.
2 degrees might not be enough. So what will be?
Scientists are working towards an answer. In the meantime, the scientists at
NRGLab are developing a pragmatic solution to global warming. The SH-box, for
example, has the potential to wean society off of fossil fuels, drastically
reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and thus the rate of
warming. By harnessing the geothermal power of crystals, the SH-box is not only
clean, but renewable, too.
So forget 2 degrees! Forget the global warming
debate altogether! The fact remains – oil is in a limited supply. There’s only
so much of it sitting beneath our feet. Once the wells have been tapped and the
Earth sapped dry, where will we be? Will society be reduced to one big
Hollywood movie – ruled by gangs of post-apocalyptic survivors?
Not if NRGLab has anything to say about it! To
learn more about how we plan on revamping an outdated energy infrastructure,
visit nrglab.asia.com and join us in saving the planet.
[ sh-box, research council, nrglab сингапур, nrglab, listrik murah, environment, research council nrglab, listrik indonesia, energy project ]
No comments:
Post a Comment