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.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
NRGLab and global warming
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 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 ]