Physical science refers to the study of chemistry and physics of Nature. From materialist and the functionalist viewpoints, it overlaps the life sciences in which ecology studies create evidence of the historical facts or the evolution itself. The natural sciences correlate the phenomena in physical sciences with noumena in life sciences. This paper is going to look into recent discoveries in global warming using Internet as the source of data.
To the patient scientist, a furtive greenhouse effect is far much more exciting than the plot of the best mystery novel. Nonetheless, it is a slow reading with all new clues not appearing occasionally for several years. However, impatience increases, and an investigator should realize that it is not the fate of some fictional being, but of species and the planet, that hangs in balance as total carbon mystery unfolds at an apparently glacial pace (Schindler, 1999).
Those scientists who labored in an attempt to understand the Earth's climate found out that several factors influence it. It varies from the volcanoes’ to the factories’ shape, rains and winds inclusive.
These researches were based on several influences, ranging from popular misconceptions to the governmental funding, all this happening on the spot. Although the traditional history tries to squeeze the global warming story into a rather linear text, following events need a necessary involvement (Lindemann etal, 2010). Unavoidably, several vital parts are always abandoned. Hitherto, the entire history concerning this subject is indispensable, involving both people with scientific degree and general public. There are biologists, mathematicians, government bureaucrats, politicians, industrialists, lab technicians, newspaper reporters, and ordinary citizens among them.
Let’s have a look at the historical background of global warming. People have for a long time alleged that human activities can possibly alter the local climate. During the 19th century, similarly to the ancient Greeks, several Americans debated on the probability to bring more or less rainfall to some regions with the help of cutting down forests (Schindler, 1999). Nevertheless, there were more serious changes of the climate, which generally happened due to the demolition of trees. Discovery of the ice ages in the ancient times showed that it was possible for climate to transform drastically throughout the globe, which appeared massively beyond everything people could aggravate. The question still remains what was initial reason for the worldwide climate alteration? How strong was the influence of the changes in temperature of the Sun? Can it be explained by dangerous volcanic eruptions or the raising and the lowering of the mountain ranges that rerouted the wind patterns and the ocean currents? Finally, were these happenings connected with variations in constitution of air?
In 1896, Swedish scientist came up with a new idea. The suggestion was that as humanity burned the fossil fuels like coal, this added the amount of carbon dioxide to the Earth's atmosphere, which would eventually raise the planet's average temperature (Schindler, 1999). At that time, phenomenon known as the "greenhouse effect" was just a speculation about the climate change like any other, though, not the most credible. Researchers and scientists found technical reasons to claim that these emissions were not able to change the climate. Undeniably, most of them even thought that it was obvious that puny humanity had no powers to affect vast climate cycles, governed by the benign explanation of the "balance of nature." In any case, main change appeared impossible excluding over tens of thousands of years.
In the 1930s, most people came to realize that the North Atlantic and the United States regions had got warmed considerably during the past half-century (Jotzo etal, 2003). Researchers and scientists assumed that this was just one of the phases of some unique mild natural cycle with anonymous causes. Merely one lone voice of an amateur G.S. Callendar, asserted that greenhouse warming was under way. Whatsoever the cause of warming, everybody thought that should it happen to go on for the next few centuries, the better. However, in the 1950s, Callendar's assertions were provoked by a few scientists who looked into the question with more improved techniques and calculations. This was made possible by a sharp increase of funding from the government, particularly from the military agencies with the Cold War anxieties about seas and the weather (Jotzo etal, 2003). These studies showed that, divergent to earlier crude approximations, carbon dioxide was indeed able to build up in the atmosphere, and was capable of bringing warming. In 1960, thorough measurements drove home this opinion by establishing that the gas level was continuously rising.
Recently, in 2007, IPCC reported that researchers and scientists were more confident than ever that it was humans who were responsible for changing the climate. Though only a certain fraction of predicted warming had so far happened, impacts were already getting noticeable in some regions. It was proved by stronger floods, more deadly heat waves, and severe droughts, and other heat-related changes in the behavior of some sensitive animal species. Nonetheless, the scientists were unable to finalize their conclusions in the same way. Relying on the actions that people took to limit emissions, we can possibly anticipate the planet’s average temperature to rise between 1.4 and 6°C (2.5 - 11°F) by the end of this century.
Most people are afraid that IPCC was rather too conservative insisting on emergency measures in order to evade risks resulting from the catastrophe in case the temperatures rise to the upper end of a projected range or go even beyond the anticipated temperature. Others maintained that the IPCC was utterly mistaken, and that there was no reason to worry, pointing out to a minority of the scientists, (barely any of them recognized any contributions to the climate science) who apprehended the old conviction. Their idea blamed various human activities, which were harmful to the natural systems. Suspicion of climate experts got encouraged by political interests and corporations, who opposed any governmental interference in the economy. Though, scientists who had been forecasting for decades that the world would be considerably warmer by the year 2000 appeared to be evidently correct. Business leaders, science reporters, governmental advisers, and other social organizations and the citizens increasingly believed them. Another significant fact is that corporate entities, larger number of individuals and government agencies decided that something worthwhile had to be done at all levels (Jotzo etal, 2003). They realized that it was possible to take operational steps, which could surprisingly cut down the cost of recovering from the effects of global warming, and many citizens began to apply them.
Subsequently, does global warming cause wild weather? Weather and climate scientists are very cautious about declaring that one extreme weather event is indisputably caused by the climate change. Nevertheless, the majority do agree that a warmer planet always causes a higher frequency of the extreme weather events, even though it cannot be proved scientifically that a single extreme weather event would be caused by a climate change. The above debate has been a topic reoccurring for the previous couple of years as more life-threatening weather seems to crop up during the summer.
Recently, scientists have devised straightforward mathematical models, representing the climate. These models have the ability to create feedbacks in order to make the system surprisingly variable (Vasepalli etal, 2010). Others reckoned ingenious procedures in an attempt to retrieve the previous temperatures just by studying the ancient pollens and the fossil shells. It appears that substantial climate alteration might happen; this is against the backdrop that the same had happened in the past within the last few centuries. This finding received reinforcement by the computer models of general circulation of air and gases in the atmosphere. These were the results of the long efforts in order to learn the prediction, and even to find evidence for a deliberate change of the weather (Jotzo etal, 2003). Groups of scientists, who reviewed the computer-generated calculations, found them rather plausible but saw no importance for the implementation of policy action, apart from exerting more effort in research in order to discover what is exactly happening.