Global warming is generally attributed to the Greenhouse Effect of certain gases in our atmosphere. Radiation from the Sun strikes our planet continuously, mostly in the form of visible light that we see every day. Some radiation is reflected immediately back into space and some of it is absorbed either by the atmosphere or by the ground. The ground is warmed by the sunlight and emits its own radiation back into space in the form of infrared light. This infrared light is not visible but, if you are near a large rock or similar structure that has been heated in the Sun all day, it will feel warm after the Sun sets for many hours due to the radiation that we feel as heat. The greenhouse effect is caused by the blocking of the infrared light by Greenhouse Gases (GHG) so it can’t radiate back into space.

As early as the 17^th century, it became known that some of the energy emitted back into space by the surface of the planet is absorbed in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases. Without some of this greenhouse effect, our planet would be considerably colder than the planet we know.

Scientists Study Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect in 19^th Century

Since the last ice age, our planet has been in a steady state. When the amount of energy supplied by the Sun is equal to the amount of energy radiated back into space by the planet, the average temperature on the planet remains constant. The average temperature over the course of the last couple thousands of years has been constant.

The global warming problem is that the amount of energy emitted from the planet is going down because of the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which reduce the amount of energy that is radiated back into space. This imbalance is causing the planet to warm up. As it gets warmer, the amount of energy radiated out into space will increase until the surface temperature gets hot enough where we are once again in a steady state. This could be a considerable increase from today’s average temperature.

The higher average temperatures can already be seen in melting glaciers, increasing ocean temperatures, reduced size of the Artic ice-cap and longer growing seasons. These are long term indicators. The best indicator of global warming is the rising level of our oceans. Recently the ocean level has been rising about 1/10 of an inch per year, or almost one inch every 10 years.

Over 100 years that would be almost 1 foot. This, however, assumes a steady rate and the rate of rise has been increasing. About half the rise in ocean level is caused by melting glaciers. The other half is caused by the thermal expansion of the water. As the oceans slowly warm up, the water expands and causes the level to rise. Having a hot year or a cold year is only a single data point whereas a consistent rise in sea levels is a world wide summation of multiple data points. The oceans will eventually inundate low lying coastal areas causing huge economic damage.

The scientific community pretty much accepts that global warming is happening. The debate now is centered on how fast it is happening and what are the consequences.

I don’t want to go into great detail on all the bad things the models show will happen. Al Gore and many others have done a good job at raising awareness of the problem and the consequences. If you haven’t seen Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, I strongly recommend watching it. The first step in solving the problem is to raise awareness that there is in fact a problem.

Global warming to me is really a debate about economics. There are economic costs to global warming and economic costs to solutions. Part of the problem with global warming is the slow nature of the problem. Many people want to dismiss that there even is a problem because they don’t want to face the costs of fixing it. There are obvious big economic costs a hundred years from now but is it worth spending huge amounts of money now to fix a problem so far into the future. What is the rate of return on the current investment?

What about the problems in the next 20 or 30 years? How big are those problems going to be? There is a lot of debate about that issue. How much should we spend now to fix a problem 20 years from now? The Stern Report took a look at the problem from an economic point of view.

I am planning to focus on the next step; what we can do to fix the problem. Solutions to the problem have to make economic sense. People are not going to stop driving their cars, give up flying, or pay ten times as much for electricity. But there are solutions that we can start implementing the will eventually stop and reverse the effects of global warming. Some of the solutions will be provide economic benefits now, which could provide investors with economic gains.