— Dear Editor,
Mr. Fueilly’s letter disputing the human impact on global weather is not shared by over 95 percent of all global weather scientists. Also, the examples he gave as evidence of extreme cold are actually also examples cited by weather scientists as the result of human burning of fossil fuels, which disrupt the flow of warm ocean water from the equatorial seas to the north Atlantic, known as the Gulf Stream.
This circular flow of ocean water from the south to the north has produced the mild winters enjoyed by the northeast U.S., Canada, and north Western Europe for the last 10,000 years. The flooding of the north Atlantic in summer with very cold arctic melt water is cooling the warm tropical water flowing north along the U.S. northeast and south down the coast of northern Europe.
If this cooling of north Atlantic water continues it will disrupt this great oceanic conveyor belt of warm southern water. The result will be to diminish the Gulf Stream and a reduction of average temperatures of all the countries which have coastlines in the north Atlantic. These countries will experience lower temperatures and increased rain and snowfall, which has already begun. The predicted decreased rain in the region of the Canadian and American Midwest has resulted in a drought running from central Canada to South Texas.
This huge central plain is a major producer of grain and livestock for the U.S. and many other countries. The export of food grains is one of our most important balance of payment commodities and also is the prime source of animal feed for beef, hogs, poultry, pets and farm raised fish.
If my readers are thinking that it’s hard to link arctic ice melting with a drought in the Midwest, I can only say nothing is simple.
Global weather is a very complicated science. Great strides have been made in the last twenty years with the construction of computers that can combine past and present weather information, of millions of parts, and recognize the result these changes have in present weather and most importantly future weather.
The opinions of people like Mr. Fueilly and me should never be relied upon to measure the impact of humans on long term climate. We should all recognize that the men and women who have devoted their lives to weather science are the only ones that can interpret present weather trends and predict future regional and global weather changes. I accept their predictions because they have the education and experience Mr. Fueilly and I do not have.
The prediction of global weather scientist seem reasonable to me because I can understand that if we burn fossil fuels, releasing carbon compounds back into the atmosphere, that took nature hundreds of millions of years to remove, there will be changes in climate, which we will not like.
Additionally, the reduction of burning fossil fuels, especially coal and wood, reduces air and water pollutions not related to weather. If you want an example of what burning coal means, just read or watch the horrible state of pollution in China. Even the communist dictatorship, which rules the country, has recognized they cannot continue to rely on coal for electricity.
They are devoting much more to clean and renewable energy research than we are in this county.
Dennis Tilly, Weatherford