Part 1 of a 4-part series examining climate change and current research
Climate change evokes strong and immediate reactions ranging from the Apocalyptic to the yawn, and everything in between. Unfortunately for the public, political forces have taken hold of objective science, presumed tentative results and assumed them as rationale for policy change worse they have then enlisted converts to effect large scale Massive Energy policy changes.
Let’s take a step back. The concept that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (the main combustion Product of the Internal Combustion Engine) might affect an increase in Global temperature has been the subject of scientific research for over a century. It was first recognized that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) absorbs infrared radiation and re-radiates it as heat (1865). Way before the Al Gore Trumpeted the end of the world (he and others made millions from this venture).
The major concern is that man made pollutants will cause a gradual or catastrophic change (warming or cooling) change in the Global Temperature. This includes Methane, CO2, SO2 (sulfur dioxide) carbon black (soot). The exact rate (change over time) has yet to be determined but ultimately some transformation will occur. Speculation as to the ill effects is from increases in the ocean rising over currently habitable coastlines (don’t buy inland properties just yet) to large scale die offs of coral reefs, to famine to increases in rape? (It's always rape, it seems, that evokes more fear in the female population).
Unfortunately, the Scientific community has been put between a rock and a harder place, and that would be: funding. As a scientist, you depend on government grants, and when the prevailing government supports global warming, then you had better tailor your research to compliment that political view, or find another area for research. The previous Bush administration was a guilty of this as is the Obama administration citing firings and withdrawal of monies for grants for those poor souls who tried to continue or begin new research on anthropogenic climate change.
We should consider that both skeptics and absolutists are both [currently] wrong. The proof of any scientific theory is in accurate prediction. This has not yet occurred and researchers are looking at altering their models and “retrofitting” them to more stochastic or empirical models rather than the very complicated ones they use now. Stochastic is essentially Monte Carlo simulations or like rolling the dice, looking at probabilities, extrapolated from proven and simpler models.
The other elements that require investigation - and are finally being looked at with appropriate scientific objectivity - is a Gaia approach. Gaia refers to Dr. Marguilis Lovelock and his defining the Earth as a system. That means interconnected and complex. This also means some degree of adaptation and resilience now borne out by findings that plants now increase both density and growth (by as much as 16%) as the CO2 levels increase.
Such approaches also consider biological adaptation. That organisms and therefore biosystem’s can adapt. such as rates and occurrences for coral reef bleaching (reached a maximum 1997-1998 worst on record) are not as sensitive to bleaching due to local adaptation and geographic redistribution.
It was recently found that ants can increase the dissolution rate (how fast carbonates are formed) depending on the CO2 content of the atmosphere. We should never forget that Volcanoes (source of CO2 and SO2) and the earth’s tectonic movement can release large amounts of methane. Such events occurred in the past and contributed to climate change.
What is clear is that inevitably, continued increases of man made pollutants will cause a shift (how large or how small yet unknown) as other pollutants have causes wide spread changes in the ocean flora and fauna. It is naïve to continue to believe we can belch quantities of stuff without effect.
Science is steadfastly, and, with some objectivity peering into the future. Armed with viable and proofed scientific evidence, we can presumably prevent future crises by provisioning and or guarding, placing some restrictions at a rate which enables human’s to adapt.
Unfortunately, once political forces get a hold of an idea and attempt to push through legislation without bullet proof data, then credibility is lost perhaps to our ultimate disadvantage. Objectivity is not an inherent characteristic for much of humanity, nor should it ever take the place of an emotive and empathetic people guided by pure science, but understanding the implications of imposing Science on others. Some would call this wisdom. The fact is: People resist change simply because it is change.
-Philip Young
No comments:
Post a Comment