Monday, February 9, 2015

Origins Of Climate Change

Philip Young Feb 5 2015      
       
           “A Pale blue dot” Carl Sagan remarked upon viewing this image of earth taken by Voyager when some 6 billion miles away. It’s a frightening image when taken in perspective. No one will come to our aid if we don’t get it right.  It’s important to get it right, more to the fact that we have gotten it wrong more times than right.  We should not then make that mistake when it comes to rapid and expansive changes to our industrial base to stop, what has yet to be proven; anthropogenic climate change.

         When you see the image of Earth floating, unattended, absolutely alone in a vast black and barren universe one quickly becomes convert. A grandiose belief penetrated much of Western Civilization. It heralded man are master of his domain. That domain, Earth, is but a pale blue dot and suddenly this idea reflects back as the cold, humbling and very chilling realization: That as master we have grave responsibility over our domain. We had better not destroy this pale blue dot.  Else….
        The foundations of concern over climate change are steeped in scientific inquiry but have unfortunately become the apocryphal battle cry of the Democratic Party.  Climate changes have occurred since Earth begat an atmosphere.  These range from Earth’s orbit, Earth’s rotation, Earth position relative to the Center of our galaxy Our Sun’s energy output, Transient solar events i.e.mass Ejections.
          Earth’s geologic composition is responsible for climate change. Volcanoes regurgitate huge quantities of ash, dust and toxic gases (Sulfur Dioxide SO2, Carbon Dioxide CO2, Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S), Hydrogen Chloride HCl, Carbon Soot other gases.   Both the rate and the quantity impact our planets climate.  Despite claims to the contrary Fluorinated Carbon compounds are not naturally occurring. 
           Many times in science a poorly researched reference is not verified for its scientific truth. A case in point is the continued citing that a high fat diet leads to heart attacks. This is a perfect example of Political interference and political imposition of policy which has no real basis in scientific fact! Our recent epidemic of obesity in the United States can be attributed to the mandated health policies drafted by ignorant politicians eager to mandate how people eat.
        All due to a single case of fraud, that was perpetuated and coerced into being.  Herein lies the danger from even the best intentioned efforts to improve the quality of our lives or divert catastrophe.
          Politicians are perhaps the least qualified in making scientific and or technological judgments.  We see and hear each day politicians pushing settled science dogma citing that the great majority of scientists believe in climate change.  Science is not built by public consensus or even voted on by peer least of all a lesser informed public.
              Nothing is settled and we must remain focused on finding the truth, once found then to moderate any movement toward any intended goal.  Especially, when economic turmoil can ensue from the fact entire global industrial base is powered by petrochemicals.
   
         First we should be away of the basic mechanisms that affect climate.  There is first the physical blocking of sunlight (the sun emits approx. 1.3 Kilo watts per square meter). Carbon Soot or C3 particles can , when floating high in the atmosphere. Then there are particles which reflect sunlight, thus preventing it from heating the planet and cause actual cooling.  Sulfur Dioxides are the principle culprit for this effect.
        Sulfur dioxide particles are by far of greater potential cooling effect (pound for pound) than all the other products belched from volcanoes.  The excessive height, at which they are broadcast into the atmosphere, is responsible for the tremendous effect on weather and climate.
        Once deposited into the stratosphere, particles can remain aloft for months. Prior volcanic eruptions such as El Chichen in 1992 spewed more than 17 million tons of SO2 at above 40 kilometers. At this height jet streams can (due to velocities of over 150 mph) provide the necessary force to keep particles from falling to earth.
         While Volcanoes contribute greatly to the composition of our atmosphere (our atmosphere was created from accumulations of gas emissions over eons of time). However, certain gases are generated at rates far in excess of their volcanic counterpart. Carbon Dioxide is one of these.  Between 130 – 250 million tons of CO2 are produced each year (values vary as it is a matter of conjecture the exact amount of CO2 produced by volcanoes) from volcanic sources.
         This extraordinary amount is less than that produced by industrial processes. Man made or anthropogenic production is 33 times that quantity or 8415 million tons per year. 8.4 gigatons. The exact impact on our climate is not yet known. It is speculated that it will ultimately increase the global temperature due to its measured effect for absorbing solar radiation.
           Unless there is a complimentary and opposite mechanism (cooling) it’s a matter of simple physics and time. It is a fact that CO2 absorbs radiation (the greenhouse effect).  Yet, the matter is not yet settled. What is necessary is an exact determination of the rate at which this effect heats the earth’s atmosphere.
             To date models used in the attempt to predict such temperature affects have not met with success and models are being simplified by going back to stochastic modeling (probabilistic and data fitting ) in order to have better confidence. This confidence is extremely significant as credibility relies on being exactly correct.  Science mandates accuracy and prediction of effect. Without such proof it remains a theory which now, due to premature rants and Armageddon presentations by political Demagogues and those who exploit our fears for money.
               This is very unfortunate and troubling. It is clear that scientific expertise was exploited and enticed by financial gifts (research grants) and celebrity.  Had the scientific community stood fast and not fall prey to the usual enticements; theory would have turned to fact and the continued discussions and speculations as to whether the science is settled (IT'S NOT!) would have , instead, helped promote a world wide effort. 
               However, I still caution all, as proven science does not mandate policy or justify the overall stripping of local and individual and or corporate authority to a large, stumbling blind, stupid and dumb central bureaucracy.  This could have more immediate and dire consequences on more of the worlds population than the projected consequences of a slowly heated atmosphere.
                 As with everything change requires time and the time. The time taken to make slow and deliberate changes, will afford the time necessary for accurate feedback as to its effect.  We cannot afford to suddenly halt centuries of industrial dev elopement.  Adopting such absurd punitive policies such as Carbon tax will only burden smaller businesses and future growth AND innovation.
               We can adapt (life adapts) to slow and incremental changes. Making decisions based on fact and not, emotional, panicked reactions.  As to whether our planet is heating up or cooling down from industrial emissions of CO2.
            No it has not been proven the science is not yet settled. There are other forces at work. When the science is settled then the real work begins by way of slow and purposeful incremental changes.

                 The next article will explore some of those other forces and some interesting compensatory effects.  Earth’s orbit, position in galaxy, etc.

               The final article will discuss some of the observed changes noted from climate change (whether man made or not)


             My last article discussed scientific advances in climate change and political forces.  

1 comment:

  1. I applaud your attempt to clarify the issues regarding climate change. Something this important to the planet demands input and discussion from everyone.

    There is a part of your commentary which I believe strays from the constructive. You make the claim that politicians are the main driving force in the climate change discussion. You make the same claim in your example about diet and obesity. As with most issues, politicians will eventually be drawn in, but I believe that you are getting caught up in semantics. The issue is indeed political, as are most things that affect us.

    The people sounding the alarm from the beginning about climate change have been the climate scientists. They are the ones doing the studies and gathering the measurements. 97% of them are in agreement that man-made climate change is real. Climate scientists are not politicians. Politicians have taken up the debate, certainly, but only after the realization that the effects were becoming too noticeable to ignore.

    The same is true with diet and obesity issues. Back in 1977, public health officials made a recommendation that fat be reduced in people’s diets. They acknowledged even then that the evidence wasn’t conclusive. They issued their guidelines based on their informed judgement at the time, with the intent of reducing the incidence of heart attacks. Public health officials, issuing guidelines, isn’t the same as “mandated health policies drafted by ignorant politicians eager to mandate how people eat”. Guidelines or suggestions are not policies.

    As I pointed out in my writings on global warming denial, politics do play a significant role, but the urgency of climate change and global warming is not “the apocryphal battle cry of the Democratic Party”. That is unhelpful hyperbole. Politicians and people of all political stripes are concerned. Unfortunately, it is the promotion of denial, bankrolled by conservatives and Republicans, that is most in evidence.

    ReplyDelete