| The Dummies Guide to Climate Science |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Administrator |
| Friday, 10 June 2011 00:00 |
|
Also See Nic Marks Happy Planet Index - A Positve Vision of Our Environmental Future Follow Eco Preservation Society on FaceBook and Twitter
by Kevin Peterson, President During the course of our research on the issues surrounding climate science and climate change, it became clear that the scientific community has done a poor job of explaining what we actually know and what we do not know about climate change. I have written this brief explanation to provide the non-scientific community with a simple explanation of what is clearly understood, what is probable and what we do not know for sure. Fact: The Earth and Moon receive the exact same intensity of solar radiation. The agreed upon average Earth Temperature is 15C (59F) The Average Moon Temperature is –153C (-247F) at night & 107C (212F) during the day. Question: What accounts for the difference? Qualification: 99.1% of the earth’s atmosphere is Nitrogen and Oxygen. These two gases have nearly no effect on moderating earth’s climate system. This conclusion is based on basic chemistry and these findings can be reproduced in the laboratory. In other words, if you were to put an atmosphere on the moon made up of 100% Nitrogen and Oxygen that atmosphere would have almost no effect on the temperature of the moon. Question: How do we explain the difference between the temperature variations between the Earth and Moon if Oxygen and Nitrogen play no role in maintaining a stable climate?
Want more proof? Compare Venus and Mercury! Venus is twice as far from the Sun as Mercury. Yet Venus is twice as hot as Mercury. Why? Green House Gases! It is beleived that Venus has roughly the same amount of Carbon as Earth. Most of Earth’s Carbon is in the ground; most of Venus’s is in the atmosphere, thus the extreme temperatures. Should we believe or not believe? Whether one believes in climate science or not is not the right question. Climate Science is NOT a religion and it is not important one way or the other for one to have a faith-based position regarding Climate Science. What is important is to understand the risk and to manage that risk appropriately. This is the debate that Progressives and Conservatives should be having! Science tells us that the probabilities of catastrophic climate change are increasing daily. We need to take appropriate actions to reduce these risks, the same way we take appropriate actions to minimize any other identifiable risks (i.e. Terrorism, Economic Collapse, Car Accidents). No one “believes” that a car wreck is imminent when one gets into a car. One would never get into your car if they truly believed they were about to get into a wreck. Just because one does not believe a wreck is imminent does not justify canceling the car insurance. People purchase insurance not because they necessarily believe that something catastrophic is about to happen, but because they recognize that there is a level of probability that catastophe could occur. Thus the purchase of insurance is considered a rational thing to do, even though you don’t necessarily believe that a catastrophic outcome is imminent. Assessing the probability of climate change is the more mature approach to the debate than taking a faith based position like "beliveing" or "not believing" in Climate Science. Faith based arguments one way or the other do not facilitate rational public policy. Once we come to this common understanding, we are then in a position to have a rational conversation about Climate Change. What we need to be discussing is the probability of catastrophe and what are the appropriate things that we should be doing as a society to manage that risk.We hope this helps with your understanding of Climate Science. We look forward to your comments. Also See: |
| Last Updated on Friday, 10 June 2011 18:08 |
What we do not know:
Comments
Within this context, it is hard to understand why some would take the position that we can reverse a natural process that took nature hundreds of millions of years and with in the span of ten decades re-release hundreds of billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, a gas we know for a fact effects global temperature, and the on top of all of that, speculate that the associated rise in temperatures is purely natural. And then, and then on top of that, be willing to roll the dice and montage our children’s future on their speculations and a scientific position that is considered out of touch by mainstream scientist. I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but that position seems to me to fly in the face of common sense. Since we know these green house gases effect temperature, it seems like naive wishful thinking to speculate that the massive re-release of carbon is not going to have a serious effect on a global scale. I am all for optimism as well, but this seems to fly in the face of human history as well as common sense.
Human history is littered with example after example of civilization collapse due environmental degradation. We have a long track record as a species of sowing the seeds of our own destruction, so I cannot understand why people would choose to “not believe” that it is at least possible that we could be on that path now when there is so much evidence to the contrary.
please inform me soon
(Administrator Note: We encourage anyone to republish the article and use it as an educational tool. We do ask that you provide an active link back to the original article and provide written credit in your publication. Thanks for reaching out and making a difference!)
Since we know that adding green house gases has a warming effect on the climate system and since we know that the pace of the current warming trend is placing extreme stress on ecosystems on a global scale, it is only prudent that we do what we can to mitigate the portion of the warming effect that we are responsible for.
Certainly, ignoring the problem is not the responsible choice. I am hopeful. The Republican leaders have been talking a lot lately about not leaving a debt to our children and grandchildren. That is a good sign!
We need Republicans to lead on this issue. I do not see how we get to where we need to be without nuclear and the Democrats can't/won't deliver nuclear.
You are right that its about probability and thus about mitigating risk. The difficulty in crafting solutions to the risk is whether you think we can prevent further climate change (because man is causing it) or whether we should adapt to climate change (because its a natural cycle). I remain unconvinced man is the cause for the rise in greenhouse gases, not only because of our very limited understanding of climate change (I don't think sufficient study of the impact of solar cycles has been completed, for example) but also because I think its a natural cycle, much as we've had ice ages and extreme cooling cycles before we are in the midst of a heating cycle now -- thus prudence dictates we focus on adaptation, not mitigation, to deal with the risk.
At one time Sub Sahara Africa was a tropical paradise, the cradle of civilization. Today it is basically a waist land do to activities of man. This cycle of environmental destruction and the collapse of civilization has been repeated in civilization after civilization. History is littered with human civilizations collapsing because of environmental destruction. We are just dong what we normally do, only this time we are talking about global ecosystems.
Kathy Dowsett
(Administrator Note: Thank you for the clarification. The appropriate correction has been made.)
RSS feed for comments to this post.