One of my favorite subjects in grad school was planetary science and atmospheric physics. The only reason I didn't do my Ph.D. in it was because the only professor who taught it, Pete Schlerob, refused to take any students. His view was, basically, if you could actually do advanced math, don't waste your time in geology. I argued with him about this a bit, especially in the modeling of atmospheric physics, but to no avail. Regardless, it's still been a hobby of mine, especially in the realm of numerical simulation of the radiative transfer in the upper atmosphere.
This is a good article in the NYT Science section this week on how the most conservative (mean primarily in the scientific way) scientists have re-evaluated some of the data and found, a little to their surprise, that it supports the idea of climate change, not the other way around.
I hold, in general, that this is a reasonable position as it's a complicated subject.
Now two independent studies have found errors in the complicated calculations used to generate the old temperature records, which involved stitching together data from thousands of weather balloons lofted around the world and a series of short-lived weather satellites. A third study shows that when the errors are taken into account, the troposphere actually got warmer. Moreover, that warming trend largely agrees with the warmer surface temperatures that have been recorded and conforms to predictions in recent computer models.The three papers were published yesterday in the online edition of the journal Science.
All of that said, we're way past the point where we should be having this debate. The evidence for Climate change and global warming has been strong for decades, strong enough to prompt common sense steps to halt it. We've not done this as a population. We need to think about ways of cooling the planet, regardless of whether it's "natural" or "man-made" in origin. Remember, if it's "natural" that doesn't necessarily mean we as species could survive it. Nature doesn't really care if mankind is around in the big picture, and will crush us like the brontosaurs with no compunction.
We need to get moving on this. We need a plan to start scrubbing the carbon and hexaflorines out of the air, or we may wake up in a couple of decades and find it's too late.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I entirely disagree.
Color me surprised!
In 1975, or 1985, the science was strong enough to be convincing beyond a reasonable doubt?
This isn't a court of law, so you need not be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt before you start thinking about what you might want to do, and yes there was strong, convincing evidence in the mid-70's early '80's. Mostly based on planetary atmosphere work done on Venus, and Mars (Sagan, Nakamura, Tajika and otheres) and Earth (Schiender).
You're asserting X > Y.
I am. Much more so. There have been a number of points in the last billion years where the planet has become uninhabitable to large lifeforms (having a body mass >= 2lbs.. It's possible this is one of those times. It's also possible it's not. However, computer models in the 60's showed the consequences of even a few degrees of global warming, crudely, and it's disastrous for us (Mandelbrot et. al.). Not for life on the planet as a whole, and humans as a species might even survive, but civilization likely wouldn't in it's current form.
I'm not asserting that the cost is prohibitively large to do something about. I'm saying we don't know the costs at all.
Also, it's hard to imagine some cost we would be unwilling to pay if the result of not paying is the end of modern civilization.
We also don't have a moral/ethical/political theory that explains how government has the right or power to do anything about the issue.
You right wingers and your big government solutions! Who mentioned the government? Not me. I never said a word about it. Why is it you folks on the right always reach for government as the first tool to do anything? I suppose that's a separate debate for now.
Since you asked, I'm advocating looking at designing technologies which utilize market forces to clean the air, or at least lock up the carbon and/or reduce GHG pollutants. What if I could design a cheap filter that you attached to your car which took more carbon out of the air than it put in? What if we designed a reactive PAH which chelated with harmful radicals in the upper troposphere to reduce ozone depleting emissions?
We need to start thinking like this. Keep your big government, political action committee mumbo-jumbo to yourself. We don't need another moral/political theory, we need actual solutions. You might as well try to pray the heat away (Heritage Foundation, et. al). We’re stuck on this planet for the foreseeable future, so it’s probably not a safe assumption that its disposable.
Post a Comment