I find it quite tedious (and yet oddly - somehow very exciting and upsetting) to listen to talk radio, watch television, read magazines or blogs that attempt to refute observable scientific facts. Without fail these arguments revert to non-scientific statements, that boil down to something like "Al Gore is a weenie." "Liberals are poopy heads." "Democrat party bad." etc.Certainly entertaining to some, who can't stand the truth, or can't stand to think for themselves - but how utterly useless in solving any of the difficult challenges the human race faces to protect our planet.
Al Gore didn't invent the internet and he didn't invent global warming. I have read and thought about the environment for years - so I'm not all that excited to know that climate change has found it's way into the daily buzz (particularly if it's going to become a good guy - bad guy discussion).
If it brings people to realize that - conservation (shouldn't conservatives be for that?) and saving energy can be done in simple ways, that saving energy saves money (shouldn't conservatives be for that?), and that we need to devote our intelligence and willpower to finding even more effective ways - then great!
There are people who, no matter how strong the evidence to the contrary, will find ways to convince themselves that what is - is not. We can look at satellite images of the polar ice caps and see they have shrunk in size by roughly half between 1979 and 2005, scientists tell us the average temperature of our planet has risen by about a degree in the 1900's (more in the polar regions) - and yet there are people who will say receding ice caps and rising global temperatures aren't happening.
We shouldn't find that surprising, any more than the fact that there are people who think we never sent a man to the moon.
It might help to realize that science often does not deal in absolutes, but rather in probabilities. Because of that fact a person can always argue that some scientific "thing" may not be true, or may not happen. Since we are "predicting" the future we can't do so with 100% certainty. But if we understand the odds and what's at stake it would behoove us to err on the side of caution (shouldn't conservatives be for that?)
Scientists use terms that equate with mathematically defined probabilities. They may say something is probable, improbable, or extremely improbable - and those terms have specific mathematically defined meanings. Scientists who deal with climate change use terms like "virtual certainty" (or virtually certain) which conveys a greater than 99% chance that a result is true. Other terms used to communicate confidence include "very likely" (90-99% chance the result is true) and "likely" (66-90% chance the result is true).
My point is that since many things scientists deal with are not 100% certain, there will always be things that are open to debate. People need to use their own judgment to decide if they want to assume the risk that by arguing that something that may be 60%, or 90% or 99% likely to be true may in fact be false. We may be wasting valuable time.
It's sort of like this - say I put 3 bullets in a six shot revolver. It's not even "likely" (using the 66% chance definition above) that if you spin the chamber a bullet will be ready to fire when you pull the trigger. Is that a good bet or a bad bet? Your call.
It's not as immediately dramatic but lets say we continue to dump CO2 into the atmosphere at our current rate and it's not even likely (just 50-50) that the net result is that we will see species become extinct, desertification, sea acidification, increasing methane emissions as the peat bogs melt...etc. Do you think that's a good bet or a bad bet? Your call.
__________________________________
So what is the "state of knowledge", the "facts" regarding global warming aka climate change (to account for the fact that the impact on the climate due to greenhouse gases does more than just cause a rise in earth's temperature)?
I have no reason to distrust the United States Environmental Protection Agency so I will cite what they say. I have no reason to distrust NASA, or Scientific American or National Geographic and could just as easily cite what they say. But here is what the U.S. EPA states regarding the current state of knowledge on climate change -
- Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
- The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
- A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans.
- The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
- Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.
- Average temperatures in the Arctic have risen at almost twice the rate as temperatures in the rest of the world over the past few decades.
- Widespread melting of glaciers and sea ice and rising permafrost temperatures present additional evidence of strong Arctic warming. Arctic sea ice decreased by roughly half from 1979 to 2005.
- The above trends are expected to continue during this century, resulting from ongoing increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (though greenhouse gases do not primarily originate from the Arctic).
- Melting of Arctic glaciers is a contributing factor to sea level rise around the world.
- Warming is very likely to alter the release and uptake of greenhouse gases from soils, vegetation, and coastal oceans.
- Reduction in sea ice is very likely to have devastating consequences for polar bears, ice-dependent seals, and local people for whom these animals are a primary food source.
"Warming is now occurring over most of the globe and is consistent with the global retreat of mountain glaciers, reduction in snow-cover extent, the earlier spring melting of ice on rivers and lakes, and increases in sea-surface temperatures and ocean heat content."
_____________________________________
Here's the part that should wake us up if we aren't already. No one knows what sort of path this climate change will take. It could be very non-linear and if "you feel lucky" you could bet that it will be a exponential decay (that would be a bad bet...but what the hey take a chance...lose the planet) - on the other hand it could be an exponential rise in things like sea level or temperature, or methane gas (one of the greenhouse gases) emissions, or just the overall temperature of the planet. A complex system can reach a "tipping point" or "bifurcation point" where it suddenly changes state. It's not the "Day After Tomorrow" silliness but more likely a rapidly rising rate of what we are already seeing.
Again from the EPA -
"Our state of knowledge is not yet sufficient to predict the timing of the future abrupt climate changes or pinpoint their effects. However, the National Academies of Sciences did conclude:
…greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the Earth system may increase the possibility of large, abrupt, and unwelcome regional or global climatic events. The abrupt changes of the past are not fully explained yet, and climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected."
________________________________________
It won't help us step up to the challenge by denying the scientific facts or making really bad bets with our future, or calling each other names, or making something that is of vital importance to humankind, into some sort of silly political sideshow, where we debate whether Al Gore uses more energy than I do. Yes he does, but so what?
We are all hypocrites in some sense. My apologies to the true Mother T's, or Gandhi G's...but when it comes to us puny humans - nobody is perfect. We do the best we can.
The EPA has a nice summary of things that We Can Do
"You release greenhouse gases as a result of using energy to drive, using electricity to light and heat your home, and through other activities that support our quality of life like growing food, raising livestock and throwing away garbage. Greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced through simple measures like changing light bulbs and properly inflating your tires. This site provides 30 easy steps you can take to not only reduce your greenhouse gas emissions, but also reduce air pollution, increase the nation's energy independence and save money."
I'm going to go hug a tree now.
By the way if you have a chance be sure and check out the Planet Earth series on the Discovery Channel
