The science is conclusive, the evidence is in, there is no debate, 97% of climate scientists agree that the earth is warming due to human release of carbon dioxide into the earth’s atmosphere. The ice is melting, sea levels are increasing, there are more extreme weather conditions and unless we do something now the planet and its inhabitants are heading for disaster twelve years from now.
The current climate change debate is centred on Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions from human use, creating a greenhouse gas effect which is unnaturally warming the planet. CO2 is the source of all life on earth. CO2 has also varied in quantities throughout history. Current CO2 levels in the atmosphere are 400 parts per million (ppm), death of plants occur around 150 ppm. It would seem logical that higher volumes of CO2 levels are a surer way to sustain life than falling CO2 lower levels.
The temperature of a planet’s surface is determined by the balance between the heat absorbed by the planet from sunlight, heat emitted from its core, and thermal radiation emitted back into space. (Emissivity-Wikipedia). Of the 100% heat that the earth receives from the sun an average of 30% is returned to space through the albedo effect. The albedo effect describes white surfaces reflecting the sun’s heat and dark surfaces absorbing the sun’s heat. Thus icebergs and snow reflect the sun’s heat and dark seas absorb the heat. Clouds also have a great albedo effect, high level clouds absorb sunlight and low level clouds reflect sunlight back to space. Yet in many climate change models the impact of clouds are omitted from the equation.
The Earth’s atmosphere reaches 372 miles from the Earth’s surface and performs an important function in keeping the Earth’s temperature in a range where life can thrive and reproduce. This atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, .93% argon, .04% carbon dioxide and .03% other gases.
A major influence on climate is the earths wobble and orbit changes around the sun which effects solar variation on this planet. Solar flares and sunspots also add to the variability of predicting climate.
The discussions by scientists, media and politicians to-day is based solely on human emissions of Carbon Dioxide CO2 into the atmosphere. The greater the emissions, the greater the green house effect, leading to increased warming of the planet. Or so the climate models assume. Some questions to consider. What is the ultimate level of CO2 we need to survive? CO2 levels have been greater in the past than current levels, so what’s the big deal? If a CO2 increase from 200 ppm to 400 ppm increases the earth’s temperature by 1 degree does it naturally follow that the earth’s temperature will increase by 1 degree for every 200 ppm added?
If we agree that the planet is warming. Is this due to human interaction or the natural cycle of this planet? This is where I get very irritated over the whole discussion.
There is an old maxim ” a theory that explains everything, explains nothing”. Scientists seem fixated on human carbon emissions to the detriment of alternative theories of climate change. This makes me suspicious. Where are the enquiring natures? Where are the debates? Climate science is becoming a religion in itself with carbon emissions as its dogma. Any alternative view is heresy and must be ridiculed and closed down without discussion. Scientists seem to be in the forefront of politicizing the climate change debate with exaggerated predictions. Is it because they see this as a way of receiving government grants to fund their research.
The following is a March 25,2019 press release from the United States Department of Justice. ” Duke University agrees to pay $112.5 million to settle false claims related to scientific research between 2006-2018. Duke submitted claims to the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) that contained false or fabricated data”.
I viewed on YouTube, a University of Oxford professor who believes in climate change, Tim Palmer, confessing that modelling climate change is a huge problem in theoretical physics. Also on YouTube, a University of Bath mathematician who is a climate change advocate, admitted that mathematicians could not represent all the important processes that go into determining climate as there is a natural unpredictability in complicated systems. Modelling climate change is based on formulating equations describing the physical system and solving these thousands/millions of equations using super computers. I’m unsure of the risk of error, but would assume it’s pretty high.
We have a very complex climate system. This complicated climate system, that is not completely understood by scientists because of a multitude of factors, is politicized and broken down into simplistic sound bites for public consumption. We are told that humans are greedy creatures that put economic wealth before the well being of our planet and our own survival. That humans want to destroy nature and the environment in pursuit of the good life. The public is constantly whipped into mass hysteria by the media, in presenting a barrage of extreme weather conditions on television and social media. Instead of lazy rhetoric and overblown images we need real debates and new international scientific organizations that are willing to look past politics and actually plan for the future.
We need to separate the planetary pollution issue from the climate change issue. No sensible minded person wants to see this planet become one huge garbage dump. So we should do our best to encourage governments to legislate against overuse of plastics, packaging of consumer products, better use of recycling and clean up of our inland waterways,seas and oceans. Scientific and economic resources should be redirected from carbon issues to more tangible anti-pollution measures. But let’s not confuse these pollution issues with climate change.
The carbon debate is just one component of a larger issue. If the effects of climate challenge are a natural evolution of our planet, then we need to plan for the effects of this change on future generations e.g. rethink housing zoning in low lying lands or close to large bodies of water.
Let’s not get carried away with hysteria, but have a rational, informed debate on climate. The human race must evolve along with the climate cycles of our planet and so we humans should be trying to dance in harmony with our planet and each other.