I don't understand why one would even attempt to refute evidence that is triangulated by numerous observations, accounting for discrepancies in time and space (pockets of cooling, etc.) What motivation do critics have for trying to disclaim climate change? I have some sympathy for those that contend that such cycles are natural. It's true, the earth has natural heating and cooling cycles, as we all know. But what is different about the current change in climate is the rate of change. Concentration levels of C02 are at an all time high as plants are only able to reabsorb about 1/2 of what we are producing, so the concentration is increasing at a staggering amount. These levels are limiting the amount of solar energy reflected back into space, resulting in temperature rises on earth. Regardless if you believe the cycle is natural or not, preparations for a warmer earth are necessary.
What can we do? There are several steps we can all take to reduce our carbon footprint. Try biking or mass transit instead of driving. Eat locally grown food (the average # of miles from production to plate is around 1,500, using lots of energy to transport it). Support reforestation, which helps carbon reabsorption (besides, trees are pretty). Support literacy programs in developing nations, which can help return population growth to a healthy level (more people = more energy). Support alternative energy production, such as windmills (on average can power 3,000 - 4,000 households). Study low-energy impact nations with high standards of living, such as Denmark, Sweden, and others. Most of all, DO SOME RESEARCH! Learn about the issues, and make CONSCIOUS decisions.
All of the information above came from Dr. Chapman's lecture, which you can see here:
http://thermal.gg.utah.edu/talks/index.html
The first presentation is his. Sources for the information described can be found there, as well as a plethora of graphs and charts.
8 comments:
Did you guys watch Al Gore's little dealio? And I've gotta say I disagree mi amigo :) Climate change sure, but CO2, correlation not causation
We didn't watch his documentary, I have never seen it haha. Dr. Chapman explained that radiative forcing by particles in the atmosphere prevent some of the solar energy from reflecting back into space, trapping heat (natural process known as greenhouse effect). A study done by the IPCC (international governmental panel on climate change) in 2005 shows that C02 accounts for over half of all radiative forcing. So rising levels results in greater radiative forcing, and therefore a warmer planet. It sure is an interesting topic though, I want to learn more!
haha, this could turn into quite a debate, How bout we both study it up a little more and we'll have future blog posts about it ;) But just for a brief example on statistical justifications here is an argument I just kind of threw together for the purpose of an example. But we'll say obesity rates in the United States have been rising, which they have, crime rates have also been rising. We could also probably demonstrate that obesity is a major cause of depression and lowered self confidence. Along with that,studies show that depressed people are more likely to participate in drugs and alcohol, etc. People who participate in drugs and alcohol are also more likely to to be involved in crimes. Consequently we can conclude that obesity is a major contributing factor in the rising crime rates of the United States. Obviously it's not, but Statistics could show that it was ;)
but again I'll do more research and come up with a concrete argument
haha ok! It is important to discuss things such as this. I agree though, you definitely have to be careful with statistical arguments, you can't make any assumptions. I would be happy to share some more things about the subject though! I think there is sufficient quantitative evidence to support the theory.
I doubt that he mentioned this, but a lot of the climate change science was found to be falsified. It's called "Climategate," and it sent shockwaves through the whole political/scientific debate on climate change.
Here's an article from the Wall Street Journal on the issue.
Some nice little snippets to whet your appetite:
"At its core, the scandal was as much about the integrity of the scientific process as it was about the quality of the science. Leading climate scientists were caught advising each other to delete potentially compromising emails, stonewall freedom of information requests and game the peer review process to exclude contributions from skeptical colleagues."
"A widely cited claim by the IPCC that Himalayan glaciers would all but vanish by 2035 was debunked. Another stunner about a potential 40% decline in the Amazonian rainforest 'appears to have absolutely no scientific basis at all,' according to Roger Pielke, Jr., an environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado. Other attention-getting IPCC assertions turn out to have been based on the work of environmental pressure groups and popular magazines."
"In one now famous 2008 email, Mr. Jones wrote Penn State's Michael Mann as follows: 'Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the 2007 IPCC report]? Keith will do likewise.' Good thing for these gentlemen that they didn't work for, say, Enron."
I don't think it's right to dump pollutants into the environment, but I believe that climate change is not really an issue. In the 1970s, the scientific community was convinced we were heading for another ice age. Now we're going to be melting the ice caps. It's all cyclical.
Sorry, accidentally double-posted that comment.
Thanks for sharing that article Jeffrey! It is a shame that people feel like they have to lie to convince others of something, and it is even more of a shame when they don't admit to it! I don't know what specific research was falsified beyond the Himalayan glacier and rainforest reports, but it certainly is disturbing. Dr. Chapman presented us with some of his own findings from geothermic studies he has done here in Utah, as well as ice samples elsewhere. I think there is a lot of clout on both sides of the issue, and unfortunately there is much bias. I intend to do more research before I reach conviction for either case. Regardless, I think it is important that we increase our sustainability. Thanks for sharing my friend!
Post a Comment