Wednesday 22 November 2006

Climate Change

The unseasonal weather in Sydney over the last few weeks got me thinking again about climate change, global warming, renewable energy etc...

Every year, as summer approaches, it seems that this summer is going to be the hottest of them all. I would have to say that until 2004/5, that was true from my experience. I skipped last summer (I was in India for four months, sweet tropical winter.....) but my family and friends tell me that it was undoubtedly the hottest summer ever. This year however, things have been a little bit strange. There have repeated cool changes throughout the spring months, and even the hottest days havent been all that hot. Also, it has been a rather humid summer; generally, the bushfire-prone summer months are bone dry in Sydney. So what's been happening??

I'm no meteorologist, but weather patterns are supposed to be complex, and this sort of aberration could be put down to pure chance alone. But over the last few years, there have numerous instances of unprecedented weather patterns around the world. Hurricane Katrina is probably the most famous example, but it is only of many hurricanes that have arisen from the Gulf of Mexico. Cyclone Larry wreaked havoc on the northern Queensland coast earlier this year. Rising sea levels have flooded vast tracts of the Bangladesh coastline. Europe has experienced three years of summer heatwaves, with temperatures rising as high as 35-40 C. Glaciers are disappearing in Nepal and mountain lakes are overfilling and rupturing their banks. The delayed monsoonal downpour has hit parts of India with unexpected ferocity and caused widespread flooding for two years in a row (I was stuck in the Chennai floods last year). And to add to all this, we have Sydney's strange weather.

I guess it's easy to put all the blame onto global warming. There is clear evidence that air and sea temperatures around the world have been on the increase as far back as the records stretch. Alarmingly, the rate of increase has closely followed global development trends i.e. energy consumption i.e. CO2 emissions. Satellite data shows that the polar ice caps have been receding adding further proof that temperatures are rising. Then there is the famous "hole in the ozone layer". I dont know how they actually measure that, but people claim its getting bigger too (there's supposed to a big one over Antarctica).

But there is a school of thought that global warming is fictitious and that the Earth goes through cycles, certain stages of which involve rising temperatures, sea levels, CO2 concentration etc. People who espouse this theory are ridiculed and sidelined by the mainstream scientific community, but I wonder if that is the right way to deal with these people. There is good evidence to support global warming and its link to human activity. There should be a legitimate way to discredit this anti-global warming minority, rather than resorting to bully tactics. I think the best way to achieve this is to show that taking measures to reduce CO2 emissions can reverse global warming. If this could be demonstrated then there would be no such questions raised. The problem is that tackling climate change is rather more easily said than done.

What I actually wanted to write about was ways in which we can reduce emissions and why we dont take up these practices, on a global, national and individual level. But this post is already too long, so I'll write another piece soon and continue from where I stopped...

2 comments:

Jigglypuff said...

In response to the "school of thought" u mentioned in the blog re earth going in cycles. This school of thought has usually been influenced either by politics or oil companies.

There is virtually no debate in the scientific community as to the cause of global warming.

Just to support my view point..here's an interesting fact: The number of peer reviewed articles dealing with climate change published in scientific journals during the previous 10 years = 928.

Pecentage of doubt as to what causes global warming in these journals? 0%. (Source: An inconvenient truth by Al Gore)

Also this from Jim Baker of NOAA "There is better scientific consesus on this issue than any other....with the possible exception of Newtons law of Dynamics".

Mahesh said...

let me clear a few things up:

1. i dont have any doubt myself that humans are solely responsible for global warming

2. even in the past, when the earth has cyclically heated up and cooled down, the timeframes involved are tens of thousands of years, not one hundred, hence the warming we are experiencing is almost definitely not natural

3. BUT, there are scientists (fed by the hand of the oil conglomerates no doubt) who dont believe in this. so this gives governments an avenue to ignore the legitimate protestors arguing for change. this is much like the situation with tobacco companies in the 70's. everyone knew that cigarettes caused lung cancer but they continued to promote cigarettes as completely harmless recreation. in fact, tobacco companies also argued that nicotine was non-addictive, contrary to the well-established fact that nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known to mankind (more addictive than illicit drugs like cocaine, heroin and marijuana). but now there is conclusive evidence that smoking causes lung cancer, and, tellingly, that reducing smoking rates in populations reduces lung cancer rates. so i think a similar path needs to be followed with global warming...