View Single Post
(#3 (permalink))
Old
GoNative (Offline)
Busier Than Shinjuku Station
 
Posts: 1,063
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Inverloch, Australia
06-17-2011, 03:11 AM

I majored in meteorology for my science degree and studied numerous climatology subjects as well. I have taken an active interest in the science around anthropogenic global warming (AGW) for many years.

As far as the science goes it's simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and if you increase it's atmospheric concentration then it will have a warming forcing on temperatures in the troposphere. This isn't untested scientific conjecture, it's scientific fact.

So what does 'greenhouse gas' actually mean? Energy from the sun hits the earths' surface heating it up. Like anything that is heated up it radiates energy back away from the surface. The longer wave energy radiated away from the surface interacts with certain gases in the atmosphere like CO2. The CO2 molecules then radiate energy out in all directions. Thus some of the energy is kept within the atmosphere heating it up more. The CO2 acts in a similar way to the glass over a greenhouse. So if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases more heat will be kept within the lower atmosphere. Again this is not some weird, untested theory. It is scientific fact.

There is no doubt (scientifically) that mankind has been responsible for a rapid increase in CO2 in the atmosphere over the last couple of centuries. In the climate record (determined from ice core data) it is very plain that temperature and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are inextricably linked. So there is no doubt whatsoever that mankind is affecting the climate in a significant way.

Over the years I have seen some of the most incredibly uneducated debate on this subject it has truly astounded me. What has really astounded me is just how incredibly scientifically illiterate most people seem to be. Most people seem to have little, if any detailed knowledge of the natural world around them and the scientific principles underpinning that knowledge. It is staggering at times how little people know.

What I have also found amongst the typical deniers out there is that there is a certain mindset or phychology underpinning their denial of the science. For many the simple fact that the whole issue has been portrayed as an environmental issue is a big problem for their acceptance. Many out there would rather die than be associated with something 'green' or an environmentalist cause. They believe all the green movement is anti-progress, anti-capitalism and basically made up of communists. So it'll be a cold day in hell before they will believe in any science that's associated with environmentalism or the green movement.
It has been shown that you can get these people on board if you present the whole issue in a completely different way. Don't mention anything about the environment. These people want nothing to do with something that's good for the environment. Present it in a way that talks about new technologies and advancement and job creation and benefit for the economy and they seem to get on board a lot easier and will come to accept the science.

The other major group of deniers are the religious fundamentalists. Like christian groups who only believe the earth 6,000 years old instead of billions of years. They don't believe anything happens unless god wills it so if it's getting warmer then that's gods' will. Obviously like with all religious nutters there's no reasoning with these deluded fools.

The real fundamental problem in dealing with man induced global warming is that some of the most powerful and richest companies in the world are behind most of the production of the CO2 being released into our atmosphere. And the sort of change required to see meaningful reductions will severely affect these companies and the economies of many countries. And I think greed is still the prime motivator for much of the worlds' population. I don't believe anything will be done until it is too late and many of the worlds' biggest cities are struggling to keep the rising tide at bay. Only when the costs of doing nothing outweigh the costs of change will we see meaningful change occur. Of course we'll be living in a very different world by then with a very different climate.

Last edited by GoNative : 06-17-2011 at 03:15 AM.
Reply With Quote