Global Warming – Are we missing the point?

Global Warming – Are we missing the point?

As a conservationist for nearly 30 years, the issue of global warming despite its topicality has often faded into the background. When I was growing up in the 80’s and 90’s whilst global warming was a looming threat the danger to the ozone layer was more imminent. Ironically ozone is a part of the complex picture that global warming presents but with the ban on CFC’s the crisis was averted something that cannot be said for global warming.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Annual_Average_Temperature_Map.jpg

Global Warming is a contentious and occasionally divisive issue. It is a complex issue with a multitude of intricate physical and chemical interactions that feed into one another. As a biologist, I am well aware of my limitations with regards to chemistry and physics and have been content to align my views with those of the majority in the scientific community, up until now. With global warming continuing to be mired in the debate over the causes I decided it was time I did a deeper dive on the issue and get educated. To do this I have begun a course on Coursera called Global Warming 1: The science and modelling of climate change by Professor David Archer of the University of Chicago.

The course is exceptionally well put together and informative even if it is operating right at the limits of my understanding. The units are well arranged and help you build up an understanding of how climates are regulated and modified, this new found knowledge, however, has not changed my fundamental viewpoint that even after all this time we are missing the point about global warming.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png

For years scientists have clashed with pseudo-scientists, industrialists and deniers and despite a worldwide consensus between the majority of scientists and reputable scientific bodies that global warming is occurring and is caused by man, it is this second fact that has caught the current debate in a thick syrupy trap. Few would disagree that the climate is warming, nor that we are still coming out of an ice age. We are already seeing changes in species distribution, loss of some glaciers and the defrosting of permafrosts. These things are happening now and are measurable. The practical among us would say that we need to be looking at are strategies to mitigate climate change and/or to reverse it but this is not going to happen at the appropriate scale until we shutdown the deniers and end the current debate, and this is the way to do it.

For many, the controversial point is the belief that global warming is not man-made and therefore we should not concern ourselves with our production of carbon dioxide and methane. Alternatively, deniers point to the fact that the climate naturally shifts over time and this is normal, that sun cycles, and sunspots account for the rise, the earth’s eccentric orbit, natural carbon dioxide release from volcanoes and so on. You can counter each of these points scientifically to show how they fit into climate models but the average man on the street is never going to understand the complexity of the models.

The simple answer to me as to why we need to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases like methane is linked to timescales and what is achievable. Regarding timescales, the issue is the short timeframe that these changes are occurring on. Yes, the climate changes, yes carbon dioxide in the atmosphere shifts but these changes are usually on the tens of millions of years scale not like we have seen in the 300 or so years since the start of the industrial revolution. Such a short timeframe is insufficient to allow natural processes such as evolution in organisms to occur or for the planets own regulatory system to adjust to the change nor is there necessarily the time available to protect those nations under threat of higher tides or other devastating effects.

Achievability is the key. What can we do to avert the threats coming from a rise in temperatures; the obvious answer is to cut emissions before we reach brink points. The barriers are the people who believe that this is all natural. The bottom line is temperature is rising and this will have a drastic effect on human populations, but what can we have an effect on? Can we alter the sun cycle, move up the cooling period to counteract the rise? No. Can we change the sunspot cycle, global dimming, and volcanic eruptions? No, no and no. We only have control over the quantities of greenhouse gas we are pumping into the atmosphere. This is the way we should be focusing our arguments. We need practical approaches to mitigate and reduce the negative effects. Act on the issues we can control to counteract the ones we cannot.

We can’t all follow the science behind climate change and not everyone will trust the scientists who study this for a living. We need a smarter more nuanced approach to the climate debate to move outside of the arguments that are going round in circles and move onto a more constructive argument that concerns practicalities. My piece of advice to end on is keep on fighting and educate yourself.