Home Sweet Home

Home Sweet Home

Friday, September 11, 2009

Global Warming? So?

I started this as a reply to groundviews' this post, but soon realized that it was going to be a bit too long for a comment. Hence a post of it's own. The said article is credited to Mr. Lalith Gunaratne, whom I have no idea of, or whether he's a member of the groundviews team. Yet, since this was posted on their blog, I thought that I must add my two cents even if they don't take any notice.

First, I'd like to see the source(s) of stats they have provided. Not questioning the integrity of groundviews and/or Mr. Gunaratne, but stats without sources are just numbers - nothing else.

Second, let us assume that they are true, and take them one by one.
1. Emission of CO2 have increased by 70% during the last 20 years.
This statement is very misleading. Very. It says that the emission of CO2 has increased, not the actual amount of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere, but bar the vigilant reader, that fact goes unnoticed by everyone. Impressive way of using stats to prove a point which they might not actually prove. Everyone knows that the plants absorb CO2, and while they may not be able to absorb all the excessively emitted CO2, they would have done some of the excessive CO2 they claim to have been emitted.
2. In fact, we are knocking on the doors of a Climate Catastrophe, if our planet’s temperature rises more than 2 degrees Celsius and the atmospheric carbon levels move towards 400 parts per million (ppm), when it should remain below 350.
How so?
Words like catastrophe adds to weight of the article, and switch on the 'alarming' red light in reader's head, but they doesn't prove anything. These Global Warming pundits like to use so many such words, catastrophe, calamity, disaster, just to name a few.

Let me dissect that sentence again.
In fact, we are knocking on the doors of a Climate Catastrophe, if our planet’s temperature rises more than 2 degrees Celsius.
First, where did this 2 degrees limit came from? How exactly did you know it is 2 degrees, then, what exactly is going to happen. This kind of a sentence reminds the user those horrific scenes from The Day After Tomorrow, but it doesn't say anything. Common reader or listener is left to make up his own assumptions instead of giving real information. Why? Because nobody knows. In reality, nobody knows what really is going to happen if the global temperature is increased by such and such amount, because there is no way of knowing. All the climate models that are created, everywhere in the world, assumes a lot of things and make guesses. Yes, they are all guesses. And when the variables of the system which is going to be guessed are far too many, and when they too varies rapidly the outcome of the guess tends to be far from the truth more often than not. Climate is the most complex and dynamic system on this planet, and that's why weather reports can not usually be made more than one week in advance, irrespective of how sophisticated the equipment are. And you say you can tell what is going to happen in another hundred years if the temperature is increased by some figure you think is critical? An educated guess is still a guess.
In fact, we are knocking on the doors of a Climate Catastrophe, if the atmospheric carbon levels move towards 400 parts per million (ppm), when it should remain below 350.
Really?
Where did those two figures come from?
Again, those are just guesses made and nobody knows for sure what really is gonna happen. Why exactly is it that 350 is OK while 400 is not? Nobody knows how much the atmospheric CO2 levels contribute to the rise of temperature, and how much of that CO2 is a product of human activities.

Secondly, for the sake of argument let's say that 2 degree limit is true. Is it likely for the temperature to increase beyond that limit in near future? Let me pull up some data. I use the official NASA web site data, hence we can be satisfied with the credibility I assume.

Here you can find the climate simulations made using data available from 1880 to 2003.
Here are some valuable information about surface temperature of earth.

Using the first of the two links, here I have created a graph of world surface air temperature from 1880 to 2003. Now, before going LOOK, IT IS INCREASING, stop to analyse the data for a moment. There is no argument that the temperature is in fact increasing since about the start of the previous century. But how much? The temperature increment from the mean for that period is 0.5 degrees! An increment of half a degree for 120 years! Let's take the last twenty or so years where they claim the climate change is heading towards a catastrophe. The increment is a bit over 0.2 degrees, and going by that figure there are about another 200 years to go before the doomsday, which they claim will come when the figure reach 2 degrees! Not so catastrophic now, is it?

It should also be noted that this graph is made taking into consideration all the possible causes of temperature rise such as land use, solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols, tropospheric aerosols and such. This is NOT due to just greenhouse gases, which all these environmentalists scream about. Thus, the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature is definitely smaller than what's shown in the graph though no one can tell for sure how much it is. This graph is more or less the worst case scenario, if you can call it worse in the first place.

Let's move through this article a bit more. The points Playing the Winning Game and Taming the Reptile within us are totally irrelevant. The Winning Game is very good to be taught in 7th grade of school, and the Taming the Reptile is perhaps for a psychology discussion, but neither of those prove anything about Global Warming. They are both inspirational, and food for thought, but among all that mumble jumble the fact that they are all relevant to this discussion only if Global Warming is real, is very cleverly hidden. Yes we need to tame the reptile, yes we need to work together to achieve this common goal, but what if the common goal is just a bit of imagination?

Yes, I agree, solar power is very good if we can put it into good use. But is it enough? Not even remotely. The limitations and drawbacks are far too many. You get it for only half the day, and even then out of that how many hours can you get sufficient light? In tropical counties, you get more rain than sunshine, and solar panels are not just an option. Also they are huge, the surface area needed is too big to supply sufficient power even to a small town, let alone a city or a country.

Having said all that, I do not say that we should not care about our environment a bit and let ourselves loose on mother nature doing what we see fit. My argument is that we should rather identify our priorities and work accordingly. Making plans for what's going to happen in another hundreds, if not thousands years time is not a priority as I see it. But instead, many a thousand environmentalists, philanthropists, NGOs, governments as well as many other organizations put too much emphasis and importance, not to mention billions of dollars, on something at best a theory unproven.

Why not spend all those billions of dollars on far more urgent, immediate needs of our fellow human beings, and even the other species? How many millions of people die every year of hunger? Because not having enough water to drink while we dip ourselves in huge pools just to relax? How many people are there in this world suffering from not having something appropriate to wear? Not having shelter? How many men, women and children die each year of completely treatable deceases because they cannot afford just one vaccine? How many wild species die each year because their natural habitats are being taken by humans?

Why don't we address those problems? Why don't we spend those billions of dollars on those needs. Why can't we feed the hungry, provide them with water to drink, with clothing and shelter? Simply, why don't we make their lives better? Why don't we provide those people with homes to stay and lands for farms so they don't have to take those wild species' homes? Let us preserve the wilderness we have, and make life better for all those animals and our fellow human beings. That is money well spent.

The world has constantly changed ever since it begun it's trip around the sun, it is today and it will in the years to come. Species came and went, some stayed. It will be the case in years to come too and we are only being ridiculously arrogant if we think that we can change that. Mother nature is far bigger and stronger than we think, and it is foolish of us to think that we can affect it, change it and control it, leading it to a catastrophe in near future. Life, and nature, is something far beyond our control and life will not so easily be affected because we made the planet a bit warmer.

As Michael Crichton once put, life, will find a way...


Share/Save/Bookmark

15 comments:

  1. Interesting, Sachintha.
    I respect your views, but I think 'global climate destabilization' is real. May I please urge you to watch the following youtube piece....? Thanks in advance!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oCYW4ScUnw&feature=channel

    ReplyDelete
  2. Okay, if you don't have a lot of time, see this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=channel

    ReplyDelete
  3. Amila, sorry for the late reply, cos I've been out a bit.
    And thanks a lot for the insight. OK, honestly, I didn't see the first video because didn't have much time, so will see it when I get a minute and comment on that. But I did watch the second video, and honestly I think it's argument is very loose. Only reasoning for him to choose the fourth box over first is, as he put it, consequences of not acting is far worse than acting. Not a very strong argument in my opinion.

    And, there too, he exaggerates a bit, obviously to gain some attention by saying that these "catastrophic" changes might even happen in another two decades! That is absurd. Where are the evidence. And, believe me, if these environmentalists had such strong evidence, they will be screaming their lungs out every day - not that they don't now, but you get the point.

    Also, I find that both first AND last boxes are a bit exaggerated. Because you spend billions of dollars on GW, that alone will hardly lead to such a depression. And, not acting while GW too is not going to cause damage to such an extend as it's been said here. If you carefully read my post, I have said there why. If the data we have already is anything to go by, certainly what they predict, even if it going to happen will not happen so soon.

    Then, let's say if the temperatures rise, and all that but in another two to five hundred years. Do you belive that we will not have advanced by then. Besides, catastrophies brings the best out of people. You dont have to go far than the WW2. The technology advanced in such scale that would not have been possible if it wasn't for war. War was bad, but it had positive effects. Similarly, climate change is bad if its going to happen in such a big scale, but similarly by that time we will most probably have found a way or two to deal with it.

    Again, thanks for the comment and I will see that first vid when I get a min. Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Also, Amila, my arguments was not that there have been increment of CO2 levels as well as global surface temperatures.

    My point was, it is not as alarming as a lot of people like to suggest. My point is there are more pressing matters we should address.

    Also, let's say, what is the point of addressing GW, reducing it's effects and we made world a better place. Then, let me ask. For whom?
    Are we going to let all those millions of people of powerty, hunger, deceases and make the world a better place for the handful that are fortunate (or greedy?) enough to have a good life?

    ReplyDelete
  5. A few points:

    1. There is nothing stopping us from attacking multiple problems at the same time. You can address poverty, hunger and other items at the same time that you are tackling global warming.

    2. The effects of global warming will affect poorer countries harder. For example, droughts will increase hunger and starvation. Rising sea levels will result in many poor people losing their homes and having to relocate.

    3. Calling scientific modeling as "guesses" is intellectually lazy. It would be a better comment as to why you think they are guesses if you took some time to understand the science behind them and then explain why you think they are wrongly modeled.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Krish, thanks for the response.

    1. Yes, we can but the problem is, nobody does. While they have billions to spend on GW, those other problems are largely neglected. Sad.

    2. Again and again I have to say this. Yes it will IF IT HAPPENS.

    3. No, it is not intellectually lazy. Rather, taking those guesses to be absolute truths, IS. Why I think they are guesses? Let me explain - well I have already in the post, but I still will. Climate is THE most complex system of them all that there are on earth. There are far too many variables, and they too do vary very rapidly. Then, how do people make predictions as you put it. Computer models, right? Being a software engineer, I know a thing or two about them and one is, despite being fast they are hugely limited. Yes, numbers can go up to infinity, but computers can't handle them all. Computers HAVE to cut down numbers at one point. Now, if you know about the Chaos Theory, and the Sensitive Dependance on Initial Conditions of complex systems such as weather, then rounding off numbers in variables can LARGELY affect the outcome. Way more than one would like to think.

    Why do you think nowhere in the world you can see dependable weather reports not more than week in advance?

    ReplyDelete
  7. good article Sach, very good article...

    what really bothers me about 'Climate Change' is the lack of proper debate on the matter. People who question the theory of Man-made Global Warming are looked upon as unscientific goons and sidelined... I don't know if Global Warming is true or not, but the fact of the matter is that this scare over CO2 emissions is driving resources away from really really urgent crises as you've mentioned...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Chavie, it's good to have at least a few people agree on my point of view.

    Actually, we are more looked upon as "industry" guys, when we have nothing to do with them. At least I don't.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Sach

    Thank you for taking the time to critique the article. I have taken it for granted that some of the numbers I have quoted is common knowledge, but I should have referenced them. My apologies to you and other readers. Much of this comes from the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (google IPCC) and you may do a quick read through the link below.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

    Also the recent speech made by Gordon Brown post the G8 meeting is interesting as the developed world is finally acknowledging all this and he speaks openly of the 350 ppm and 2 degrees Celsius numbers. - lalith gunaratne

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lalith, thanks for taking time to respond. Always appreciate it.

    Now, I do understand what you meant by saying that they are common knowledge. The problems is, it only takes a good marketing strategy to establish among the public even false stuff, isn't it. And these numbers, perhaps not by intention but by mistake may have been established. Thats why I said I always liked to see some sources.

    OK, to be honest, I don't have enough time at the moment to go through that report, but it seems interesting at a glance. Will read when I get a minute.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sanchitha,

    "I use the official NASA web site data, hence we can be satisfied with the credibility I assume."
    You spent the entire article saying that all the data is guesswork and then you go and use it to prove your point.

    "Here are some valuable information about surface temperature of earth"
    Words like valuable adds to the weight of the article, and switch on the 'alarming' red light in reader's head, but they doesn't prove anything.

    You say that global warming is the natural order of things and that we cannot do anything to control it. That's fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But then you say that if global warming comes we will be able to fight it off cause technology will be developed. Could you please decide on your view of global warming and stick to it instead. Either say it's not there or say it is. Don't vacillate between the two. Were you a part of world war 2? Do you know of the horrors the people faced during that time? It's not a learning experience where the good is learnt and the bad is forgotten. The death toll and the damage is just an insignificant number on a piece of paper for you. Don't insult the people who had to suffer during the war by looking only at it's good side.

    Using NASA data (The problems is, it only takes a good marketing strategy to establish among the public even false stuff. And these numbers, perhaps not by intention but by mistake may have been established.) you said that greenhouse gases don't affect the increase in temperature as much as the other factors.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
    If you look at this IPCC report(assuming its true), the graphs on page 17 and 18 show the amount the greenhouse gases affect the temperature as well the other factors you mentioned. It clearly shows that the greenhouse gases are the main factor in the anthropogenic effect on the temperature rise.
    Oh and by the way
    volcanic aerosols, tropospheric aerosols
    actually reduce temperature rise as they reflect the sunlight back into space. Its called albedo.
    Next time do some background reading about these before you just copy and paste on to your blog site.

    So today we learnt that there is a lot of information on the web. Whether we decide to believe whether it is true or false it entirely up to us. I agree with you that factors like poverty, hunger exist and they need to be addressed along with global warming.

    With regards to the winning game and the reptilian thinking,which teach us values and morals. Truth as opposed to dishonesty, Interdependence as opposed to selfishness. These lessons can be taken not only for global warming but also in a broader perspective and be applied to the problems that you present.

    Live long and prosper_\\//
    S

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dear Anon, thanks for the lengthy but factual (seemingly) resp0nse.

    First, I DID NOT say DATA is guesswork. I suggest you read properly before responding. I said data is there, but the predictions, that are made to look of catastrophic proportions, are more or less guesswork.

    Seond point. Nice twist of my words. But there is a difference between adjectives like "valuble" and "catastrophic" or "disatrous". Nice try though.

    Thrid point. The world is not just black and white. In case you failed to comprehend, let me break my argument down here again. I did not say GW is a myth. I am aware, even the data suggest, that there is an increment in global temperature. However, two facts I want to emphasis on are, a) we do not know how much the human activities are contributing to this increment and b) the increment is not of collossal proportions as it is being portraited. This is where my "predictions are guesses" argument comes into paly. Also, if you read carefully you'll see that I have said that I don't mean we shouldn't, or even can't fight it if it comes to that. The whole point is, there are other priorities! We are wasting ridiculous amounts of money on something that at best is an unproven theory, while millions of our fellow beings are suffering. It is so unfortunate and sad that we can in fact prevent the suffering of most of those people by spending some of that money on them.

    And what does the WW2 has to do with any of this? Either I lost you there or you're being too dramatic.

    About greenhouse gases. Again you twist my words. What I said was, it is not the SOLE cause of temperature rise as there are other factors. You twist it to say that something I didn't. So, that graph while showing what you it says, doesn't necessarily contradict me.

    And about volcanic aerosols and tropospheric aerosols, thanks for educating me. It's my bad, and I will be careful the next time. Oh and by the way, there are still other factors like, say, urban heat effect which can contribute to rise of temperature in a particular area. Of course it is man-made, however not just by greenhouse gases. So by living in cities, by just being we contribute to temperature rise. Should we cease to live as well?

    Yes, we indeed learnt that there are information on the web, that it can be argued upon as well. Indeed we are free to believe what we think is right, and I respect your right to do so while I enjoy mine. And about the winning game and such, yes I agree they teach us good morals and such, and even applied to problems what we are discussing. However, that doesn't actually prove the problems we are discussing actually exist, or if they do, their proportions.

    In the end, again, my point was (and IS) that GW is hapenning, and you might even do many a thing about it. But, before we spend billions of dollars on something that is not yet proven, we should as well address those other more urgent issues we face.

    We must first live to worry about dying.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The line
    "So, that graph while showing what you it says, doesn't necessarily contradict me."

    should be corrected as

    "So, that graph while showing what you claim it shows, doesn't necessarily contradict me."

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dear Sanchitha,

    It is my bad on your first point.

    On your second point however, please treat me like a five year old and tell me what the difference between the adjectives are?

    On your third point
    "Also, if you read carefully you'll see that I have said that I don't mean we shouldn't, or even can't fight it if it comes to that."
    -"we are only being ridiculously arrogant if we think that we can change that. Mother nature is far bigger and stronger than we think, and it is foolish of us to think that we can affect it, change it and control it, leading it to a catastrophe in near future"
    I think the above significantly shows that your views are changing throughout your article.

    You say people are suffering a lot. I agree, something must be done. SO we should look at the cause of this suffering. The food shortage, in Asian countries can be tied to bad weather conditions, since farming relies heavily on rainwater. Due to the increases in temperature the normal cycle of weather that has changed. Many people have died due to heat waves which are becoming increasingly frequent. Floods are also becoming increasingly worse. So yes, something has to be done to prevent or even slow down further increases in temperature.

    If you read your own article you would see that you used WW2 as an example of how a bad situation can be looked at as a good thing. If you don't understand the error of how you used it like it was only a fact and nothing else, then there is no need for me to further explain. Ill tell you what, find a WW2 veteran and tell him how WW2 was a good thing. Then see whether you understand. Obviously its got nothing to do with this argument, I'm not the one who wrote it in my article in the first place.

    "Again you twist my words. What I said was, it is not the SOLE cause of temperature rise as there are other factors. You twist it to say that something I didn't." I never said anything of the sort, at the moment you are agreeing with what i said in my comment. which is -you said that greenhouse gases don't affect the increase in temperature as much as the other factors.

    But my graph proves that Greenhouse gases have the largest effect on temperature increase. It does contradict you when you say that "Nobody knows how much the atmospheric CO2 levels contribute to the rise of temperature"

    With regards to urban heat effect - http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
    Shows that it doesn't affect the global temperature trends at all. Sorry nice try at trying to cut me, but it is an epic fail:P

    I agree on your last quotation, even though it has no connection to the argument. If i can put it in another way. "Once you accept that you are going to die someday, you can quit worrying about it and live your life."

    _\\//

    S

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dear Anon,

    Alright, second point then. Read that sentense again in the context. I provided some data that can be used arguing a point in my article, hence that data are valuble - they do contain a value. On the other hand, using a word such as "catastrophy" to emphasis the proportion of something which you claim big is, well, exaggeration I'm afraid.

    Thrid. "We are only being..." sentense is written, in the original article to sugges that our human actions by and large will most likely not affect mother nature in such a scale. Meaning, we will most likely not be able to cause a climate change, while the other sentense says something about fighting it. I don't see a view changing - those are two different things imo.

    Crops and weather. Right, let's say it's true for the time being. But again, how much are we responsible for? And I've seen (sorry I've lost the sources, and can't be bothered at the moment to find them, so please feel free to ignore if you don't see fit) some reports which indicate that the increased temperatures might affect crops in good ways. Then people died of high temperatures? Please. How many? Millions more people die every year of other perfectly preventable causes, and we gonna spend so much money cos few people die of heat waves? As I said above, in my case there are priorites.

    About WW2. I had to go through the whole article agian to find something about the WW2 cos I was pretty positive there wan't any reference to that. Then found one in a comment in reply to Amila. By the way, this and your signature suggest to me that you could be Amila. Is it so? However, you should have said you were replying to that comment as well. So, yes there I have said that there were positives out of that war. I DID NOT say that the war was good. And overall the cruelty, pain and suffering caused by it outweighs all the positive even by quite a margin. But still you cannot deny the fact that because of the war that the technology advanced so much during those years. Many areas in science had quantum leaps. It's just a fact - and I stated that to say that equally GW can be bad, but there could as well be positives. I did not want to insult anybody.

    The graph. I said it shows what you claim it shows. It shows that greenhouse gases affect the temperature rise the most. And please point me, but I have never said greenhouse gases don't affect the increase in temperature as much as others. What I said was, it is ONE of the many factors. So, the graph in my original article, greenhouse gases is only one of the causes of that temperature rise, not the SOLE cause. Are we clear? And as per it saying that they affect the MOST, OK I'll go with it for the time being for the lack of contrary data on my part, but perhaps I need to do more research.

    Urban heat effect does not affect the global temperature. Ineed. But where have I said otherwise? Let me quote myself;
    Oh and by the way, there are still other factors like, say, urban heat effect which can contribute to rise of temperature in a particular area.
    I used it to argue that it also something that raises temperature, and if the global temperatures affect the globe so much then regional temperature rises must also affect those regions. And cause some kind of damage, as you claim withe the globe. So because of that, shouldn't you guys do something about it too? Thus I think it's a good try and fails to qualify as an epic fail.

    The last quotation. I think it has a connection to what I'm trying to say. I'm trying to say that we should do something about the suffering of millions of people who die every year of such mundane causes before worrying about GW. So we should first let those people live, and then perhaps worry about them and us all die of GW, if that's going to happen.

    I love your quote, however.

    ReplyDelete