I've rarely had access to TV news while traveling, but each time I catch it dramatic weather events are making headlines. An unusually cold and snowy start to the winter in Western Europe, record breaking summer rain in New Zealand, catastrophic flooding continues in Australia and most recently an extraordinarily harsh storm breaks records in the Midwest of the US. Coincidence of random events or is there a pattern emerging? I would strongly suggest the latter.
Two of the largest and well respected scientific bodies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Science, have made strong statements that Climate Change (CC) is measurably occurring and that it is human caused. The science is solid and relatively straightforward, increased atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping carbon dioxide (which can be traced to fossil fuels by isotopic composition) and methane means less of the energy the earth receives from the sun is radiated back out into space. What is far less straightforward, and really is anyone’s guess in a system as large and complex as the global climate, is the affects this increased systemic energy will have on the climate of specific locales—but as we’re beginning to witness change appears inevitable. On a macro-scale more energy in the system will likely amplify the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events on both ends of the spectrum, resulting in wetter, colder storms and hotter, dryer droughts. Global Weirding or Climate Collapse might be more appropriate terms as it seems likely that future climates will be anything but the stable norm we’ve enjoyed for all of commonly understood human history.
Since we’re basing the appraisal of this threat on scientific understanding there will always be a margin of error (however small) to support skepticism—that is the nature of science, it is never certain and never will be. Even more generally if we are being rational we can admit our own perceptual limitations as humans and thus the ever-present potential for if being wrong. So this ‘lack of certainty’ argument that’s being used to thwart risk averting action is erroneous.
Action or no action…it’s a gamble either way, but let’s be clear about what’s on the line. Wager an economic cost or a stable climate?
No comments:
Post a Comment