Climate change and global warming

I am really confused on this one but, of this I am certain, the issues are clouded by poor scientific rigour, vested interests and a lack of a satisfactory climate model. Taking the last one first, there are so many variables affecting the climate of this planet even at the macro level that we fall short of making reliable predictions for the near to medium term, let alone the long term. Much the same as economics actually. We simply don't have an effective long term model that encompasses all the variables.

Tonight on the BBC News, we hear that the British public is becoming more disillusioned about man made effects on climate change AND global warming. However, the first question asked of the public put the two together which is utter crap; a question so poorly phrased that it inevitably lead to a misleading answer. I do not deny that over time, a few centuries or more that one may link one with the other but right now I believe it is important to consider the two separately.

Global warming? Yes as a graduate chemist I know that Carbon Dioxide will absorb the infra red rays emitted from the planet and, in effect it will act as a blanket keeping heat in the lower atmosphere and on the surface. In the long run, all other factors being neutral, the rise in CO2 which is said to be at record levels, will lead to global warming.

The trouble is all the other factors are not neutral. Our climate and our weather are influenced by so many things. The CO2 may well try to warm us up but other forces are at work. Read this if you will:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

The argument here is that the oceans are a powerful force shaping our climate. Isn’t that bloody obvious? Most people have heard of El Nino even if they have heard of no other ocean current. The commentary on cyclical mini ice ages has a special appeal to me. I know this is only anecdotal but I kept a record of my hill walks over 20+ years and noted the shift in the seasons. Only later did I hear meteorologists confirm my conclusions.

Go to sunspots. We know what they are but we are not too sure of their effects on climate. We have just pulled out of one of the greatest solar sunspot minima in decades and we have no clue as to what the next cycle will bring in terms of sunspots or their effect.

Another anecdote if you care to indulge me. I went to Svalbard in 2006 and landed at the island of Kvitoya. They said that the free water north of Svalbard was remarkable and evidence of global warning. Maybe but it was free of ice in the 1890’s when balloonists were trapped and died there because they could not reach the mainland. And anyway as the Daily Mail article I cited above says, the Arctic ice has been growing for the past 3 years. Don’t believe me? Go to NOAA and the others.

Before moving on to vested interests, let’s look at our politicians. In most countries only a paltry few of them have any scientific background at all. Tell them that climate change is subject to 49 or so variables and that you need several supercomputers to sort it with no guarantee of success and you have them flummoxed. These are not unintelligent people so a simple description of the IR absorption of CO2 and its growing level will be easy for them to buy in to and give support to CO2 reduction. And then, of course, politicians being politicians will react in the only way they know how. Smack the public with a stick and raise some taxes. Flight taxes are horrendous these days but I have no idea where the money goes to reduce or offset CO2 emissions. Booked a couple of air miles flights recently and the tax was a staggering €250 each way.

So to vested interests and there are many of these. You get the scientific institutions like our discredited University of East Anglia who are dining out (literally) on government grants to look at the ‘problem’. They also get to go to great conferences in nice parts of the world. Let’s have the next conference in Malawi in a hut and eat like the locals.

We have in the UK something called the Carbon Trust which is something to do with reducing C02 emissions in the UK. Well, as Tony Blair said a few years ago, ‘If Britain ceased all CO2 emissions tomorrow; China would put it all back in 2 years.’ Not my favourite politician but that makes a lot of sense.

Then I get the airlines trying to look nice and asking me for money for my ‘carbon offset’ for my next flight. The money is supposed to go to ‘green projects’ but I see scant evidence of where it goes. When did you last hear of the money going to the Amazon or Indonesia to evict the loggers and plant 100,000 sq. miles of new forest?

And no show would be complete without the voice of farmers, a sector of society (in the West at least) whose hand is the first out for any subsidy going. Now I am being told to support them and not eat strawberries in winter because they have been flown in from Kenya. Do I honestly want to go back to the days of the poor fruit and veg they served us in the 50’s? No.

And finally scientific rigour. This is quite disgusting possibly for reasons noted above and vanity or maybe ignorance. Once I went to an Open Night at my son’s school and there in the chem. lab were a bunch of kids testing the pH (acidity or alkalinity) of common substances we found around the home. Nice I said, so what is the pH of the water you are using. ‘7’ they cheerfully said for pH7 is neutral. ‘Go on and test some plain water,’ I said, which they did. The result was pH4 which is slightly acid. They were shocked. Quite simply, their teacher had failed to teach them first to test their starting point. Well, if you cannot teach them scientific rigour when they are young, what chance do you have when they are older and habits have become ingrained?

As for vanity. Scientists are always vying to publish papers, maybe even cause a sensation and most certainly gain honours. As my Prof at UMIST said to me, the numbers of papers you publish are a key factor on the road to promotion. Malcolm did not earn his professorship on the number of papers he published; he published a few. He earned his position with a reputation for meticulous and rigorous research. Pity there are not more like him.

As my dad told me, quoting Shakespeare, ‘To thine own self be true.’

My position here is very simple:

Yes, growing CO2 emissions might well lead to global warming BUT climate change is subject to many other forces and they will remain for the forseeable future to be the shapers of our weather.

You may also care to read my notes on the Permian Extinction written in Dec 10, 2008. Sure global warming killed off 95% of all species on this planet. It just took 100,000 years to do it.

I don’t know the answer here but I do know there is a heck of a lot more work to be done.

Footnote: In all this noise, you hear little about the acidification of the oceans. Somewhere I read that the oceans absorb around 30% to 50% of the CO2 and slowly their pH is diminishing, albeit only by decimals. However some scientists claim that the rate of absorption is slowing down indicating saturation. If the CO2 absorption continued, some argue that it will have a damaging effect on carbonate creatures like corals. But then again if absorption is genuinely slowing down, the increase in atomspheric CO2 will get faster. Now there could an argument here for reducing CO2 emissions. But then, this isn't headline stuff, is it? And anyway, we need more good science.