Is the Term Climate Change Used Correctly?
The term climate change used to describe man made global warming is not constructive. We should be looking for a more precise way to discuss our planets issues to take the emotion out of the debate and to solve the problems that need solving, focusing our effort on where we can effect change.
Climate change is a constant process, sometimes slow and sometimes almost spontaneous. It happened before the human species existed and it will occur when we are gone. It can be a cyclical process governed by the axial tilt of the planet and happen over thousands of years or the climate can change for a region of the planet over a single year caused by changing ocean currents, for example el Nio.
Why is the term climate change infuriating? Because it is meaningless in the context of the global warming debate. Climate change has been going on long before humanity industrialised the planet, The real questions are:-
- What is our effect on the natural order?
- Is our effect significant?
- How does nature respond to what we do?
- Should we change our ways?
- Should we intervene?
Most scientists and engineers will be familiar with the terms signal and noise (defined as the ratio of a signal power to the noise power corrupting the signal). If in the context of the climate change noise is the background naturally occurring climate change, how big is the signal cause by humanity? This is actually what the current debate on climate change is all about. Looking at the above questions, 1 to 3 all relate to this debate, and I would say that there is no answer to any of them at the moment, they are still all unknown.
It is unlikely that natural climate change sits in isolation from the effects of humanity, there is likely to be an interaction between the natural order and what we do. But again how significant is it and addressing question 4 should we change our ways? The answers is probably yes, but why? In the late seventies the global warming debate was almost unheard of and 1976 it was just a wonderfully hot summer, with a slight water supply issue in the UK. The debate then was all about when we would run out of fossil fuels. So when I say probably yes I am still thinking that we should conserve our fossil fuels and look for alternatives for future generations, energy demand is only going to increase. Reducing reliance on fossil fuels will also reduce our reliance on despotic regimes, and help to reduce world conflict.
I think question 5 is the most interesting here, should we intervene? Consider for a moment that we are having no effect on the natural order and that the climate is warming naturally as we know it does periodically, should we intervene to maintain the status quo? This question may seem academic, but many methods have been proposed to reduce the planets temperature, some of them very low cost and seemingly quite practical.
In conclusion the term “Climate Change” is used as a propaganda battering ram by the mass media to dumb down the debate on the influence of humanity on the environment, however regardless of your views on manmade climate change it makes sense to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and to develop alternatives.
I vote for massive resources to develop Fusion power!
Author: Richard D Hoare
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Provided by: Guest blogger