The
original went like, “I think, therefore I am.”
The
original ‘I’ has mutated into “IT” and the modern version is, “I doubt,
therefore IT does not exist.”
What
is the ‘IT’? Climate change.
I
had been disappointed many times when for my posts on climate change, advocating
action to reduce carbon emissions, or at the very least to mitigate the effects,
I get the response (in different words, of course), “Yes, it (your argument)
looks right, but I do not understand it (climate change).”
There
is active resistance to understanding. The issue has grabbed reams and reams of
paper and occupied terabits in cyber-space, spanning levels of explanations
ranging from nursery school to beyond Ph.D. Yet, there appears to be some
amount of pride in proclaiming scientific illiteracy.
In
this post, I want to try to puncture that faux
pride. I want the readers to feel pride in understanding climate science.
Even
as simple as this effort is going to be, I will not be able to carry it off on
my own. I will take help from an article in The
Economist [1]. A point to note: the newspaper was highly skeptical of
anthropogenic global warming (if that sounded too complicated, let me explain:
increase in global temperatures due to activities of human beings; AGW), and
was concerned about the cost of combating it and its ill effects. This was true
to its form, aligned with conservative causes, like fiscal conservatism and reduced
interference of governments in market affairs.
But,
the evidence got stronger and stronger and even before the cooked-up
controversy about emails from the Climate Research Unit of University of East
Anglia, the newspaper was forced to shift its position and it had no place to
land except on the side of the reality and fact of climate change. The reader
needs to be aware of this note on immediate history of the London based
publication, catering to the interests of the rich. With this shift, the paper
was taking, from its perch vis-à-vis the monied, a calculated risk. But, it has
turned out to be no risk at all, as you will see from the following.
One
of the most undisputed data set that supports AGW is the so-called Keeling
curve, meticulous data collection of CO2 levels over half a century.
How meticulous? Look at the figure below [1]. As an expert in manipulating data
to get the desired result, I can say that I would have introduced spurious
kinks just to avoid raising the suspicion of the examiner! The kind of
regularity evident in the graph is in itself the proof of its scientific integrity.
The
middle of the three graphs in the following figure [2] shows the Keeling curve
at temporal zoom-out (skipping annual and diurnal variations) over the past six
decades. The curve indicates the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere and it
does not take a Ph.D to understand first and then believe that an increase in
CO2 traps heat. Hence, global warming.
There
are two more graphs, one at the top and the other at the bottom, supporting the
middle through simple science. The three graphs unequivocally show that the
atmosphere, the earth’s solid surface and the ocean are under the onslaught of
global warming. Do we need any more proof of the globe heating up? I think not.
And, I cannot believe anyone does. Yet, we have these doubters.
Therefore,
these doubters, who follow the neo Cartesian paradigm, are being insincere in taking
positions against AGW. They also claim that climate science is too complicated.
It was my effort to simplify climate science to the extent it retains its force
and gains credibility, all material handed down by experts.
I
am not sure I have succeeded. There must be some ulterior motive for the continued
unsustainable position of the doubters and deniers. Self-interest is a powerful
motivator for retaining ignorance.
Is
it their love of Rene Descartes? Or is it because they think acknowledging AGW
will lead to short-term costs that they are not willing, though they can, bear?
The
aim of this post was to change that paradigm itself, at least in the context of
AGW.
“I understand, tHEREFORE IT IS TRUE!”
Raghuram Ekambaram
References
2.
Graphic
Detail – Climate changes, The Economist, May 2, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment