h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I remember in the ‘70's all the “experts” were crying that the next ice age was upon us. The world was going to begin cooling and the glaciers would begin to grow once again.

Then, in 1985 the battle cry of global warming hit the press. They began predicting that within 20 years the environment would be in a shambles. The 20 years have come and gone and no one can convincingly argue that the world is spiraling into the end days. I’ve read the reports that the average global temperature is on the rise. I’ve read the reports that the global average temperature is on the decline. Neither side can produce a case that is convincing enough to end the argument.

Maybe there is a reason no one can say for sure what is happening in the world. We have a total of what, 100 to 150 years of recorded history regarding the weather. Considering the age of the earth, it’s sort of like taking a 5 minute look at the Space Shuttle and saying, “I know how that works. That little green light doesn’t look right and if we don’t stop it from flashing the one next to it will start. Next thing we know the entire system will be devoted solely to flashing lights and nothing else will get done.” Our understanding of the planets weather systems is the same. We’re trying to predict weather based on a momentary glimpse of the whole picture. We’re making assumptions about a system of which we have the barest understandings. Really, if we understood the weather, wouldn’t we be better at predicting it?

I like your style it's good to question stuff like this and your observations of press/government reaction to current trends in opinion are pretty valid.

I must say though that I think it's a mistake to assume we can't understand the weather of the planet without a billion years worth of data to look at. For a start I think the current oxygenated atmostphere is only around 500 million years old - when photosynthesis evolved so did the atmosphere - at least that's how the theory goes.

I think when it comes to greenhouse effects and global warming it's important to distinguish between climate and weather. Climate is what we're interested in as it's the broad sweeps of change over longer time scales that are pertinent to these subject. Whether it's going to rain on Tuesday in Manchester or not is probably not so pertinent

The processes that govern our climate can be observed and we can experiment. The behaviour of gases, vapours ,liquids and aerosols can be understood without having to wait 500 million years. We are already quite good at predicting broad climate sweeps, at least the Met office have simulations that can predict future events (this has been tested by using old data to see if current patterns in century long timescales are seen and indeed they are). Chemistry and Physics work in the same way in 2005 as they did in 1728 or 1066.

Secondly, we really are only talking about the next few hundred years or so in terms of what's going to happen regarding global warming anyhow. Nobody can predict further than that as a planet sized asteroid could hit us or an unexpected change in the Sun could occur. A massive earthquake could send Panama into the sea and global climate would alter irrevocably. So given that, then having around 400 years or so data (of varying quality admittedly) is probably enough as we'll have to assume an extinction level event is not around the corner.
So in essence it's likely that the last few hundred years climate changes and behaviour is a pretty good model of what is going to happen in the near future - geologically speaking.

Of course we should always strive for better understanding though. We are not as you say all the way there yet of course and undoubtedly we never will be.

There are two ways to approach the potential problem of climate change though.

1) Assume we cannot ever no enough to be sure and do nothing

2) Try and do something about what we can at least precict a little.

2 cannot hurt, 1 is probably not worth the potentially devastating consequences.

I agree that we don’t need a million years of data to predict the weather, but I do think the longer we study the weather and the more data we have to plug into the simulations, the more accurate our predictions will become. I think I read some were that meteorologists have a 90% chance of being right on the same day, a 50% chance of being right the next day and its down to a 5% chance of being right on day five.

I think what bothers me is that I get so frustrated by the alarmists looking at the past 100 years and saying, “Look, the climate is changing! We’re destroying the world!” My wife has a friend who insists that the current climactic changes are entirely the fault of George Bush and his “big oil buddies.” The oil they’re selling is causing rapid global warming which caused all the hurricanes to hit Florida this year. Never mind the fact that the meteorologists are theorizing that there is a cycle to the hurricane seasons and that, aside from Andrew in what, ‘92, it’s been decades since there have been a run of severe storms. They’re predicting that Florida may be entering into a cycle of severe hurricane seasons. They’re not expecting four landfalls a year, but they are expecting the ones that make land fall to be doosies.

I just don’t think we have enough information to know whether the climatic changes are normal or not. My suspicion is that the climate cycles through the centuries and very little we do is going to change that. Not that we shouldn’t make efforts to change the way were using fossil fuels and work toward a better environment, we should. I just think the people who believe that the end of fossil fuels will cure the worlds climatic ills, are in for some serious disappointment.

Well I entirely agree with you there

Whisper it quietly but fossil fuels are going to run out eventually and the only serious alternative we have is in fact nuclear power - at least at present.

I concur.

As I've said before the Greens, for their part, are neither use nor ornament in changing our attitudes. They spend most of their time barking up completely the wrong trees, chasing non-issues such as GM and nanotech. Climate change is not a hypothetical risk, it is happening right now. But, even in my home town, the local Green party has been campaining *against* the building of a tram line!

This is the single biggest threat facing our and other species. It should be dealt with by a single issue campaign group.

I think the last estimate I heard was that fossil fuels would be depleted in about 80 years. I think that is assuming that China doesn’t come on line any time soon. Another half a billion people driving cars will seriously effect the 80 year projection.

I know nuclear power looks like an option, but it has three huge hurtles to over come.

1. Public opinion. Chernobyl and TMI have done a lot of damage to nuclear powers reputation. The possibility of human error makes it a scary proposition.

2. There isn’t one nuclear power plant in the US that is operating without huge government subsidies. Sorry, but I’m a big proponent of self sufficiency.

3. What do we do with the by products?

Here is another secret that needs to be whispered or people get up set. We already have the alternatives available for cars and maybe home heating. Bio-diesel. The diesel engin was originally designed to run on linseed oil. The problem at the time was that vegetable and animal oils gel at higher temperatures than fossil diesel. With garages and plug in engines, I don’t think this is as much of a concern. People are already starting to run their diesel engines using bio diesel and getting similar milage to fossil diesel. The current world record holder for the longest running engine is a truck in Germany that has been driven over 780,000 miles on bio-diesel. Many are using waste cooking oil from restaurant fryers to power their cars. I can post web-sites if your interested. It’s my understanding that the bio-diesel burns 50-75% cleaner than fossil diesel. Apparently it smells a lot like a french-fry.

Not only is it an interesting use for used cooking oil, but it would open a huge market for farmers. From what I’ve read, corn, soy bean, linseed, and rapeseed oil all make good bio-diesel.

Just some food for thought.

My mother has a similar glib interpretation of the current environment shifts. “the world is simply going through a change… it’s not global warming but the dawn of a new era in weather… etc.”
I find this kind of thinking both silly and dangerous. It adheres to the right wing philosophy that also says that we don’t need to worry about civil rights because as long as it’s in the public conscience it’s being taken care of. This functions only as a passive aggressive attempt to get the people who want to change the world for the better to shut-up and let everyone alone so the conservative agendas can carryon unopposed. the important thing here is not wither or not our weather is changing or why, but rather how we are damaging our world and what we can do about it. In short we must stop letting ourselves be sidetracked and focus on the actual problem. Global warming is just a catchphrase a buzz word for media hype. The ozone is eroding, this will cause inevitable change in our way of life, and we must do something about it.

“it is stupid that we live without an ozone. We have space ships, and plastic wrap… fix it. And don’t come back till you do.” -Luis Black

Biodiesel isn't the only alternative to nuclear power. We also have those new hydrogen fuel cells. I forget exactly how they work but they feed on hydrogen and oxygen from the atmosphere to generate energy and spew water vapor as their "exhaust." There's already an experimental project by my local electric company to provide electricity to the more remote parts of the county with this technology, and I hear it can also power the automobile.

Other options include replacing the traditional coal-fired power plants with solar collectors and wind farms, both highly popular alternatives here in the sunny and windy US west.