As I perused the news the other day, my attention was drawn to a particularly unsettling article. The article was titled “Arctic Sea Levels Hit Record Low, Scientists Say We’re ‘Running Out Of Time'” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/arctic-sea-ice-loss-record-low_n_1897602.html?utm_hp_ref=green). Although I was hoping to discuss the topic of climate change at a later date, this article has brought the issue to the forefront of my mind, and I feel the urgent need to discuss it.
Many skeptics of climate change believe that conventional scientists are alarmists, that the earth naturally cycles through periods of warmth and cold, and that humans cannot do anything to significantly impact the climate. I once held the erroneous belief that these skeptics consisted solely of the ignorant and uneducated, and that there was complete consensus among the scientific community. Although most scientists do acknowledge anthropomorphic climate change, over the summer, at an internship that I held at a lab, I found myself in a fierce debate with a research scientist concerning climate change. This debate challenged every one of my preconceptions concerning this issue; the man I debated was not some high-school drop out, using the weather in his locale to discount global climate change. This man was incredibly intelligent, and his arguments were seemingly well thought out and scientific. Astoundingly, I exited our debate on the short end of the stick, with a firm resolve to research and determine the proof behind all that he had said.
Although we spent at least an hour discussing the topic, I will attempt to briefly summarize some of his main points. He first questioned the technique by which climatologists collect temperature data. According to his sources, scientists once followed a series of standards when collecting data, which they began to ignore several decades ago. These standards restricted the areas in which they could collect data, prohibiting them from setting up a data collecting station near a city, road, body of water, or anything else that could affect local temperature. He stated that any perceived rise in temperature was due to the proximity to these reflectors of heat. He also stated that the only non-circumstantial evidence presented by climatologists was this rise in temperature, which he believed to be invalid. He also cited his experience modeling the climates of other planets, explaining that our ability to aptly predict the climates of other bodies in space is highly variable.
After this lengthy discussion, I devoted several hours of my spare time to research. As this is not a research paper, I will attempt to keep my response brief. One of the most compelling sources that I believe discounts the information provided by the aforementioned scientist is a paper published by a former climate change skeptic and a prominent physicist at UC Berkley, Richard Muller. Several years ago, Muller professed the same belief concerning the invalidity of our temperature data. He believed that the data was likely skewed, misrepresenting reality. Rather than simply state this belief, he attempted to prove it, embarking on a two year, $600,000 study. Rather than validate his hypothesis, Muller instead convinced himself that anthropomorphic climate change was reality. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/-ex-skeptic-richard-muller-congress-global-warming_n_1094966.html).
Although I have more than a dozen other sources, I will limit this blog to just two more. My skeptic friend asserted that climatologists had no substantial evidence outside of temperature data. I found that this could not be farther from the truth. First of all, satellite data is highly consistent with data collected from the surface of the earth (http://www.wright.edu/~guy.vandegrift/climateblog/s07/SatTem.JPG). Also, satellites have detected that less heat is escaping earth’s atmosphere at the wavelength that CO2 absorbs heat. In a related study, more heat of this same wavelength has been detected returning to the surface of the planet. If you would like to see much more information concerning this data, please visit the following website: http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html.
My new insight provided me with an even stronger conviction concerning the validity of climate change, as now I had observed it survive the onslaught of an educated scientist, likely the strongest opponent it would ever face.
Weekly green tip: before you throw something out, try to think if there is any other way you could possibly use it. Try to be creative! I have made countless gifts out of recycled material. For example, I once made a model of a dinosaur for my brother’s birthday out of material that would have otherwise been disposed of. People generally appreciate these types of gifts, as they are unique, and show genuine appreciation.
@Audrey Goldman: Cape Wind is slated to begin production in 2013, although its very existence depends upon the outcome of the current presidential election.
If you guys enjoyed this week’s blog, please let me know! I could write a dozen blogs about this subject. If it bored you out of your mind, please reprimand me, and I’ll switch it up next week. Also, if you have any dispute with anything I’ve posted, I’d love to hear it!
