While out for my morning three-mile walk this morning my mind wandered to the ongoing discussion about global warming or, as the title has morphed into, a discussion about climate change. I was thinking about this matter because although I was in central Florida the temperature was 48 degrees when it should have been around 68 for this time of year. I was bundled up with a hooded sweat shirt on under by leather jacket, both of which I wore down here from upstate New York thinking I would not need them again until next fall. It was brisk weather for walking and I was walking briskly in spite of earning my recent 13th coronary stent.
Global warming? What global warming, I chuckled to myself? That chuckle started me thinking. Actually, many people in widely different parts of our country have occasion this year (this winter) to ask the question; the winter weather has been more severe in many areas than is typical. Who can blame the common man from asking the question, from wondering if scientist who talk about global warming know what they are talking about.
I use the phrase “common man” not in a derogatory way but simply as a way to describe the average, non-scientific tendency to judge conditions or events based on how they affect us personally. Animals have inherited instincts to guide them in reacting to their environment. They do not have the ability nor bother to analyze events and reach a judgment on how to react in the future. Humans have the ability to consider separate events and form a hypothesis they can test and then use to predict future occurrences and possible reactions.
Just the same, it is normal for us to consider first those things we can hear, see, taste, touch or smell, in other words, our personal experiences and observations. Man looks up in the sky, sees the sun passing overhead from east to west, and “sensibly” concludes that the sun revolves around the earth. What other possible explanation can there be? People with a slightly more critical eye decided there was more to it than that. They took a larger view and determined after some observations, some testing and some refinement of their hypothesis that the earth revolved around the sun. This heresy, as viewed by the Catholic Church, was subsequently found to be true and accepted even by the common man in spite of what he saw in the sky.
Scientists have determined that our climate is changing, warming by imperceptible but measurable degrees. This warming is not always apparent us when we rely on local weather conditions or just on our five senses. Can you tell if the temperature of the ocean is 1 degree higher than a decade ago? I can’t. That rise in ocean temperature in a section of the Pacific, however, contributes to the El Nino year we are having and that, in turn, explains the unusual weather we are experiencing in various parts of the country.
While we humans look at the weather on our street, in our town, county or state, scientists take a larger view and look at what’s happening all over the world -- and over a longer period than just a few months in the winter of 2009-2010. While Washington, D.C. may be getting more snow than usual this winter, Vancouver, British Columbia is having warmer weather than usual and having a dickens of a time providing enough snow for the Winter Olympics.
Global warming (climate change, if you prefer) is not determined by one up-tick or downtick of the temperature gauge. Consider the stock market graph over any period. It goes up and it goes down, but there is always a trend. If you buy or sell on the short-term market ticks, you will surely lose money. If you follow the trend, you will likely make money. When scientists look at the climate trend, they see global warming.
You can see what you want. Your belief, your bias for interpreting what you see, will not change the facts. When scientists’ hypotheses fail to predict, fail to fit the data, they refine their hypotheses. They then begin anew to gather data and continue to look at the big picture to get a model they can rely on. (Weather is never 100% predictable.) We mortals must be equally willing to adjust our opinions about global warming. Otherwise, we are just like the rest of the animal world that reacts to stimuli. We have intelligence and should use it.
Who do we want to believe, a scientist who likely has little financial or political stake in the outcome of the climate debate or a politician who creates a photo-op for his constituents and big corporate sponsors by building a snow igloo on the front lawn of the U.S. Capitol? Most scientists will admit it when their hypotheses prove wrong. Have you ever known a politician to admit he or she was wrong?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
good post. wrt to the scientist not having an incentive thats not strictly true as much research is based on funding which is in turn based on publishable results and progress in the research. so finding nothing and/or reporting on nothing will quickly lose your funding. peer review helps to improve the quality of research but still scientist may be tempted to alter results or throw out outliers to make theory conform to measurement. I look at some global changes such as fishermen having to go further north to find the same fish schools. also recently there was a show on blue pool archeology where they found evidence of climate change in the bahamas over a single generation believed to be caused by dust from the sahara desert blowing west and changing climate dramatically. the evidence was captured in stalagmites cross-sections.
Post a Comment