Friday, April 20, 2007


One thing that gets more than anything else with the science of climate is how much we do not know.

All the projections into the future are based on data that has significant margins of error. The projections also make assumptions that are good guess work, but only guess work.

What I think we should first figure out is if the global climate system is one that resists change and only transitions slowly after a lot of effort to shift it, or if we have a climate that is easily changed.

It seems to me that the models and implications of what the impacts will be of the sort of changes that the models suggest are all more dramatic than is likely to occur.

What will it take to reach an equilibrium?

This week there was an interesting model released - they wondered what would happen if all the boreal forests were cut down. The impact of this action was a net cooling of the earth.

With work like this still being done, I do not think we are in a position to be able to make real projections of what may or may not happen in 50 to 200 years time. We need to have a lot more work done on climate research so that we have the data to understand what actions might make sense.

As an example, changing your light bulb in BC will not have any impact on climate change because our power is all green. But the public is still being told that they should change to fluorescent bulbs to stop global warming.

If human society were to stop using internal combustion engines, would we have any effect of climate change?

How much of the global warming is due to methane gas - cow farts? Should be end all meat consumption?

We do not have the data to make intelligent decisions and taking action without knowing is more than likely to more harmful than not taking action.

No comments: