emailprintpdf

Tweet

Comments

 "Of course we can, after all its our doing!" is probably what most of you are thinking this instant. Many of you might just be considering turning the page in search of something more credible, and understandably so.

Yet, if the incessant bombardment by the media and the alarmist tendencies of the more influential (read politically correct) sections of the scientific community have numbed your senses into submission to their version of global warming, then read on.

Now that I have your attention, it would be mutually beneficial that we are in agreement on a few things at the very outset. First and foremost, I have absolutely no doubt that global warming as a phenomenon is a reality. Second, any facts and/or scientific findings mentioned here are attributable to eminent scientists and climatologists and not to the whims and fancies of a first-year management grad.

Throughout history, science has been looked upon with veneration and its proponents treated with unparalleled respect. Yet, this most noble of disciplines has not been immune to the influence of socio-political forces. Time and again the politically, socially and often religiously backed idea has prevailed over the one backed only by scientific evidence and rationality. Certain schools of thought are often suppressed only because they seek to dispel universally accepted norms (often myths!).

Global warming is the case in point.

For the past decade or so, climatologists have been crying foul over how human beings are the primary cause of global warming and that industrialization and deforestation are indeed the main drivers of what is increasingly being touted as impending doom. Based on this belief, solutions such as curtailing the rapid growth of industrialisation, stopping deforestation to house an ever-increasing global population, capping the carbon emissions on a country-wise basis (the mandate of the Kyoto Protocol), among others are being proposed.

These are the features of the most fiercely 'marketed' explanation of global warming - the greenhouse effect. Any scientific hypothesis starts off with certain assumptions, and the theory is, therefore, only as valid as the underlying assumptions.

The proponents of the greenhouse effect assume that more industrialisation means more emission of green house gases, and hence, more global warming. Since industrialisation has grown by leaps and bounds, therefore, we must be adding more and more carbon to the atmosphere, heating up the planet in the process.

Now, who would want to argue with such impeccable logic? Well, ill come to that in a moment. Meanwhile, if you in the secure privacy of your thoughts happen to question this established law of sorts; if somewhere within the precincts of your mind, you are compelled to ask, "How is it that a single species is able to affect the very course of nature?"; if your simplistic yet logical mind is unable to comprehend this theory and yet apprehensive about speaking out; here is something you might find solace in.

The Global Warming debate has long been a monologue, but every now and then individuals and groups have raised their voices in argument, not denying the phenomenon altogether, but definitely begging to differ on the causes and extent of its influence. The strong evidence to the contrary increasingly being presented by this faction, deserve a look. The argument is based on the premise which in climatological parlance is known as natural variability. Simply put, natural variability is nature's way of regulating itself even in the face of apparent abberations. Now, the increasing carbon content in the atmosphere is an aberration which nature seems to be handling quite well. If recent evidence from plant fossils is to be believed, then the atmosphere today contains the same level of carbon dioxide as it did 11,000 years ago!

So then what explains global warming?

According to John Carlisle, Director of the Environmental Policy Task Force at the National Center for Public Policy Research, headquartered in Washington, DC, and a vocal opponent of the human-induced warming concept, global warming is more due to the natural climatic changes of the earth than anything else. For thousands of years, the earth has been going through predictable periods of cyclical cooling and warming. The following is an excerpt from an article by Carlisle: -
 

"Each glaciation cycle is typically characterized by 90,000 years of cooling - an ice age - followed by an abrupt warming period, called an interglacial, that lasts 10,000 to 12,000 years. The last ice age reached its coolest point 18,000 to 20,000 years ago,

when the average temperature was 9.0 to 12.6 F cooler than today. Earth is currently in a warm interglacial called the Holocene, which began 10,700 years ago.

Although precise temperature readings over the entire period of geologic history are not available, enough is known to establish climatic trends. During the Holocene, there have been about seven major warming and cooling trends, some lasting as long as 3,000 years, others as short as 650. Between 1650-1850, we were in the middle of what was known as the Little Ice age, and it was then that the doom-sayers were predicting a frigid future for the earth. Similarly now when we are in the process of warming more due to a recovery from the cooling period than anything else, there is once again an outcry for doom in the opposite direction! So while policy makers the world over spend billions trying to counter this 'crisis', there might not really be one."

There was recently an article in the Geophysical Research Letters, about a direct correlation between the sun's radiance and the temperature of neptune. Now, scientists have even found a relation between solar variability, the brightness of neptune, and believe it or not, the temperature of the earth!

emailprintpdf

Tweet

Comments