The Danger of Curing Global Warming
This article is 300 words long and will take about 90-seconds to read. Wow! Finally a short article!
By now you might realize that I often think contrary to common opinion. I often do this just out of fun but equally so, it does often bring about some interesting insights. One thing that bugs me at the moment concerns global warming. Now then, the common opinion is that global warming is a bad thing and that it is a consequence of mankind’s impact on the environment. I agree that global warming exists as a phenomena but I’m skeptical that it is mostly down to mankind’s machinations.
What bothers me most is hysteresis. This is the effect when a physical property lags behind the changes in effect causing it. For example, when you turn up the shower to make it hotter it takes some time to feel the effect and if you have set it wrongly then you have to lower it again. Sometimes it takes a lot of adjustment to get things just right.
I wonder how the environmental scientists intend to deal with this. It takes a great deal of thought to adjust a system in advance so that any overshoot can be corrected without undershooting first. Since the climate of the Earth is huge and vast and no one really knows for sure how it operates or how to control it then the chances of us bringing the climate down to a desired temperature and just holding it there at an exact point are pretty slim (near impossible I would say).
What does that mean? It means that as soon as we turn global warming around we will have global cooling and left unchecked that means a new ice-age. If that happens we can kiss goodbye to Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Scotland, large parts of England, Wales and Ireland, all of Scandinavia and vast tracts of Russia.
Is anyone thinking about this side of the equation?
If you want more insights into better living then subscribe to my blog (use the orange button in the header bar above)
#1 - Permalink will anderson January 29th, 2008 at 10:54 amthe research into global warming does often take hysteresis into account. its not only an analysis of temperature readings, which cover the last 200 years (max.), but an analysis of ice-core samples from massive swathes of ice such as greenland and antarctica. data from ice-core samples covers thousands of years of snowfalls, melts, etc.
thus, the correlation between the emergence of mankind (whose written history dates about seven thousand years) and, for instance, the extent and intensity of summer melts, is at least somewhat provable beyond hysterical doubts:-)
#2 - Permalink Chris January 29th, 2008 at 12:25 pmI think using cleaner energy, recycling and everything is great. I try my best to be eco-friendly.
I just find it interesting that mars is apparently also warming as well. Google: mars warming.
#3 - Permalink admin February 4th, 2008 at 2:59 pmHi Will,
I wouldn’t classify an historical record as taking hysteresis into account. Hysteresis (as I understand it) is the lag in a controlled system. The historical records show warm and cool periods but that cannot indicate any lag as prior to the last few years no one on the planet has attempted to control global temperatures.
What we should measure now are global temperatures and over them plot the reductions in CO2 emissions and other efforts to reduce temperatures. If humans really are responsible for global warming then temperature should reduce as the things that induce elevated temperatures reduce, only with some kind of lag (probably by a factor of decades).
If humans are responsible for global warming (and I doubt it - it’s probably due to changes in the temperature of the sun and wobble of the earth on its axis) then at some point the trend will reverse. We will then induce global cooling. If we are lucky then some mechanism of self-regulation will mean that the earth doesn’t get cooler that it was say 100 years ago. If not then the cooling will continue beyond that temperature and we will have such a massive lag (hysteresis) to contend with that it will take decades to warm things up again. That’s the problem with controlling systems - it’s very hard to reverse a trend and hit the final point exactly. Normally a diminishing sine wave comes into effect - a little over, a little under until we hit that spot.
Anyway, just a kooky idea, but I do wonder…
#4 - Permalink admin February 4th, 2008 at 3:10 pmHi Chris,
Great tip on the Mars Warming. I found this article http://news.nationalgeographic.....rming.html
I agree with the theory that the sun has far more impact on the earth’s climate than mankind. The sun irradiates us with 8,000 times more energy per year than mankind consumes. Mankind’s energy expenditure is puny in comparison. A tiny percentage change in the temperature of the sun will have a disproportionately huge impact on the earth in comparison to mankind’s efforts.
The sun does not remain at a constant temperature and at this time is slightly hotter than normal. I also read that ionization of the atmosphere from cosmic rays is also reduced, which causes less cloud formation and hence a double-whammy heating effect.
#5 - Permalink will anderson February 4th, 2008 at 6:14 pmMy only firsthand experience with hysteresis is when i’m out on the booze. I try to compensate with cola or water but never get into supersober mode:-)