A question about climate change.
I read today, a news item that described how UK Secretary for the Environment Michael Gove had criticised US President Donald Trump, for his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. Gove, whilst speaking to the WWF, described his deep regret of president Trump’s position on climate change. Gove elaborated that, “International cooperation to deal with climate change is critical if we’re to safeguard our planet’s future and the world’s second biggest generator of carbon emissions can’t simply walk out of the room when the heat is on”.
OK, so a typical political expression, one politician who holds one view, disproving of another politician who holds another view. Climate change is also a very usual subject, this has been a parcel passed around now for many years. Some hold the view that not only is climate change a reality, but its a man made reality, whilst others argue that climate change is a reality, but, human activity has little or nothing to do with it – there are others still, who suggest that climate change is an entirely natural phenomena that is of no concern, and not something we should preoccupy ourselves with.
I’ve always been interested in this argument, and have considered many good arguments both for and against climate change. The argument goes something like this. Human activity on the planet, causes an increase in a gas called carbon dioxide, which in turn is increasing the temperature of the planet. Much presented has been a correlation between various data sets on temperature patterns world wide, and carbon dioxide statistics world wide. Some have presented this data as representing an increase in Co2 driving an increase in ambient temperature. Others present the same data as representing an increase in ambient temperature driving an increase in Co2, and others see these stats as representing nothing more than a cyclical reorganisation of our weather system. It occurs to me, that in all the time this debate has been doing the rounds, that one vital piece of data is missing from the argument.
The Scenario
Imagine that you bring your car to me for a service, and we agree that I will change the oil for you. Later you return to collect your car. I give you the bill, and tell you that the oil has been changed, but it has been over filled with fresh oil, and before you drive home, you must drain out some of the oil. The reason for this, is because, if you have too much oil it could cause piston lock and destroy your engine, but if you don't have enough oil, it will run dry and also destroy the engine – so you need to have just the right amount of oil in the system. You of course then ask me how you will know when the correct oil level has been reached, to which I reply, ‘there's a dip stick’. The designers have calculated the exact level of oil required, and marked it on a stick that you can visually inspect, you cant go wrong if you follow the indicated level.
OK, so its a car analogy, sorry for that, but it makes a point hopefully all of us can relate to. If a system has too much or too little of whatever it needs to maintain the status quo, it will fail. So, whichever side of the argument your view agrees with regarding climate change, and the degree to which it is being affected by a greenhouse gas such as Co2, we first need to consider, what data we would require to asses the state of the system.
Carbon dioxide, I’m sure we can all agree, is an essential part of our ecosystem and is neither toxic or unnatural. It is what plants breath, and in return they breath out oxygen. The greater the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the more prolific our vegetation becomes, and the more we benefit from the exchange or return of oxygen.
The Question
Co2 is a greenhouse gas, and so too is H2o or water. Water in one form or another in our local atmosphere constitutes some 75% of our greenhouse gas, and Co2 some 20%. So the question that I don’t see as ever having been asked, nor data presented for, is; bearing in mind that Co2 is an essential gas in our ecosystem – by what degree should we reduce the 20% Co2, and what impact if any would that have against the 80% ‘other’ greenhouse gases such as water. In other words, what has ever been calculated as the correct level or ratio of this essential gas ‘Co2’, in our atmosphere. Is there a mark on the Co2 dip stick, have the engineers made this calculation yet. Without this calculation, or measure, we have no way of knowing if Co2 levels are rising to achieve equilibrium and maintain the status quo of essential atmospheric gases, or whether its rising above a level that is healthy for the system. Without this data, we can neither make a judgement for or against any action regarding the state of our climate. To take any action without first checking the dip stick, seems to me to be illogical, and we can neither argue for or against.
Food for thought.
