RE: Where do you stand on climate change?
December 17, 2009 at 6:31 am
(This post was last modified: December 17, 2009 at 6:33 am by lilphil1989.)
Well, carbon dioxide reflects a portion of the earth's ~blackbody radiation back at it, keeping it out of thermal equilibrium with the space around. Lots of gases do this, it's the reason the earth's temperature is ~300K and not ~3K like it's surroundings. Increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere decreases the earth's radiation losses, making it warmer.
As far as the basic science is concerned there's not really much to argue against, it's quite simple (indeed Lord Rayleigh hypothesised that increasing greenhouse gases would cause an increase in global temperature, and he died in 1919).
The problem is that it's not readily apparent that the earth is warming, due to the complexity of the earth's climate (solar cycle, el nino oscillations etc).
Which leads to "it's colder this summer than last summer => the earth isn't warming" style arguments.
And it's difficult to predict the future of the climate in a fluid mechanical formalism, because the Navier-Stokes equations are bloody hard to work with.
As far as the basic science is concerned there's not really much to argue against, it's quite simple (indeed Lord Rayleigh hypothesised that increasing greenhouse gases would cause an increase in global temperature, and he died in 1919).
The problem is that it's not readily apparent that the earth is warming, due to the complexity of the earth's climate (solar cycle, el nino oscillations etc).
Which leads to "it's colder this summer than last summer => the earth isn't warming" style arguments.
And it's difficult to predict the future of the climate in a fluid mechanical formalism, because the Navier-Stokes equations are bloody hard to work with.
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
