Editor’s Note: This is a guest post by SherryGreens.
Unlike rocket science, the basic premise of climate change is pretty easy to understand. Yes, it involves a really big planet, and yes, there are a series of interrelated systems involved (earth, air, water)… But there are some basic cause and effect relationships that are hard to deny.
So why all the denial about climate change?
How about we back it up and start at the beginning. We all learned about the greenhouse effect in grade 5 or so, right? Our atmosphere is made up of 5 basic gases – water vapor, carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrous oxide and ozone. As the sun beams down on our planet, it radiates energy that passes through the atmosphere to Earth’s surface. The surface absorbs this energy, and is warmed by it. Earth’s surface then lets off thermal radiation as a result of this warming. This thermal radiation goes back up into the atmosphere, and because it is made up of longer wavelengths, it is absorbed by the gases in the atmosphere. These gases then re-radiate the energy again in all directions, and some of it reaches back down to the surface again, where the cycle continues.
The more greenhouse gases there are up in the atmosphere, the more energy will be absorbed by those gases and radiated back down to the surface. So, the thicker the atmosphere, the more heat is trapped. We can take a look at Venus to see the impact of a thick atmosphere, with average temperatures in the 860 °F range. Conversely, Mercury, which is even closer to the sun but with little atmosphere, drops down to -290 °F at night.
Image by Wikipedia: Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars
Earth is sometimes called a “Goldilocks” planet by astrophysicists. It is not too close to the sun, not too far away, but just right to sustain liquid water, which is essential for carbon-based life. (Did you know that there is a space probe out there right now called Kepler, following Earth around the sun, looking for other Goldilocks planets? As of earlier this year, it has found 54.) Now part of this Goldilocks equation is also the atmosphere. Too thick, and all the liquid water boils away. Too thin, and all the liquid water is frozen solid. Here on Earth, we enjoy an atmosphere that is just right.
I am sure we are all interested in keeping our Earthly atmosphere as perfect for life as possible. We must all agree on that. And we must agree that the greenhouse effect exists and is real, even our grade 5 counterparts will back us up on that one. We also know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and that all things being equal, more of it will result in a more substantial atmosphere, which will invariably, heat up the planet.
The only thing left to ask is – are human related activities the cause of the increase in carbon dioxide or is it a natural occurrence?
This is where things get dicey with respect to those climate change deniers. Many people that used to deny that climate change was happening, are now saying that it is happening but that humans are not the cause. The Earth heats up and cools down all the time, they say. It is a natural process.
Sure there have been ice ages and then warming periods and then ice ages again. Certain planetary events and processes did warm up the planet, then things reached a tipping point and everything was cooled off again.
But the real question to ask is – if all 6.9 billion of us existed during those times, would we have survived?
So much is at stake now, now that we exist. We have evolved on this planet as the highest order of intelligent life. We can say that we are part of this planet; we don’t just sit upon it. Some might say that we are the actual intelligence of the planet, and if the Earth could be thought of as a single complex organism – then we might be thought of as the brain.
Given this, and given that we may have some power to shape our own destiny through our intelligence and technology – surely we must act to preserve our very survival, regardless of the cause of the warming.
So are we the cause for the dramatic rise carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Well, carbon dioxide has been increasing steadily since the industrial revolution. We keep burning fossil fuels that took millions of years to accumulate, and putting that carbon into the sky. Interestingly, when the economy tanked, the increase in carbon slowed down a bit. Hmmm.
If we don’t start to decrease the amount of carbon in the atmosphere to a safer level (a maximum of 350 parts per million, which is the rallying cry of many people), then we run into a situation where we cannot stop it no matter what we do. We could shut down every factory and car engine and airplane and every other carbon emitting device, and still it would not matter. The Earth would still warm up.
Why? Well there are some positive feedback mechanisms at play here. Once we warm up a bit, then there is less snow cover in winter and less of the sun’s heat is reflected. So then we warm up a bit more. This causes the permafrost regions to melt and release their methane (20 times more potent than CO2). So then we warm up a bit more. This causes the Polar Regions to melt (which has started aleady, my goodness the Northwest Passage is now open) and then there is even less snow and ice to reflect the sun’s rays. Then the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica start melting, more methane is released…
Once it starts, it is pretty hard to stop.
Sigh.
So what do we do about it? Unfortunately, there are huge political, economic and social forces at work that don’t want to do anything about it. That is the reality. I don’t know which is scarier – the threat of climate change or the threat of being too wrapped up in our current way of life that we sit here and do nothing.
Some say that we just all need to start making those small easy changes, those lightbulb changes, those reusable bag changes. It is true; we do need to do that. But I am here to challenge you to make a radical change in your own personal life. More than lightbulbs. More than bags. This is a radical problem and it needs radical action. Radical action gets noticed, radical action takes guts. What if you gave up driving? What would people think? What if you gave up supermarket food? Would someone else think twice after observing your commitment? What if you decided not to buy anything new for a year? What if you quit your job to work on an organic homestead? Who would notice? Who would look at their own lives and their own actions and reconsider? Who would be inspired? Maybe your neighbor, maybe a friend? Maybe you could just be that pebble that starts the landslide. Maybe someone that you inspired would go on to inspire a corporate leader, or a politician, or a venture capitalist looking to invest their money in the next big thing (like harnessing solar energy!). Maybe, just maybe, you could help change the world.
We have to use our intelligence, our technology and innovation on this one guys. We have to think differently about how we live on this planet. If our governments will not do it for us, then we have to do it for ourselves.
Radical change (it’s not rocket science).
Let’s do it!
Well written post . . . but I am NOT going to be making any of the radical changes you’ve suggested.
Why not? A few reasons:
(1) Most things that we worry about never happen anyway. For example, an asteroid (like the one that JUST missed us last week)might stop us in our tracks before Climate Change kills us.
(2) I did my part by (a) NOT having children, (b) downsizing, and (c) becoming a vegetarian. I’ll leave it to carnivores with children living in McMansions to figure out how to protect the planet for their offspring and other Greedy Meanies.
(3) Because I’m tired of trying to change the world.
It is hard to make those radical changes, I get it. I also understand your frustration (more than you know!). But for me, I have to try. I have to be able to look my kids in the eyes, and tell them that I tried. I think it all starts and ends with trying.
I’m not “giving up” ~ I plan to remain a child-free vegetarian with a “less is more” approach to life. But the “radical” solutions you’re proposing don’t appeal to me.
I’m not going to sacrifice my happiness today for a future that may never arrive. I’ve done enough.
Someone else can pick up the torch, or not . . .
Sherry, Thanks for your great intro to the science behind climate change. I too agree that we have to figure out how to live on this planet if the government will not do it for us. I’m not yet sure how to do it, but currently exploring ways. I think starting socially conscious and community-oriented businesses is a good place to start.
I love this post. It’s clear, logical, and persuasive. At the same time (I’ve been thinking about this), some people can do things cold turkey while other people move towards radical change in small, not very exciting steps. It literally took me a year to go vegetarian — for most of the first year, I just stopped eating beef and pork. Then I cut out everything but things with incidental meat (like, dare I say it, chicken flavored Cup o’ Noodles). Then I started avoiding even that. Although I’m closer than I ever have been to giving up my car, it’s probably going to take another year or two — and quite possibly an expensive repair that I just don’t want to pay for — before I actually do it. I admire people who make big, sudden changes (and attract a lot of attention for doing so), but I think smaller, gradual changes that add up are more my speed.
I totally agree. I think that there is a lot that goes in behind making a big life change like going vegetarian or giving up your car. Things build, you learn more, you do a little, so a little more does not seem as bad. But to the outside world – they might not be in on all those small changes, those small reconsiderations… They just see that wow – she is done with meat! Or wow – she gave up her car! Or wow – she is moving to an organic homestead! I do think that radical change gets noticed, even if it is not so radical to you after all.
Hi Sherry,
I’m sorry, but I don’t think you will persuade anyone who is sceptical about climate change or the reasons for it with this article. Why? Because you didn’t really answer the questions that they raise, e.g.:
- Why is it CO2 that is made the ‘climate killer’ when there is only about 0,039% in the air? How can that have such a dramatic effect?
- Why does it suddenly snow in regions where there has never been snow fall recorded in history? And why seem our European and North American winters as well to be getting harder and harder each year? How does that fit into global warming?
And there are so many more questions sceptical people have about this topic. Have you even read what the sceptics say, and I mean: not just in the mass media? It doesn’t look like it, sorry.
You see, I’m open for answers and I’m not biased (I’m not saying that you are wrong and the sceptics are right!) – so if you can answer these questions I would be happy about it – but as of yet I unfortunately didn’t read anything that would really answer questions like these. I mean it’s (at least to me) obvious that *something* is happening with the climate, but is it really global warming? I’m still not so sure about that.
Having said that: no, I’m not one of the oil guys.
I do think that our civilization is on the wrong track. That’s why it’s my dream to find a spot where I can live in nature without disturbing it too much. I don’t have a car and I don’t want one. I’m not a vegetarian but rather a vegan. I don’t buy much and I want to buy even less in the future.
What I think is the deeper and underlying problem here is our human ego. You mentioned it a bit in the last part of the article. Most people work like crazy every day just to buy stuff that they don’t really need. Because it’s the ‘right’ thing to do, as they have been told over and over again. But is it? I don’t think so. As long as we don’t change our ways from the inside we are just working on symptoms and not on the cause.
Btw: If I still had the choice I *wouldn’t* buy the new lightbulbs for ecological reasons. Yes, maybe the old ones use up more energy. BUT (and that is a strong one) the new lightbulbs contain many types of toxics. What is up with that? We are casting out the devil by Beelzebub. These things do not make much of a natural light, they even are suspected of permanently emanating toxic gases in small dosages and therefore may not only be unhealthy ecologically but also for every human being using these things. Ugh…
I’d like to propose some answers to Jonathan’s questions, and I must point out that the facts that back me up are not hard to find.
Co2 is, admittedly, not as powerful as a greenhouse gas compared to methane and nitrous oxide. However, its concentration in the atmosphere has been increasing exponentially (keeping up with global industrialization) to the point where CO2 currently makes up >80% of GHG emissions in the US. Think of it like alcohol: hard liquor is much worse for your liver than beer. But beer is widely available and cheaper, consumed in much larger quantities by the vast majority of the population, and probably consumed on a daily basis by many more people than you think. So if you want to improve people’s health, you target beer as your top priority. Targeting hard liquor instead would not make as big of a difference. We need to target CO2 because we emit so much of it from so many sources and in so many parts of the world. That’s not to say we should ignore methane and nitrous oxide, but the priority must be CO2, first and foremost.
As far harder winters, global climate change (often incorrectly called global warming) causes an overall increase in the planet’s average temperature. It does not cause an increase in every corner of the globe. Just because the summer was predicted to be hotter where I live doesn’t mean each and every day is going to be hotter than last year, it means that the average temperature will be higher than the average temperature was last year. Also of note is that global increases in the average temperature cause an increase in extreme weather events (droughts, flooding, wildfires, tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc.) and changes in precipitation patterns, so drier areas will get wetter and wetter areas will get drier. The atmosphere, water cycle, and weather patterns are all very complex, so even small changes in global temperature have huge consequences.
Jonathan, not having a car, eating a vegan diet, and consuming less than most are three incredibly helpful things you’re doing. Please keep up the good work! And yes, new CFL bulbs contain mercury, so even our modern solutions have flaws. But don’t let that discourage you (especially considering household energy use accounts for such a small proportion of national energy use). I took a course on sustainability last year that explained a lot of these big concepts in a way that was easy to understand. I encourage you to do the same. Since you don’t consume much, you probably have enough time on your hands to do some studying.
And for everyone else, here’s a great visual essay about a woman who gave up her SUV: http://www.frankejames.com/debate/?p=22
Hi Jonathan, I understand your sentiments Sherry’s post. It was intended to be an introduction to climate science, explaining the basics of planetary science and how that fits into the picture. I’m not super well-read in climate science myself, so I went to look up some answers to your questions. CO2 happens to be a trace gas that is one of the “greenhouse gases”. The reason they are called greenhouse gases is because they all have this property: they allow sunlight to pass through, which is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. Once the surface reaches a certain temperature, it radiates energy out, which are longer wavelengths of radiation than the original sunlight. Greenhouse gases absorb radiation at this wavelength. See the more technical explanation here: http://mysite.du.edu/~etuttle/weather/atmrad.htm
So, CO2 is particularly dangerous in global warming. Other gases like oxygen do not absorb radiation at that particular wavelength emitted by the Earth’s surface.
You’re already doing a lot to reduce your eco-impact, so that’s great! Keep up the great work!