AS A REGULAR READER of The Herald’s editorial page, in recent weeks I noticed that a fellow citizen continues to write and publish various bits of weather data from the U.S. and California. His postings appear to imply that climate change does not exist.
Most of us realize that the stochastic nature of local or regional weather patterns provides no meaningful gauge of global climate change. So it is not clear what point my fellow Benician is attempting to make. Better to look to our learned scientists.
Our great country boasts many, if not most, of the best scientists on Earth. Perhaps the frequent Herald contributor can explain the graph at right, which depicts global warming and also accounts for temperature changes in the ocean.
I certainly have no scientific training in climate theory, but I know it took millions (if not billions) of years for the Earth to suck enough carbon out of the atmosphere and sequester it in a variety of fossil fuels (natural gas, coal, oil, shale, etc.).
In so doing, climate conditions were created that resulted in the complex life forms — including humans — that we enjoy today.
So why, then, do some folks think it’s a stretch that dumping gobs of that same carbon back into the atmosphere in just a few hundred years might be a problem?
Craig Snider is a Benicia resident. He recently retired from the U.S. Forest Service, where he was regional environmental coordinator for the national forests in California from 2003-14.
Sharing is caring!
“So why, then, do some folks think it’s a stretch that dumping gobs of that same carbon back into the atmosphere in just a few hundred years might be a problem? ”
Great question, and one that goes routinely ignored.
As far as that “fellow citizen”, you hit the nail on the head with: “Most of us realize that the stochastic nature of local or regional weather patterns provides no meaningful gauge of global climate change.” When I commented on this aspect in the comment section of said fellow citizen’s column, all that was returned were a plethora of glib (to be polite) comments.
Mr. Snider,
You raise some good points and ask a very reasonable question, doing so in a manner which invites discussion, kudos to you for this.
Before responding to your question, if I may preface it with some comments:
Your graph paints a scary picture indeed, one which will cause some distress to many. The graph though starts in 1880 coinciding with the increased use of carbon fuels. Thus one is lead to draw the conclusion that the burning of fossil fuels is solely responsible for the illustrated increases.
However, if the chart were to be extended further back in time one would see the sinusoidal like curves indicating the many periods of warming and cooling.
That then begs the question: What caused those warming/cooling trends throughout history?
The obvious answer is: other factors.
Which in turn begs a second question: How do we know those ‘other factors’ are not still at play today?
Now to respond (which is not to answer) your question:
”why, then, do some folks think it’s a stretch that dumping gobs of that same carbon back into the atmosphere in just a few hundred years might be a problem?
To believe that “no problems” are existent because of the burning of fossil fuels is as extreme of a position as to believe that the burning of fossil fuels is 100% responsible for any changes (warming or cooling) of the earth’s atmosphere today. Yet that is exactly the position being taken by the “Man Caused Global Warming Alarmists” crowd.
As in so many cases; the truth lies in between the extremes of both sides.
There are 3 sides to every story – your side, my side, and the truth.