Climate Change: The Fundamentals

-


In having a conversation about climate change, one often encounters several tangential themes -- domination of the developed countries over the developing ones; economic agenda; political propaganda; religious oppression; corporate greed -- in short, the use of the climate crisis by a particular group of people for furthering their own agenda, irrespective of ground reality. Some of these themes are perfectly valid, some only partially so, and some are outrightly ridiculous. However, the one thing I notice every single time is that the "theme" of the conversation soon steers far away from the science.

This could be because of several reasons:
  1. The person does not understand science, and hence wants to skip that
  2. The person partially understands the science, but prioritises other perspectives above science to understand the climate crisis and its consequences
  3. The person completely understands the relevant science and wants to use this understanding to solve other issues apart from the climate crisis

Of course, it is futile to engage with the first group. They don't understand the science, they don't want to, and they still think they deserve a seat on the discussion table. The only unfortunate reason they are relevant to the climate crisis is that their actions affect all the others too.

File:US-Klima-Politik.jpg
Source: Wikimedia Commons

The third group is extremely rare to find, and I have tremendous respect for them. Please note, I do not mean that one must know all about climate science to apply it elsewhere -- but it's usually quite easy to recognise people who have a good foundation of the basic science and a scientific approach to problem solving. Such people are pivotal in providing solutions to several problems that arise / are intensified due to climate change -- including socio-economic problems, medical problems, policy-making for complicated situations, etc.

The trouble is that the large majority of voices in the climate discussion tend to belong to the second group. And every time someone brings in alternative perspectives before understanding the science, it not only dilutes the whole conversation but usually adds so much confusion that we stray farther away from a solution!

I cannot over-emphasise this : we cannot solve the climate crisis without understanding the science behind it. Also, false / incomplete knowledge is a dangerous thing.

If you want to be a voice of reason in the chaotic climate conversation, there are 3 fundamentals that are absolutely necessary to understand:
  1. Greenhouse Gases - what exactly is the problem?
  2. Natural vs Anthropogenic Climate Change - what's creating this problem?
  3. Future Climate Change Scenarios - what's going to happen?
These concepts form the foundation for understanding the climate crisis and must not be skipped before jumping to other conclusions. Also, these are the most incontrovertible concepts of the climate conversation backed by solid scientific consensus from across the world. Note that this list is not exhaustive, but I urge you to solidify your understanding of these concepts before jumping to more advanced ones.

Since scientific articles tend to be complicated, this is my attempt to simplify the science and place relevant information in one place in an accessible manner. Any feedback related to making the content more easy to understand would be appreciated. This climate conversation will follow some basic rules:

Rule 0 : No name-calling.
Rule 1 : Use authentic scientific sources.
Rule 2 : Focus on the science first, then the consequences.
Rule 3 : Remove unnecessary variables.
Rule 4 : Admit what you don't know.



-----

To subscribe to such posts, please click here.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On Darwin's Lost World - Part II

-
<< Previous page So what do we (did Darwin) know by now (then) ? That living creatures from the very very ancient past (we're talking in terms of millions of years) were often found preserved in the rock record. That we could make out some things about the past environments from these fossils. Fossils showed specific associations: you saw only certain types and groups of fossils in certain suites of rocks (belonging to different periods of geological time). There came a dead end at the base of the Cambrian. Scientists like to call this the Cambrian Explosion today, but back then, many of them were more inclined to dismiss this either as a figment of the imagination of relatively smaller body of researchers, or simply, incomplete/inaccurate science. That the Creator had made us all, was the popular view. 3 theories emerged to explain why we see the Cambrian Explosion (if it even is a real thing!): Charles Lyell Interestingly, it is said that Lyell was
Read more

On Darwin's Lost World

-
Image
Martin Brasier was a prolific paleontologist. And from what little I know of him, he must have been a pretty cool guy. I recently read his book "Darwin's Lost World" and it was definitely one of the better decisions of my life. On Darwin Thankfully, even the most plebeian of science curricula finds it worthwhile to describe Charles Darwin's scientific accomplishments. To me, all through childhood, Darwin represented my superiority to the apes. When someone said Darwin, I would get a mental picture of an ape gradually turning human. That's an overly simplistic picture, but then again, there is so much to learn about everything  that one doesn't quite know where to start. Source The rock record is the only thing that can give us a picture of the ancient Earth. Most other branches of science can tell you what the Earth is like, and why it is the way it is. But it was Geology that first told us what the Earth was  like, and bits of why it w
Read more

What is ENSO? Page 2 - SSTs and trade winds

-
Image
  This is Page 2 of the sub-series "What is ENSO?". If you haven't already, please read Page 1 first. For convenience, keep that page open in a different tab. = = = What is ENSO? In the previous post , we learnt to identify ENSO phases from the perspective of sea surface temperature anomalies . In this post, I'm going to answer a question that no one really asked ―  What if I wanted to identify ENSO phases from the perspective of sea surface temperatures (SSTs) instead? What if, for no good reason but because I felt like it, I wanted to do away with the "anomalies" bit? Looking at SSTs instead of SST anomalies makes matters unnecessarily complicated, but we're going to do it anyway because it also teaches us a lot. In the image below, I've plotted SSTs from the HadISST dataset. These are mean SSTs for the months of December, January and February (DJF) over all years from 1872-2009. Why did we select the months of DJF? Because ENSO events can be seen
Read more