Whodunnit
It sometimes reads like a game of Cluedo.
The universal consensus is that global warming is increasing. Yet the arguments around who is responsible rage as fiercely as ever. Whodunnit?
As the Copenhagen Summit on climate change kicks in, we’ve been poring over the avalanche of media articles on the subject. And while there is a significant majority of scientists who now conclude that global warming is man-made, the sceptic camp remains as vocal as ever.
Photo courtesy of rose of red rock
The Do Lectures cover plenty of this material, while we’ve also been fascinated to learn this week that the history of studying climate change didn’t begin with Al Gore and the new millennium. It actually has a venerable history stretching back to the turn of the nineteenth century.
It was in 1824 that a French physicist, Joseph Fourier, discovered the “greenhouse effect” whereby gases in the atmosphere trap heat like the glass in a conservatory. Thirty-seven years later, John Tyndall – an Irish physicist – took up the topic and identified carbon dioxide as one of its causes.
And in 1894, Svante Arrehenius – a thirty five year old physicist in Sweden heartbroken by the collapse of his marriage – decided to focus his mind by tackling a complex mathematical problem. Often labouring fourteen hours a day, he worked out what the effect of different amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases would have on global temperatures.
At the end of his year of slings and arrows, he mused, “It is unbelievable that so trifling a matter has cost me a full year”. His trifling matter was to have estimated that doubling the amount of gas would cause global temperatures to rise by 5C-6C – almost exactly the same conclusion reached today by scientists with superfast computers at their disposal!
Our own take on the Copenhagen Summit is that its attempt to unite the world around a single global issue is to be welcomed, if ambitious. As the 350 campaign has made clear, the target of 350 parts per million as the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere represents an important touchstone for future debate.
Photo courtesy of RichardO
And yet we’re not scientists. We feel pretty ignorant in the face of the arguments coming from climate change campaigners and sceptics. We simply don’t have the scientific expertise.
But we don’t see the question of whodunnit as the central issue. The question of whether humankind is or is not responsible seems less pressing to us than a different thought. Namely, that reducing our reliance on fossil fuel and CO2 emissions is surely a good step whatever.
Although it is important that scientists make their respective cases, finally nothing is going to change simply because we place humankind in toto– or even Western countries alone - in the dock. Change is going to happen when we each begin to make different individual choices about how we manage our lives based on our knowledge.
And for this, we need a more extensive programme of education. We all need to become much more conscious of our choices and critical of our consumer suppliers. We certainly don’t feel angels in this regard at Millican. We’ve made significant steps in terms of creating a business run on sustainable lines. But we’re aware of our shortfalls and failings. There are some key areas in which we’d like to manufacture using different materials and we’re waiting on developments in those areas to make costs more manageable. There will always be more that we can do.
However, we’re glad to have got started on making more conscious choices and whittling down our over-consumption. The Copenhagen Summit surely represents an important moment in time. The momentum behind these issues has reached critical mass. The ball is rolling so let’s all roll with it and determine how we each can influence the future for the better.
When The Times back in the 1930’s asked a number of writers for essays on the topic ‘What’s Wrong With The World?’, the author G.K. Chesterton sent in the shortest, most succinct reply:
“Dear Sirs,
I am.
Sincerely Yours,
G.K. Chesterton”
He dunnit. I dunnit. You dunnit. We all dunnit.
The universal consensus is that global warming is increasing. Yet the arguments around who is responsible rage as fiercely as ever. Whodunnit?
As the Copenhagen Summit on climate change kicks in, we’ve been poring over the avalanche of media articles on the subject. And while there is a significant majority of scientists who now conclude that global warming is man-made, the sceptic camp remains as vocal as ever.
Photo courtesy of rose of red rockThe Do Lectures cover plenty of this material, while we’ve also been fascinated to learn this week that the history of studying climate change didn’t begin with Al Gore and the new millennium. It actually has a venerable history stretching back to the turn of the nineteenth century.
It was in 1824 that a French physicist, Joseph Fourier, discovered the “greenhouse effect” whereby gases in the atmosphere trap heat like the glass in a conservatory. Thirty-seven years later, John Tyndall – an Irish physicist – took up the topic and identified carbon dioxide as one of its causes.
And in 1894, Svante Arrehenius – a thirty five year old physicist in Sweden heartbroken by the collapse of his marriage – decided to focus his mind by tackling a complex mathematical problem. Often labouring fourteen hours a day, he worked out what the effect of different amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases would have on global temperatures.
At the end of his year of slings and arrows, he mused, “It is unbelievable that so trifling a matter has cost me a full year”. His trifling matter was to have estimated that doubling the amount of gas would cause global temperatures to rise by 5C-6C – almost exactly the same conclusion reached today by scientists with superfast computers at their disposal!
Our own take on the Copenhagen Summit is that its attempt to unite the world around a single global issue is to be welcomed, if ambitious. As the 350 campaign has made clear, the target of 350 parts per million as the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere represents an important touchstone for future debate.
Photo courtesy of RichardO
And yet we’re not scientists. We feel pretty ignorant in the face of the arguments coming from climate change campaigners and sceptics. We simply don’t have the scientific expertise.
But we don’t see the question of whodunnit as the central issue. The question of whether humankind is or is not responsible seems less pressing to us than a different thought. Namely, that reducing our reliance on fossil fuel and CO2 emissions is surely a good step whatever.
Although it is important that scientists make their respective cases, finally nothing is going to change simply because we place humankind in toto– or even Western countries alone - in the dock. Change is going to happen when we each begin to make different individual choices about how we manage our lives based on our knowledge.
And for this, we need a more extensive programme of education. We all need to become much more conscious of our choices and critical of our consumer suppliers. We certainly don’t feel angels in this regard at Millican. We’ve made significant steps in terms of creating a business run on sustainable lines. But we’re aware of our shortfalls and failings. There are some key areas in which we’d like to manufacture using different materials and we’re waiting on developments in those areas to make costs more manageable. There will always be more that we can do.
However, we’re glad to have got started on making more conscious choices and whittling down our over-consumption. The Copenhagen Summit surely represents an important moment in time. The momentum behind these issues has reached critical mass. The ball is rolling so let’s all roll with it and determine how we each can influence the future for the better.
When The Times back in the 1930’s asked a number of writers for essays on the topic ‘What’s Wrong With The World?’, the author G.K. Chesterton sent in the shortest, most succinct reply:
“Dear Sirs,
I am.
Sincerely Yours,
G.K. Chesterton”
He dunnit. I dunnit. You dunnit. We all dunnit.
posted by jorrit at
15:36
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home