The Logic of Climate Change

Climate change is an inherently complex phenomenon. Two basic problems lie at its crux. Firstly, we don't know exactly how the climate works and hence the modelling predictions offered by scientists have wild ranges of up to three degrees over a century, the difference between adaptable and apocalyptic. Secondly, we don't have any easy solutions - the (western) world must transform both its economy through a transition away from reliance on carbon emitting sources of power and its whole philosophy towards the world. The Western mantra, which is most strongly expressed in the attitude of the US, is that the environment is ripe for human exploitation and we should bend nature to our will. I suspect that the latter lies at the core of much of climate change denial.

From a general review of theories floating around about the global climate, climate factors can be classified into three categories:

1. Heat provision
2. Heat retention
3. Heat distribution

These categories interact to produce chain reactions of climate change on a global basis.

The most obvious factor in making the Earth habitable is heat energy from the Sun. The amount of heat reaching the planet is vitally important as are the places on the Earth it reaches. Hence sunspots, which appear to correlate with decreased sunlight, may have led to the so-called Little Ice Age - the point at which the Maunder Minimum, the lowest level of sunspot activity occurs roughly correlates with temperature decline. On a more massive scale, orbital forcing, i.e. changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis are suspected of playing a major role in causing Ice Ages, by changing the amount of sunlight reaching the poles and encouraging the formation of thicker ice caps.

Heat retention means the planet's 'greenhouse effect', as caused by the atmosphere. Levels of CO2 over time appear to correlate with a warming or cooling trend depending on whether they are higher or lower. Generally, if the Earth has a concentration of 285 ppm or less of C02, then it is consistent with an ice age. The net concentration of C02 is affected by the distribution of vegetation on land and plankton in oceans (one theory suggests that the forests of the Carboniferous period which gave us much of our coal actually caused an ice age by reducing C02 levels!) plus the ability of the soil and the oceans to absorb and retain C02. At certain temperatures this absorption mechanism goes into the red, meaning it actually starts to release pent up C02. C02 is the major gas in this system as it has both a high effect on heat retention (100 times that of water vapour) and a reasonably long life in the atmosphere (between 80 and 200 years depending on absorption mechanisms).

Heat distribution means the ability for warm and cool water to flow around the planet through ocean currents, which both regulates temperature and the flow of nutrients. The most famous example of this is the Gulf Stream, which plays a key role in keeping northern Europe habitable. This can be affected by both salinity of the water (hence the current may flow slower with a more diluted flow as fresh water pushes more dense, warmer salty water to be bottom) and the alignment of continents. It is thought to be a precondition of an ice age to have one ocean entirely surrounded, as is the case with the Arctic and a land mass covering the other pole (as with Antarctica). This could however just be based on retrospective explanation.

With so many variables, not to mention regional to global variations caused by global dimming from volcanic ash or fire or the emission of gases by eruption, it is little wonder the models cannot provide more than a guide based on well-meaning assumptions. Those assumptions are made by groups who have already embraced the idea that humans must exist within their environment and adopt sustainable practices rather than attempt to overcome and impose their will on it.

What all of the science points to is that, but for, major increase in heat retention, we should not be getting warmer, if anything we should be heading towards another glacial period - i.e. an ice age.

However, many people, not least those with close ties to industries involved in that exploitation, have a number of philosophical reasons why they consider the threats to be overblown. There is no one clear profile for climate change doubters and they include a motley band of politicians, scientists and commentators. I summarise these under the following headings:

Aristotlean denial - commentators, often with no scientific background, who see the C02 v Temperature Change Chart used by Al Gore and say it shows C02 rising as temperature increases therefore A causes B, but B cannot cause A. This is false logic which fails to take into account the fact that if you warm up the place by heat provision, you can release more C02 which furthers warms by heat retention.

Galilieo/ Rationalist denial - other figures, both commentators and scientists fancy themselves to be defenders of the rationalist scientific tradition against the intolerance of an emotive semi-religious zeal. They are not Galileo, who relied on observation despite it going against his own beliefs.

Capitalist denial - this is based on the fact that Marxists without a home to goto have adopted the green movement like new-aged hermit shell crabs and hence climate change warnings are discredited by a wish to send capitalism into the stone age.

Dominance denial - this is the attitude that we can do what we like and nothing's going to stop us, closely allied to the belief that if we do get into trouble, we can rely on some technological saviour down the track

Divine denial - sometimes heard that humans are incapable of causing planetary climate change because they have much less influence on things than God.

Mathematical denial - water vapour constitutes 97% of the greenhouse effect - if anything causes warming it should be water vapour. This completely fails to account for C02's longer atmospheric life and heat control capability.

Geological denial - used to taking a million-year-view, some geologists are on record as saying that humans' momentary stay on the planet cannot have much effect. Geologists should be looking at continental alignment and other factors which should tell us we are not on situation natural with climate trends, it should be getting cooler, not warmer.

Metereological denial - used to seeing changes in weather, some meterologists cite previous droughts/floods etc to say that these changes are nothing out of the ordinary.

Funding denial - a few scientists on the margins act as guns for hire, formerly seen defending tobacco companies with dubious cancer research

Political denial - this includes politicians protecting jobs and concerned about losing support from corporations for taking a stand

The original word 'holocaust' comes from Greek. It literally means 'burned completely by fire', in the manner of a sacrifice being burned for offering to the gods. Unless the voices of these vociferous objectors are marginalised and decisions made on the basis of science and what measures can be put in place that will allow for an equitable and effective carbon transition and climate adaptation, we might all end up ultimately sacrificed on their altar of conceit.