an inconvenient (but worth seeing) disapointment
saw al gore’s climate movie last night. if you don’t know much about the scientific background on climate change, then you’re likely to learn some pretty terrifying stuff in the film. The long and short of which is:
a) climate change is happening
b) climate change is happening as a result of human activity
and
c) climate change is bad news on a scale that’s actually likely to make humans extinct.
If you know the scientific background on climate change, then watching the film is like pulling teeth - getting throught countless puke-inducing “Gore is a sensitive world saver” interludes. Much more interesting would have been interviews with the actual scientists to explain things in more detail (rather than Gore saying over and over, “My friend blah blah told me in 1972 that blah blah.”) Or even some interviews with Elizabeth Kolbert, whose brilliant work on climate science in the New Yorker I gather helped shape this movie. You can’t get the New Yorker stuff online, but you can buy the book (or borrow it from your library): Field Notes from a Catastrophe.
The movie didn’t really address the issue which I think most significant and frightening: if you look at the climate data, you’ll note that human civilization has developed in the relatively mild, stable climate of the past 10,000 years. Coincidence? Civilization developed because we can count on climate for agriculture. Without predictable growing seasons, sorry folks, but we’re close to finished. See that little anomaly on the far left of the graph below? Note how the graph stays pretty constant there, not too hot, not too cold, no big swings, like you see during the massive warming periods followed by radical cooling? Notice how that wee anomaly is when civilization developed?
The climate is a complex system. Mess with it too much, and you throw it into chaos. We’re messing with it.
For the best up-to-the minute layperson’s guide to scientific analysis about climate change, check RealClimate.org.
This is a very scary thing we are playing with, and even if I hated Gore’s movie, maybe it’ll help wake up some people.
I’ve got to rush out and didn’t get your explanation of the graph (I’ll be back), but it occurred to me the other day that if we beat this, then we’re almost assured of getting on it our lives for the next million years without fear of the next ice age. We will, in effect, be able to prevent the next one. All that said, I am not a climatologist of any sort.
Comment by Robin — July 11, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
ha! sorry robin, we won’t be able to beat it. the question is how much do we exacerbate impending doom. the climate goes thru huge fluctuations over geologic time, based on a number of important factors: variations in the earth’s orbit (=amount of sun energy), plate tectonics (& volcanic eruptions), CO2 in atmosphere, reflective vs absorbative properties of earth, ocean currents etc etc. it is a delicate system, and we are in a time of great stability. but that stability won;t last, no matter what we do. so its not really a question of beating climate change, but trying to make sure we do as little as possible that will upset the balance, to bring it on faster.
Comment by hugh — July 12, 2006 @ 11:07 pm