Amazing to see the subject of climate change discussed even on a rotorheads forum. And frankly sad to see some of the views being put forward.
Some brief nibbles of thought from an Earth Scientist and a pilot.
- Right, first off.....Global Warming is not a term used by scientists except in a very restricted sense. It is clearly biaised and laden with connotations. Climate Change is what we're talking about and vastly more accurate
- The Earth is indeed highly cyclical. The heart of this dicussion is the meaning of these cycles and what forcing on them occurs. This is not a straightforward or easily discernible question. Think Fourier Analysis on a massive scale.
- The debate in the mainstream media is not conducted with the same level of rationality as the same one in the science community: to put it clearly - whether global climate change is caused by increasing GHG will not be necessarily unquestionably proved even in our lifetime (although it is clearly a potentially very strong driver) and is almost not the point. The BIG question you want to be asking yourself is whether pumping the levels of CO2 we are into the atmosphere is something sensible to do. On that, there is universal agreement: It's not clever. See last note for further reading.
- As pilots, we deal with risk mitigation all the time. When we get airborne, we can never quite ascertain what will occur during a flight, even with 20,000 hours. We are not only dealing with a man-made device, but, more importantly, a natural system....the Earth's atmosphere. We act therefore on the risks and uncertainties, work with them and based on science, follow precautionary principles constantly.
- Why the veherment diatribe about this one Earth Science topic of Climate Change? Why not about Peak Oil Theory or any number of other issues that also affect your life (livelihoods...?) and yet people do not feel qualified to talk upon unless they work in the field. Would you let a non-commercial pilot tell you categorically how your hard-worn experience and judgement is lacking, that you don't know your business?
- Would you take one METAR and scale up a Form 415 off it? No, well, this is what asking oneself about whether individual climatic conditions in one region over even a few decades period is equivalent to. It may be representative of the bigger picture, it may be not. When you plan a flight, you start with the evidence from the 415 or even greater scale, not the other way around. This is how Earth Scientists of all varieties work: we start at the large scale and work in, decreasing our predictability as we go....until we can measure something, but then only know it has limited spatial relevence. Sound familiar?
- In summary, I'll ask simply whether you would consider such closed-book thinking is appropriate to the art (or the science) of flying? Well, it is also inappropriate for the study of Earth phenomenon. We will never have perfect understanding of either, so I would suggest we continue to practice risk management and a dose of humility as we continue on the ever-present learning curve.
- And if you want one reason why we should be doing something, go look for Bryan Lovell's (University of Cambridge, ex-BP oil hound, Pres of Geol Society) research on CO2 levels in the Paleogene and what happened when PPM levels hit the levels we are heading fast towards.....
(Apologies to all those who understand what I'm getting at....just needed to get that lot off my chest!)
BFA