On Feb. 23, a NASA satellite was launched, called Glory, to study the subtle ways solar radiance influences the planet’s climate. Why?
“We are trying to achieve better measurements of both aerosols and total solar irradiance in order to calculate the energy budget — the amount of energy entering and exiting earth’s atmosphere — as accurately as possible,” said Michael Mishchenko of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) in New York.
Meanwhile, the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado-Boulder has been keeping track of solar irradiance for years, just not with the same accuracy as Glory will. Previous satellites have shown that the sun’s irradiance fluctuates by 0.1 percent due to variations in solar electromagnetic activity, which seem to fall in 11-year cycles.
The point of all this study, however, is really this: Scientists are unclear how much industrial and agricultural activities influence global warming as compared to natural forces and fluctuations. Loads of anti-global climate change pundits have seized on this scientific statement to claim, “Aha, see they have been lying about global warming and environmental dangers.”
Well, no, that is not what these very real scientists are saying. What they are saying is this: We know for sure (get that? For Sure) there is environmental degradation taking place at an alarming rate. The rate over the last 100 years is 100 times faster than any core sample, any rock sample, any gas sample tested on earth.
What we do not know is whether the solar irradiance cycles are making it worse or better and, as James Hansen, director of GISS, said, “The range of uncertainty associated with the climate impact of aerosols is three to four times that of greenhouse gases.”
The point is greenhouse gases are certain, they are being measured, they can calculate their impact, but what they need to do is add in two more variables into the environmental impact equations: solar irradiance and aerosols. With better data from Glory, they should be able to refine their environmental models.
But — and here’s the point for the nay-sayers — what they are doing is refining the equations for global environmental degradation already underway, for certain. To what degree? With what precision are their predictions made? Ah, that is the world of science … you measure and then measure again and again. You try and perfect the numbers.
In carpentry there is a saying, “Measure twice before you cut.” When it comes to the environment, the earth’s resources, our consumption and pollution, the solar irradiance, natural forces (volcanoes, etc.), aerosol gases leaving/impacting our atmosphere, the ocean’s and northern forests’ healing ability — all these require constant measurement before we will know for sure how long and when.
“What” we already know. It is called sudden global climate change affecting every living being on earth already — with predictions ranging from 100 years to even shorter schedules before life as we know it ceases.
The “why” we also know, but are afraid to own up to — it is called human over-activity everywhere on this only home planet of ours.
There is only one Earth. I wish we could remember that and err on the side of caution, or at least listen to the scientists who know.
Peter Riva, formerly of Amenia Union, lives in New Mexico.
