Be of Good Cheer! or Why Not?

This post has two titles. If you are worried about human induced climate change, the title is "Be of Good Cheer." If you are skeptical or hostile to the idea of human induced climate change, the title is "Why Not?"

I am following up on a post from Everyday Scientist, who looks at some recent results on the ozone hole and how current observations are deviating from the trajectory predicted before human behavior changes as a result of the Montreal Protocol.

"The images on the left show a computer model of what the ozone hole (blue) would have looked like if we had done nothing; the ones on the right are what we’ve (probably) done by eliminating CFCs from the atmosphere. The large ozone hole would have been seriously catastrophic: Living in NYC or Tokyo would mean getting dangerous sunburns in 5 minutes of sun exposure. Ouch.

I think the ozone hole offers two lessons. (1) That climate science is not BS. And (2) that humans can cause and solve global atmospheric problems. The first probably won’t convince any global-warming skeptic, because they could claim that it was the same faulty science then as now, and that there never was a ozone hole.

But the second lesson should inspire all but the most adamant doubters. Humans are powerful enough to dramatically alter Earth’s environment, sometimes in catastrophic ways. Moreover, we can collaborate internationally to solve global problems. Why are we not inspired to slow global weirding (and solve other international problems such as abject poverty)?"

I am more hopeful for the climate skeptic, if not the hostile. The ozone hole is a much faster developing climate change than global warming. There are undeniable changes for the worse and then dampening of those changes, all within the last 40 years with an excellent observational record. The simulations have been highly successful at mapping that trajectory. Why is that important? The science behind the modeling is essentially the same as behind the climate modeling predicting global warming. It works for the ozone hole. There is a strong probability it is also correct with regard to climate change. Why not?

An afterthought: ES comments on the 'sunburn' increased UV exposure would bring. Also 'sunburnt' would be major crops, etc. Getting this right was a very big deal.

Posted by Michael Fuson