Of the options, global cooling is more likely

Far be it from me to get between Monte and Jack on the subject of climate change, but it may not be that complicated.

The temperature on the earth’s surface is determined by radiation from the sun, which heats it, and deep space, which cools it. An increase in the earth’s temperature increases the heat radiating into outer space, which keeps the earth’s temperature from rising unchecked. Likewise, a drop in the earth’s temperature reduces the heat radiating into outer space, preventing the earth’s temperature from dropping unchecked. Engineers call this positive dynamic stability: If you release a ball on the side of a bowl it will drop, cross the bottom, climb almost to the top on the other side, and after a few cycles come to rest at the bottom of the bowl. On the other hand, if you turn the bowl over and put a ball on top of the bowl and give it a little nudge, it will pick up speed, never to slow down, like snow-boarders at Schweitzer. This is negative dynamic stability.

While the above argument applies when the air is relatively clean, it does not apply if the atmosphere is so fouled that no radiation from the sun can get through. Then it’s hello shrinkage.

Of the two scenarios, global cooling is more likely, since creating a dirty atmosphere (fires, volcanoes, man-made, etc.) is much easier than creating a clean one. If we keep the air clean, climate change will take care of itself.

DAVE MUNDELL

Sandpoint