Global warming is a major problem that we must address. This is a draft of a commentary on the issue from a systems thinking perspective. The referenced paper from MIT explains the flawed nature of public understanding of the problem. A second commentary responds to a libertarian column denying there's a problem and explains why George Bush's "Clear Skies" program is more aptly titled, "Cloudy Skies."
Since writing this I've added a large number of links to articles showing global warming is real and not slowing.
Jump to "Global Warming: An Inconvenient-to-Understand Truth" on "Cloudy Skies: Assessing Public Understanding of Global Warming" by John D. Sterman & Linda Booth Sweeney, System Dynamics Review, 18(2) 2002.
We humans are mentally impaired when it comes to thinking about problems such as this. Some more than others.
Jump to lies about what Al Gore said
Jump to A lying meme about what Al Gore said.
Cancer and Climate Change By PIERS J. SELLERS, 1/16/16
I’M a climate scientist [and former astronaut] who has just been told I have Stage 4 pancreatic cancer. ...
Now that my personal horizon has been steeply foreshortened, I was forced to decide how to spend my remaining time. Was continuing to think about climate change worth the bother? ...
Last year was the warmest year on record, by far. I think that future generations will look back on 2015 as an important but not decisive year in the struggle to align politics and policy with science. This is an incredibly hard thing to do. On the science side, there has been a steady accumulation of evidence over the last 15 years that climate change is real and that its trajectory could lead us to a very uncomfortable, if not dangerous, place. ...
Last year was the warmest year on record, by far. I think that future generations will look back on 2015 as an important but not decisive year in the struggle to align politics and policy with science. This is an incredibly hard thing to do. On the science side, there has been a steady accumulation of evidence over the last 15 years that climate change is real and that its trajectory could lead us to a very uncomfortable, if not dangerous, place. ...
As for me, I’ve no complaints. I’m very grateful for the experiences I’ve had on this planet. As an astronaut I spacewalked 220 miles above the Earth. Floating alongside the International Space Station, I watched hurricanes cartwheel across oceans, the Amazon snake its way to the sea through a brilliant green carpet of forest, and gigantic nighttime thunderstorms flash and flare for hundreds of miles along the Equator. From this God’s-eye-view, I saw how fragile and infinitely precious the Earth is. I’m hopeful for its future.
And so, I’m going to work tomorrow.
... and so, of course ...
Climatologist Wants To Keep Working With Terminal Cancer Diagnosis, Climate Deniers Attack Him BY JOE ROMM 1/19/16
... Breitbart wasted no time in misrepresenting and smearing Sellers, with a piece absurdly headlined, "NASA Chief: Global Warming Is Real Because I Have Cancer."
As the saying goes, the only things certain in life are death and taxes ... and denial.
Mortality is inevitable. But catastrophic climate change is not. Rather, it is a choice that humanity is making, driven in part by the most well-funded disinformation campaign in human history - and in part by humanity's own myopia and greed, which allows us to continue embracing a global fossil-fuel driven economy, even though the science now makes clear the world economy is Ponzi scheme.
Each year, we consume more and more of the world's carrying capacity - livable climate, soils and arable land, fisheries, fresh water and so on - to maintain a lifestyle that will be utterly unsustainable for our children and grandchildren.
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell." ... quote by environmental writer Edward Abbey ...
Global Ponzi Scheme Revisited: How Climate Inaction Betrays Our Children And Future Generations BY JOE ROMM 2/10/13
Fundamentally, homo “sapiens” has constructed the grandest of Ponzi schemes, whereby current generations have figured out how to live off the wealth of future generations. We are all in essence Bernie Madoffs (many wittingly, most not) or at least his most credulous clients. ...
The adults, in short, are not standing up. Sadly, most haven’t even taken the time to understand that they should.
And so every generation that comes after the Baby Boomers is poised to experience the dramatic changes in lifestyle that inevitably follow the collapse of any Ponzi scheme. In our case, investors (i.e. current generations) are paying themselves (i.e. you and me) by taking the nonrenewable resources and livable climate from future generations. To perpetuate the high returns the rich countries in particular have been achieving in recent decades, we have been taking an ever greater fraction of nonrenewable energy resources (especially hydrocarbons) and natural capital (fresh water, arable land, forests, fisheries), and, the most important nonrenewable natural capital of all — a livable climate. ...
We aren’t all Madoffs in the sense of people who have knowingly created a fraudulent Ponzi scheme for humanity. But given all of the warnings from scientists and international governments and independent energy organizations over the past quarter-century (see for instance IEA’s Bombshell Warning: We’re Headed Toward 11°F Global Warming and “Delaying Action Is a False Economy”) — it has gotten harder and harder for any of us to pretend that we are innocent victims, that we aren’t just hoping we can maintain our own personal wealth and well-being for a few more decades before the day of reckoning. Après nous le déluge.
In short, humanity has made Madoff look like a penny-ante criminal. ...
Added 2/9/16. "Conservatives say scientific researchers are in it for all the money in those grants. But the money comes from the fossil fuel industry ... paying for lies.
Climate Denialism’s Star Scientist Exposed, Paid $1.2M By Oil Companies To Deliver Friendly Results, 2/22/15
The New York Times summarizes the findings:
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
Added 2/7/06. Of course they knew!
Oil Industry Group's Own Report Shows Early Knowledge of Climate Impacts BY NEELA BANERJEE, INSIDECLIMATE NEWS, 2/5/16
A report the American Petroleum Institute commissioned in 1982 revealed its knowledge of global warming, predated its campaign to sow doubt.
A Columbia University report commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute in 1982 cautioned that global warming "can have serious consequences for man's comfort and survival." It is the latest indication that the oil industry learned of the possible threat it posed to the climate far earlier than previously known. ...
Added 1/20/16 So much for the "global cooling" nonsense. Warming is accelerating, as expected.
It’s official: 2015 ‘smashed’ 2014’s global temperature record. It wasn’t even close By Chris Mooney, 1/20/16
... Specifically, the year was 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit ... hotter than 2014, the prior record year, according to NASA. The measurement recorded by NOAA was slightly worse: 0.29 degrees Fahrenheit ... hotter than 2014.
"A lot of times, you actually look at these numbers, when you break a record, you break it by a few hundredths of a degree," said Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. "But this record, we literally smashed. It was over a quarter of a degree Fahrenheit, and that’s a lot for the global temperature." ...
Even ExxonMobil says climate change is real. So why won’t the GOP? By Fred Hiatt Editorial Page Editor 12/6/15
To understand how dangerously extreme the Republican Party has become on climate change, compare its stance to that of ExxonMobil.
No one would confuse the oil and gas giant with the Sierra Club. But if you visit Exxon’s website , you will find that the company believes climate change is real, that governments should take action to combat it and that the most sensible action would be a revenue-neutral tax on carbon — in other words, a tax on oil, gas and coal, with the proceeds returned to taxpayers for them to spend as they choose.
With no government action, Exxon experts told us during a visit to The Post last week, average temperatures are likely to rise by a catastrophic (my word, not theirs) 5 degrees Celsius, with rises of 6, 7 or even more quite possible.
“A properly designed carbon tax can be predictable, transparent, and comparatively simple to understand and implement,” Exxon says in a position paper titled “Engaging on climate change.”
None of this is radical. Officials negotiating a climate agreement right now in Paris would take it as self-evident. Republican leaders in the 1980s and 1990s would have raised no objection.
Republicans Ramp Up The Koch Crusade And Inquisition Against Science By Rmusemore from Rmuse, 11/30/15
... At a Texas Public Policy Foundation event this week where the fossil fuel industry gathered to plot their attacks on the climate, the owner and CEO of coal giant Murray Energy thanked the industry’s leading inquisitor for using the U.S. Congress to attack scientists. The recipient of the glowing praise, heartfelt gratitude and effusive congratulations was anti-science Chairman of the House Science Committee Lamar Smith (R-TX). The Murray Energy CEO, Robert E. Murray, enthusiastically praised Smith for leading an inquisition into noted and prominent climate scientists and environmental officials tasked with gathering empirical data to help protect Americans’ air and water.
Murray, after “congratulating” Smith for doing the lord’s work in issuing a congressional subpoena to the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) head Kathryn Sullivan, issued further orders to Smith. Murray demanded that Smith immediately issue more congressional subpoenas and start investigating the American Meteorology Association (weather forecasters) and the Union of Concerned Scientists; two private nonprofit organizations that serve the scientific community and the American people. According to Murray, the organizations also “need to be investigated” because they have empirical scientific data and mounds of research contradicting the fossil fuel industry’s claim that global climate change is a liberal hoax to rob Americans.
It is noteworthy that the anti-science climate-denying attendees, all donors to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, were “inadvertently” disclosed as billionaires at Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, Chevron, VF-Russia, ConocoPhillips and Murray Energy among many others. The president of the event’s sponsor, Brooke Rollins, explained how and why event was conceived and why it is “critical” to the industry’s assault on scientists, the environment, and Earth’s climate. Rollins said,
“About a year and a half ago, a supporter of ours that I know well and is a good friend, said ‘Brooke, I think we really need to pull together the best and the brightest who are debunking the myth of climate change and global warming.'” Rollins then revealed that the filthy rich “supporter and good friend” was none other than noted hydraulic fracturing executive and climate change denier Bud Brigham; a real piece of fossil fuel work and Lamar Smith cohort. ...
James Hansen: emissions trading won’t work, but my global ‘carbon fee’ will 12/02/15
Former NASA climate scientist James Hansen has called for a global “carbon fee” in which fossil fuels are taxed when they are produced or imported, rather than when they are consumed.
Under his proposal, countries would collect a fee when fossil fuels are mined or imported, and distribute the revenue to their citizens, while charging extra border duties to countries without a similar scheme.
Attending a United Nations climate summit for the first time, Hansen – widely credited as the first scientist to raise mainstream political concerns about climate change – says he has little faith in the climate targets and emissions trading schemes currently on the table in Paris.
Unearthing America's Deep Network of Climate Change Deniers by Eric Roston, 11/30/15
A new study attempts the first tally of those driving the peculiarly American strain of climate change denial.
The minority [of Americans] who remain skeptical of climate science—a group that includes presidential hopefuls and powerful lawmakers—can count on a dedicated network of several thousand professional supporters.
New research for the first time has put a precise count on the people and groups working to dispute the scientific consensus on climate change. A loose network of 4,556 individuals with overlapping ties to 164 organizations do the most to dispute climate change in the U.S., according to a paper published today in Nature Climate Change. ExxonMobil and the family foundations controlled by Charles and David Koch emerge as the most significant sources of funding for these skeptics. As a two-week United Nations climate summit begins today in Paris, it's striking to notice that a similarly vast infrastructure of denial isn't found in any other nation. ...
For Robert Brulle, a sociology professor at Drexel University who has conducted research on the topic, Farrell's research helps define how climate denial works. "Corporate funders create and support conservative think tanks," which then pass off climate misinformation as valid. The mainstream media pick up on it, which helps shape public opinion.
"This brings up the following question," Brulle said. "Why is the media picking up and promulgating the central themes of climate misinformation?"
Now this is ridiculously and tragically funny: Scientists graded Sanders down because they see "inhabitable" as "some humans will survive ... [and] that toward the end of the century there will be a few days each decade or so when humans cannot survive outside, but can live with air conditioning indoors."
|"... most of the Republican contenders are flunking, according to a panel of scientists who reviewed candidates' comments."|
AP FACT CHECK: On climate science, most GOP candidates fail, Associated Press By SETH BORENSTEIN
Scientists singled out Sanders for overstatement in the first Democratic presidential debate. "The scientific community is telling us that if we do not address the global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy, the planet that we're going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable," Sanders said.
Dessler said, "I would not say that the planet will become uninhabitable. Regardless of what we do, some humans will survive." Harvard's Jim McCarthy also called the comment an overstatement, as did other scientists when Sanders said it. Recent research on the worst heat projections in the hottest area, the Persian Gulf, finds that toward the end of the century there will be a few days each decade or so when humans cannot survive outside, but can live with air conditioning indoors.
Oh good. For billions of humans and countless species, that's damn well uninhabitable!
Instead of understanding that calling those who do not "believe" in global warming, "deniers", he thinks that denying well-established science is simply being a "skeptic."
Ted Cruz: 'Climate Change Is Not Science, It's Religion' BY Kyle Mantyla, 10/29/2015
Any good scientist is a skeptic; if he's not, he or she should not be a scientist. But yet the language of the global warming alarmists, 'denier' is the language of religion, it's heretic, you are a blasphemer.
Bill Gates: Only Socialism Can Save the Climate, ‘The Private Sector is Inept’, Tom Cahill, 10/26/15
Bill Gates explains why the climate crisis will not be solved by the free market.
In a recent interview with The Atlantic, billionaire tech magnate Bill Gates announced his game plan to spend $2 billion of his own wealth on green energy investments, and called on his fellow private sector billionaires to help make the U.S. fossil-free by 2050. But in doing so, Gates admitted that the private sector is too selfish and inefficient to do the work on its own, and that mitigating climate change would be impossible without the help of government research and development.
"There’s no fortune to be made. Even if you have a new energy source that costs the same as today’s and emits no CO2, it will be uncertain compared with what’s tried-and-true and already operating at unbelievable scale and has gotten through all the regulatory problems," Gates said. "Without a substantial carbon tax, there’s no incentive for innovators or plant buyers to switch."
Gates even tacked to the left and uttered words that few other billionaire investors would dare to say: government R&D is far more effective and efficient than anything the private sector could do.
"Since World War II, U.S.-government R&D has defined the state of the art in almost every area," Gates said. "The private sector is in general inept." ...
The Republican war on science and global warming continues.
Congressional skeptic on global warming demands records from U.S. climate scientists By Joby Warrick, 10/23/15.
The head of a congressional committee on science has issued subpoenas to the Obama administration over a recent scientific study refuting claims that global warming had “paused” or slowed over the last decade. ...
The existence of a warming “pause” came under question following several new scientific analyses early this year. The study that prompted the subpoenas was led by NOAA’s Thomas Karl, who heads its National Centers for Environmental Information, and was regarded by many experts as a bombshell in the climate change debate.
The NOAA study reported on a series of adjustments to the agency’s influential temperature data set, seeking to address “residual data biases” affecting some sources of measurement, such as ocean temperature measurements taken by ships.
The result was that the “newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data … do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,’” Karl and his fellow researchers reported.
“Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming, is 0.113°C [per decade], which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014 (0.116°C [per decade]),” they continued.
Conservative Media Defend Corporations' "Right" To Deceive Public On Climate Change Research by DENISE ROBBINS, 10/19/15
Conservative media are defending the "right" of fossil fuel companies to knowingly deceive the public about climate change, after a group of climate scientists and members of Congress called for an investigation of such companies under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Contrary to claims by conservative media that these advocates are seeking to "shut down free speech," RICO would only apply to those who purposefully misled the public about climate change, with some Congressmen pointing to recent reports that ExxonMobil funded climate science denial for decades after discovering that fossil fuels drive climate change.
Arctic melt releasing ancient methane By Richard Black, Environment correspondent, BBC News, 5/20/12
Scientists have identified thousands of sites in the Arctic where methane that has been stored for many millennia is bubbling into the atmosphere. The methane has been trapped by ice, but is able to escape as the ice melts.
From The Best of the Left Podcast, 7/20/15
#940 What we are facing and how we are fighting (Climate)
The BP settlement for the gulf oil spill - CounterSpin (@FAIRmediawatch) - Air Date: 7-10-15 ... a pittance. And the best we can expect is more disasters.
The Vatican encyclical on the environment - @greennewsreport ... Pope, mind your own business: souls, not the environment.
Naomi Klein on Global Warming: Denial is not about the science, it's because addressing it requires collective action, it's a threat to the ideology of "free market" capitalism.
Me: The deniers are quite willing to wreck the planets climate, kill billions of people, and destroy millions of species in service to their "free market" religion-like ideology. This is the epitome of evil.
Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein on Need for New Economic Model to Address Ecological Crisis
NAOMI KLEIN: OK, well, let’s be clear: They are not right about the science. They’re wrong about the science. But I think what the right understands, and it’s important to understand, that the climate change denier movement in the United States is entirely a product of the right-wing think tank infrastructure, the groups like Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute. The Heartland Institute, which people mostly only know in terms of the fact that it hosts these annual conferences of climate change skeptics or deniers, it’s important to know that the Heartland Institute is first and foremost a free market think tank. It’s not a scientific organization. It is—just like the other ones I listed, it exists to push the ideology, the familiar ideology, of deregulation, privatization, cuts to government spending, and sort of triumphant free market, you know, backed with enormous corporate funding, because that’s a very, very profitable ideology.
And when I interviewed the head of the Heartland Institute, Joe Bast, for this project, he was quite open that it wasn’t that he found a problem with the science first. He said, when he looked at the science and listened to what scientists were saying about how much we need to cut our emissions, he realized that climate change could be—if it were true, it would justify huge amounts of government regulation, which he politically opposes. And so, he said, "So then we looked at the science, and we found these problems," right? So the issue is, they understand that if the science is true, their whole ideological project falls apart, because, as I said, you can’t respond to a crisis this big, that involves transforming the foundation of our economy—our economy was built on fossil fuels, it is still fueled by fossil fuels. The idea in this—we hear this from a lot of liberal environmental groups, that we can change completely painlessly—just change your light bulbs, or just a gentle market mechanism, tax and relax, no problem. This is what they understand well, that in fact it requires transformative change. That change is abhorrent to them. They see it as the end of the world. It’s not the end of the world, but it is the end of their world. It’s the end of their ideological project. So, that is unthinkable, from Marc Morano’s perspective and Joe Bast’s perspective. So, rather than think about that, they deny the science.
So when I say "the right is right," I think that they have a better grasp on the political implications of the science, of what it means to how we need to change our economy and what the role of the public sphere is and the role of collective action is, better than some of those sort of big, slick, centrist green groups that are constantly trying to sell climate action as something entirely reconcilable with a booming capitalist economy. And we’re always hearing about green growth and how it’s great for business. You know, yeah, you can—there will be markets in green energy and so on, but other businesses are going to have to contract in ways that requires that strong intervention.
... The problem is, these fossil fuel companies are so rich, they don’t just have money to burn, they have money to bribe. They have basically bought the whole political system, so they have the ability to undercut the rollout in all kinds of ways, you know, using groups like ALEC, imposing taxes on renewable energy.
So, they’re fighting this at every turn, precisely because decentralized renewable energy, it’s really a different economic model than fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are—they’re inherently centralized. And you need a lot of infrastructure to get them out, and you need a lot of infrastructure to transport it, as Obama was explaining in front of all that pipe, right? Whereas renewable energy is everywhere. You know, the wind and sun and waves, they’re free. So almost anybody can become an energy provider. And this is, you know, the German model of the feed-in tariff. You can feed into the grid and become an energy producer, as well as provide your own energy. So, what the big fossil fuel companies understand is that this means that millions of people become competitors with them.And some people talk about fossil fuels as the energy of the 1 percent or even less, and renewable energy, if done right, if done in a really decentralized way, can be the energy of the 99 percent. And that’s what’s exciting. (italics & bolding added)
Added 7/29/15 Global Warming denier effusive in praise for Obama, plus Obama's approval of pipeline. Yet, "conservatives" liars & fools say Obama is a "socialist" ... ha!.
Capitalism vs. the Climate: Naomi Klein on Need for New Economic Model to Address Ecological Crisis
Amy Goodman spoke with Marc Morano, publisher of the Climate Depot, a website run by the climate denier group Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. She asked him about President Obama’s record on climate change.
MARC MORANO: His nickname is "George W. Obama." Obama’s negotiator, Todd Stern, will be here today. They have kept the exact same principles and negotiating stance as President George Bush did for eight years. Obama has carried on Bush’s legacy. So, as skeptics, we tip our hat to President Obama in helping crush and continue to defeat the United Nations process. Obama has been a great friend of global warming skeptics at these conferences. Obama has problems, you know, for us, because he’s going through the EPA regulatory process, which is a grave threat. But in terms of this, President Obama could not have turned out better when it came to his lack of interest in the congressional climate bill and his lack of interest in the United Nations Kyoto Protocol. So, a job well done for President Obama.
On Obama's approval of drilling for oil & gas and praise of pipeline expansion.
Amy Goodman: Let’s go to President Obama. This is him in 2012 when he appeared in Cushing, Oklahoma, to announce his support for TransCanada to build the southern leg of its Keystone oil pipeline from Oklahoma to Texas.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Over the last three years, I’ve directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. We’re opening up more than 75 percent of our potential oil resources offshore. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We’ve added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the Earth and then some. So, we are drilling all over the place, right now. That’s not the challenge. That’s not the problem. In fact, the problem in a place like Cushing is that we’re actually producing so much oil and gas in places like North Dakota and Colorado, that we don’t have enough pipeline capacity to transport all of it to where it needs to go.
Climate researcher blasts global warming target as 'highly dangerous' By Carolyn Gramling 7/21/2015
Climate scientist James Hansen has fired a new salvo in the climate wars. In a new paper, Hansen and colleagues warn that the current international plan to limit global warming isn’t going to be nearly enough to avert disasters like runaway ice-sheet melting and consequent sea-level rise. ...
The researchers make their case in part by describing paleoclimate data from the Eemian, an interglacial (warm) period that lasted from about 130,000 to 115,000 years ago. During that time, temperatures were less than 1°C warmer than they are today, but sea level stood about 5 to 9 meters higher due to large-scale ice sheet melt. The end of the period experienced powerful storms as well ...
Found this amazing Biblical explanation for why global warming isn't a problem. It's sets a high standard for insane:
John Shimkus of Illinois. He's the new chair of the Subcommittee on Environment and Economy. In a March 2009 hearing, Shimkus dismissed the existence of global warming by citing biblical scripture that says God would not allow the earth to be destroyed.
REP. JOHN SHIMKUS: So I want to start with Genesis 8, verse 21 and 22. "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease." I believe that's the infallible word of God, and that's the way it's going to be for His creation.
The second verse comes from Matthew 24. "And He will send His angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other." The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood. And I appreciate having panelists here who are men of faith, and we can get into the theological discourse of that position, but I do believe God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect.
Today we have about 388 parts per million in the atmosphere. I think in the age of the dinosaurs, where we had most flora and fauna, we were probably at 4,000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet — not too much carbon.
AMY GOODMAN: That's the Illinois Republican Congress member John Shimkus, the new chair of the Subcommittee on Environment and Economy. Ryan Grim?
RYAN GRIM: Yeah, and what's really remarkable about that clip that you just played is that it wasn't something that was, you know, surreptitiously recorded at some obscure Christian conference where he thought he was speaking just to the faithful. That comes from a congressional hearing, where you have scientists that come before the panel in order to talk about the dangers of climate change. And that's his response. And that's one of this scariest things about the takeover of this committee, is because there isn't a lot of time to reverse climate change. As he said, the carbon concentration is approaching 400 parts per million. It's probably gone beyond, according to most scientists, the threshold by which there start being these feedback mechanisms that just send climate change over a cliff. So, it's going to be extremely hard to get carbon emissions to start reversing when you have people who are just quoting the Bible as their scientific policy.
Here's my 3 minute presentation on global warming to the Colorado Springs Utilities Board on 4/22/15 (Earth Day). It explains the physics of the system: why global warming is happening, why humans are causing it, and why stopping the increase in emissions is not enough ... we must cut them in half to prevent catastrophe on a planetary scale.
As of 4/22/15, CO2 was at 404 ppm ... that's no problem according to this evil fool who thinks even 4,000 ppm isn't a problem because the Bible tells him so; I explain why it is a major problem no matter what it was eons ago in the presentation.. The influence of such people on government must be eliminated to avoid the existential threat global warming poses to life on earth.
Reductio al Gore
Reductio al Gore is the argument tactic of dismissing all the science and evidence in support of man's contribution to climate change by invoking the name of Al Gore. It is a type of logical fallacy.
"I don't care that 97% of climate scientists support climate change because Al Gore makes money and I don't like Al Gore. Therefore, climate change is a hoax."
"Is that the best you can do? You don't have evidence, just a Reductio al Gore."
The Climate Deception Dossiers
Internal fossil fuel industry memos reveal decades of disinformation—a deliberate campaign to deceive the public that continues even today.
Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years
... The email from Exxon's in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.
"Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia," Lenny Bernstein, a 30-year industry veteran and Exxon's former in-house climate expert, wrote in the email. "This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2," or carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change.
Rockefeller family tried and failed to get ExxonMobil to accept climate change
However, Exxon's public position was marked by continued refusal to acknowledge the dangers of climate change, even in response to appeals from the Rockefellers, its founding family, and its continued financial support for climate denial. Over the years, Exxon spent more than $30m on thinktanks and researchers that promoted climate denial, according to Greenpeace. ...
Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction, Science Advances, 6/19/15. From the Abstract:
The oft-repeated claim that Earth's biota is entering a sixth "mass extinction" depends on clearly demonstrating that current extinction rates are far above the "background" rates prevailing in the five previous mass extinctions. Earlier estimates of extinction rates have been criticized for using assumptions that might overestimate the severity of the extinction crisis. We assess, using extremely conservative assumptions, whether human activities are causing a mass extinction. ...
Even under our assumptions, which would tend to minimize evidence of an incipient mass extinction, the average rate of vertebrate species loss over the last century is up to 114 times higher than the background rate. Under the 2 E/MSY background rate, the number of species that have gone extinct in the last century would have taken, depending on the vertebrate taxon, between 800 and 10,000 years to disappear.
These estimates reveal an exceptionally rapid loss of biodiversity over the last few centuries, indicating that a sixth mass extinction is already under way. Averting a dramatic decay of biodiversity and the subsequent loss of ecosystem services is still possible through intensified conservation efforts, but that window of opportunity is rapidly closing.
India Heatwave Kills 800+ and Literally Melts the Roads, Cole Mellino, 5/26/15
India is in the midst of a major heatwave, which has killed at least 800 people and melted roads in New Delhi as temperatures neared 122 degrees Fahrenheit (50 degrees Celsius). India's Meteorological Department issued heat warnings to several states where temperatures are projected to reach beyond 113 degrees Fahrenheit (45 degrees Celsius) over the next few days, according to AFP.
Added 5/07/15 ... additions 11/7/15:
Lies about what Al Gore Said
Some are promoting commentaries that lie about Al Gore making predictions about when Arctic ice will be gone.
Here's one: "Al Gore Forecasted "Ice-Free" Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%" by Alex Newman, 18 December 2013. Another: Wrong: Al Gore Predicted Arctic Summer Ice Could Disappear In 2013, CNS, By Barbara Hollingsworth, September 13, 2013.
But it's not true! From his speech in 2007: "One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years." Source: Arctic Sea Ice and Al Gore's "Prediction 2013" By Bruce Melton, 04 October 2013.
That first *one study* would have projected 2014 (not 2013) ... the other said 22 years, which would be in 2029. He didn't make predictions, he cited studies that lead to a range of dates.
Regarding the article from CNS, the Conservative News Service: They solicit donations: "Your continued support will ensure that CNSNews.com is here reporting THE TRUTH, for a long time to come." Yet they lie about what Gore said.
A lying meme shared as a Facebook post is at right. It came with this comment:
|It's difficult to believe the extent to which deniers will go to lie about the reality of global warming. In a way it's good to see the spread of such blatant deceit.|
Summary: This meme lies in very fundamental ways,
- It shows a picture of ice in the Antarctic, not the Artic; Gore referred to the Arctic in his Nobel Prize speech ... see his comment in the text at left.
- Gore did not mention "ice caps" in his speech ... only the "North Polar ice cap".
- Gore didn't "predict" anything ... he cited a range of studies.
- While the Antarctic gained ice, the Arctic lost 3X more ice than the Antarctic gained.
- Arctic ice has undergone major thinning over time.
It's quite easy to create a meme like this with so many explicit and implicit lies. It's difficult to take the time to document the lies.It's both disturbing and amazing that so many are so dedicated denialism that they'll unquestionably believe and defend memes like this. Rather than Gore being the "chump", the "chumps" are the deniers who are willing slaves to the giant corporations that profit at their expense and endanger the future of life on earth.It's way past time to be "politically correct" about those who deny the threat.That's because global warming, for which "conservatives" deny humans are responsible, is an existential threat to life on earth.If aliens were doing what the oil corporations are doing, we'd be dedicated to killing every damn one of them ... and their collaborators!
Remember this chump?
Read the NASA report about Antarctica at www.louderwithcrowder.com
Summary of how this meme lies in fundamental ways:
1. The picture is of ice in the Antarctic, not the Arctic; Gore referred to the Arctic in his Nobel Prize speech ... see that portion of his speech below.
2. Gore did not mention "ice caps" in his speech ... only the "North Polar ice cap".
3. Gore didn't "predict" anything ... he cited a range of studies.
4. Though the Antarctic gained some ice, the Arctic lost 3X more ice than the Antarctic gained.
5. Arctic ice has undergone major thinning over time.
It's quite easy to create a meme like this with so many explicit and implicit lies. It's more difficult to take the time to thoroughly document the lies as I do here.
It's both amazing and disturbing that so many are so dedicated denialism that they'll unquestionably believe and defend memes like this.
My comment about the meme:
Nope. He didn't "predict" that. He cited reports that gave a range. And I referred to this section starting just above on Lies about what Al Gore said.
The meme-posters' response on this:
Yep. He did predict it...in his 2007 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech.
Noting what studies have said, is *not* "predicting" that. Here's what Gore said in his Nobel Prize speech:
Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.
... that's *could* ... now *will* ... don't blame Gore for an estimate by the U.S. Navy.
The extent to which some will go to obfuscate and deny this existential threat to life on earth is incredible.
Never mind that I showed it wasn't true, here's the meme-posters' response:
Well, if he said this during such an "important" speech, it was obviously something he believed in. He obviously didn't quote those researchers who say that global warming is complete hogwash.
So how do you explain, that the ice caps are now thicker than ever?
This shows incredible dedication to what's factually incorrect.
My further comments are here, instead of commenting at the FB post. I frequently see this kind of nonsense, so the lies are worth documenting here rather than at an ephemeral FB post.
Fossil fuel corporations fund global warming denial even though they've known the truth for over 3 decades.
Why on earth would Gore cite those paid by the fossil fuel corporations with an enormous financial interest in lying about what's happening? They are not "researchers" ... they are paid shills. Theirs is the "hogwash".
Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent, 8 July 2015
A newly unearthed missive from Lenny Bernstein, a climate expert with the oil firm for 30 years, shows concerns over high presence of carbon dioxide in enormous gas field in south-east Asia factored into decision not to tap it.
ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.
The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago ...
The assertion "that the ice caps are now thicker than ever" is not true. The Arctic ice cap is much thinner. NASA:
From Satellites and Submarines Give the Skinny on Sea Ice Thickness, 09.01.09
... Analysis of the new record shows that since a peak in 1980, sea ice thickness has declined 53 percent. "It's an astonishing number," Kwok said. The study, published online August 6 in Geophysical Research Letters, shows that the current thinning of Arctic sea ice has actually been going on for quite some time. ...
In NASA Satellite Reveals Dramatic Arctic Ice Thinning, 07.07.09, see this:
Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record. The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctic's ice cover. ...
In recent years, the amount of ice replaced in the winter has not been sufficient to offset summer ice losses. The result is more open water in summer, which then absorbs more heat, warming the ocean and further melting the ice. Between 2004 and 2008, multi-year ice cover shrank 1.54 million square kilometers (595,000 square miles) -- nearly the size of Alaska's land area.
What's happening in the Arctic, about which Gore spoke, is very different from the Antarctic. Though the Antarctic gained some ice, the Arctic lost 3X more ice than the Antarctic gained. NASA:
Arctic vs. Antarctic: Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum, Oct. 7, 2014
Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.
The new Antarctic sea ice record reflects the diversity and complexity of Earth’s environments, said NASA researchers. Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, has referred to changes in sea ice coverage as a microcosm of global climate change. Just as the temperatures in some regions of the planet are colder than average, even in our warming world, Antarctic sea ice has been increasing and bucking the overall trend of ice loss.
"The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent," Parkinson said.
Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). On Sept. 19 this year, for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles (20 million square kilometers), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The ice extent stayed above this benchmark extent for several days. The average maximum extent between 1981 and 2010 was 7.23 million square miles (18.72 million square kilometers). ...
It's very important to make the point that it's "global warming", not"warming everywhere". Parkinson's comment is on point: "The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent."
There's been major loss of Arctic ice over time. NASA:
2015 Arctic Sea Ice Maximum Annual Extent Is Lowest On Record, March 19, 2015
The sea ice cap of the Arctic appeared to reach its annual maximum winter extent on Feb. 25, according to data from the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado, Boulder. At 5.61 million square miles (14.54 million square kilometers), this year’s maximum extent was the smallest on the satellite record and also one of the earliest. ...
Weather vs Climate: Inherent in the comment, "how do you explain, that the ice caps are now thicker than ever", is the confusion between weather and climate. Yes, there's more ice in the Antarctic even though the planet as a whole is warming; so more ice in one place doesn't mean the planet isn't warming overall.
This confusion is reminiscent of the typical "Fox News" ignorant reporting on major snow storms, like this example:
Climate alarmists blame global warming before blizzard, FOX News, The Five, 1/27/15
GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: ... So if this blizzard, this current blizzard in fact proves climate change, the logical conclusion, the logical conclusion is that climate change is awesome, because a storm 130 years ago was much worse than a storm now. That is a logical conclusion that flies in the face of all these idiots who have absolutely no evidence linking extreme weather to climate change. It's almost -- I mean, using hypothetical models is wrong, like saying that 2014 was the hottest year. They used to fixed models, they even used satellites, the satellites show otherwise. It's all bogus.
BOLLING: Don't you find it funny that they know for a fact that the global warming climate change is a fact without any dispute. There's no question in their minds, yet they can't figure out where this storm is going to go. I mean, I found it hugely, hugely, hugely hypocritical.
Oh sure, I'm the idiot alarmist. Hardly. The idiots are those like "The Five" who think that predicting the weather about exactly a snow storm will hit is the same as understanding how global warming affects the climate over time.
Here's the truth: Broken Record: Fox Still Falsely Claiming That Snow Disproves Global Warming Research January 27, 2011
During their recent coverage of winter storms, Fox News has repeatedly mocked former Vice President Al Gore and cited the cold and snowy weather to attempt to discredit global warming. Fox News and other right-wing media routinely use snow to cast doubt on global warming, and internal emails from Fox News' Washington bureau show that in the past Fox employees have been instructed to question climate science.
More severe snow storms accompany global warming because there's more moisture in the atmosphere. When a cold front encounters that moisture, there can be major snowfall. Because of more heat in the ocean hurricanes can be larger and more destructive.
The Physics of the System: I also made this comment at the meme post on the physics of the system. Deniers should tell me what they think is incorrect and why:
This presentation (3 minutes) on global warming to the Colorado Springs Utilities Board on 4/22/15 (Earth Day) explains the physics of the system: why global warming is happening, why humans are causing it, and why stopping the increase in emissions is not enough ... we must cut them in half. And it addresses common false objections to addressing the problem.
Conclusion: Of course, the reality of all these facts about global warming, and demonstrating that the meme lies in many ways, will make little to no difference to right-wing ideologues who deny the science and data. The willingness of so many to believe and defend such a false meme is incredibly depressing.
I have no children and will be long gone by the time even more devastating effects make the truth of global warming totally evident even to them ... though most of them will be dead, too. That those who have children are so dedicated to denial is unbelievable; it's the absolute opposite of a truly conservative stance on the issue. And yet, many think Gore is the "chump" and that even mentioning his name is a winning argument (see Reductio Al Gore above).
There is no greater evil than promoting global warming denial and policies that are an existential threat to life on earth. So yes, there should be major alarm.
Delaware-size gas plume over West illustrates the cost of leaking methane
The methane that leaks from 40,000 gas wells near this desert trading post may be colorless and odorless, but its not invisible. It can be seen from space. ...
But environmentalists say relatively modest government restrictions on gas leaks could reap substantial rewards for taxpayers and the planet. Because methane is such a powerful greenhouse gas with up to 80 times as much heat-trapping potency per pound as carbon dioxide over the short term the leaks must be controlled if the United States is to have any chance of meeting its goals for cutting the emissions responsible for climate change, said David Doniger, who heads the climate policy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. ...
A 2,500 Square-Mile Methane Plume Is Silently Hovering over Western US, Jon Queally, 12/30/14
Legacy of fossil fuel drilling is "giant cloud" of powerful greenhouse gas now visible from space
"Compared with carbon dioxide, methane persists in the atmosphere for a shorter period of time but is 10 times more powerful at trapping heat."
Keystone XL's Climate Impact Worse Than Thought: Study, 8/11/14
|Global ocean heat content 1955-2013, Graph showing warming is not slowing as deniers say ... it's speeding up. http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html|
'We can't be investing in infrastructure that's going to lock in our fossil fuel reliance'
Global warming not slowing - it's speeding up, 12 March 2014 by James Wight ...
The Earth is gaining heat faster than ever.
Added 3/13/14. Links
NOAA: How Do Human Activities Contribute To Climate Change And How Do They Compare With Natural Influences?
Question: Where Are The Climate Change Deniers Scientific Papers? Answer: They Don't Have Any.
U.S. Geological Survey Confirms: Human Activity Caused 5.7 Quake In Oklahoma
Ohio Earthquakes Also Linked To Fracking
Koch Brothers Exposed: Host A Party, Show The Movie, Expose The Truth
Not Just The Koch Brothers: New Study Reveals Other Dark Money Funders Behind The Climate Change Denial Effort
Added 5/13/11. Science bites climate skeptics in the ass on the House floor by Jess Zimmerman, 1 Apr 2011
... the guy who busted this out [i.e., showed this graph] at the House climate science hearing yesterday was brought in by the Republicans to debunk global warming. ... "We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.
I believe that some of the most worrisome biases are less of a problem than I had previously thought."
See graph at right just below.
Added 1/13/11. Figures on Global Climate Show 2010 Tied 2005 as the Hottest Year on Record By JUSTIN GILLIS, January 12, 2011
|This graph is the result of physicist Richard Muller's project to get maximally accurate temperature data ... showing there's indeed been warming.Climate change deniers assumed that his skepticism about existing temperature data meant he was on their side (well, that and he's also been spreading misinformation about the "Climategate" emails).|
New government figures for the global climate show that 2010 was the wettest year in the historical record, and it tied 2005 as the hottest year since record-keeping began in 1880.
The new figures confirm that 2010 will go down as one of the more remarkable years in the annals of climatology. It featured prodigious snowstorms that broke seasonal records in the United States and Europe; a record-shattering summer heat wave that scorched Russia; strong floods that drove people from their homes in places like Pakistan, Australia, California and Tennessee; a severe die-off of coral reefs; and a continuation in the global trend of a warming climate.
Two agencies, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, reported Wednesday that the global average surface temperature for 2010 had tied the record set in 2005. ...
Added 12/3/10. John D. Sterman, A Banquet of Consequences: Systems Thinking and Modeling for Climate Change Policy (pdf) Slides of his presentation to the MIT System Design & Management (SDM) Systems Thinking Conference 2010.
Video>> of his presentation.
Risk Communication on Climate: Mental Models and Mass Balance by John D. Sterman, 10/24/08 (pdf). The article pdf. Excerpt:
Wait-and-see works well in simple systems with short lags. We can wait until the teakettle whistles before removing it from the flame because there is little lag between the boil, the whistle, and our response. Similarly, wait-and-see would be a prudent response to climate change if there were short delays in the response of the climate system to intervention. However, there are substantial delays in every link of a long causal chain stretching from the implementation of emissions abatement policies to emissions reductions to changes in atmospheric GHG concentrations to surface warming to changes in ice sheets, sea level, agricultural productivity, extinction rates, and other impacts (4-6). Mitigating the risks therefore requires emissions reductions long before additional harm is evident. Wait-and-see policies implicitly presume the climate is roughly a first-order linear system with a short time constant, rather than a complex dynamical system with long delays, multiple positive feedbacks, and nonlinearities that may cause abrupt, costly, and irreversible regime changes (7, 8).
Obviously, few people are trained in climatology or nonlinear dynamics, and public understanding of these topics is poor (9-11). But there is a deeper problem: poor understanding of stocks and flows -- the concept of accumulation. Accumulation is pervasive in everyday experience: Our bathtubs accumulate the inflow of water through the faucet less the outflow through the drain, our bank accounts accumulate deposits less withdrawals, and we all struggle to control our weight by managing the inflows and outflows of calories through diet and exercise. Yet, despite their ubiquity, research shows that people have difficulty relating the flows into and out of a stock to the level of the stock, even in simple, familiar contexts such as bank accounts and bathtubs. Instead, people often assess system dynamics using a patternmatching heuristic, assuming that the output of a system should "look like" -- be positively correlated with -- its inputs (12, 13).
Although sometimes useful, correlational reasoning fails in systems with important accumulations. Since 1950, the U.S. federal budget deficit and national debt have risen dramatically and are highly correlated (r = 0.84, P < 0.0001). Correlational reasoning predicts that cutting the deficit would also cut the debt. However, because the national debt is a stock that accumulates the deficit, it keeps rising even if the deficit falls; debt falls only if the government runs a surplus.
|A difficult conversation. It's way past time to be polite and "politically correct" about those who deny the threat.That's because global warming, for which "conservatives" deny humans are responsible, is an existential threat to life on earth. If aliens were doing what the oil corporations are doing, we'd be dedicated to killing every damn one of them ... and their collaborators! |
Poor understanding of accumulation leads to serious errors in reasoning about climate change (see charts, left, and on page 533). ...
The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare The climate could change radically, and fast. That would be the mother of all national security issues. (FORTUNE Magazine) By David Stipp 2/9/04
Global warming, rather than causing gradual, centuries-spanning change, may be pushing the climate to a tipping point. Growing evidence suggests the ocean-atmosphere system that controls the world's climate can lurch from one state to another in less than a decade--like a canoe that's gradually tilted until suddenly it flips over. Scientists don't know how close the system is to a critical threshold. But abrupt climate change may well occur in the not-too-distant future. If it does, the need to rapidly adapt may overwhelm many societies--thereby upsetting the geopolitical balance of power.
Though triggered by warming, such change would probably cause cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, leading to longer, harsher winters in much of the U.S. and Europe. Worse, it would cause massive droughts, turning farmland to dust bowls and forests to ashes. ...
Though Mother Nature caused past abrupt climate changes, the one that may be shaping up today probably has more to do with us. In 2001 an international panel of climate experts concluded that there is increasingly strong evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities--mainly the burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal, which release heat-trapping carbon dioxide. Indicators of the warming include shrinking Arctic ice, melting alpine glaciers, and markedly earlier springs at northerly latitudes. A few years ago such changes seemed signs of possible trouble for our kids or grandkids. Today they seem portents of a cataclysm that may not conveniently wait until we're history. ...
Panel in Britain clears scientists of misconduct allegations in 'Climate-gate'
British Panel Clears Scientists
Added 8/4/10: Fossil Fuel Subsidies Are 12 Times Support for Renewables, Study Shows By Alex Morales 7/29/10
Global subsidies for fossil fuels dwarf support given to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power and biofuels, Bloomberg New Energy Finance said.
Governments last year gave $43 billion to $46 billion of support to renewable energy through tax credits, guaranteed electricity prices known as feed-in tariffs and alternative energy credits, the London-based research group said today in a statement. That compares with the $557 billion that the International Energy Agency last month said was spent to subsidize fossil fuels in 2008.
One of the reasons the clean energy sector is starved of funding is because mainstream investors worry that renewable energy only works with direct government support, said Michael Liebreich, chief executive of New Energy Finance. This analysis shows that the global direct subsidy for fossil fuels is around ten times the subsidy for renewables. ...
Added 8/4/10: Climate Policy is Paralyzed, But the Climate Isnt By ANDREW C. REVKIN 8/3/10
While American energy and climate policy remain paralyzed, physics isnt standing still. And the science pointing to big, long-lasting consequences for the world from the buildup of greenhouse gases continues to accumulate.
Particularly consequential is the impact on ice sheets and, in the end, sea levels, much of which is already programmed into the system because of the heat banked in the oceans and the long lifetime of the most important human-generated greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. For some insights on the need to adapt to this reality, even as policies on cutting emissions are crafted, read or listen to an interview conducted by Tom Yulsman, an old friend and journalism professor at the University of Colorado, with Jim White, a climate specialist there who just returned from Greenland. ...
Added 11/13/09: No Slowdown of Global Warming, Agency Says By ANDREW C. REVKIN and JAMES KANTER 12/8/09
The decade of 2000 to 2009 appears to be the warmest one in the modern record, the World Meteorological Organization reported in a new analysis on Tuesday. ... The period from 2000 through 2009 has been warmer than the 1990s, which were warmer than the 1980s, and so on, Michel Jarraud, the secretary general of the international weather agency, said at a news conference here.
Added 12/10/09: Global Warming - A Fake Scandal, Progress Report 12/10/09
The conservative swiftboating attack in "Climategate" involves illegally hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climactic Research Unit (CRU) in the U.K., which skeptics are using to claim that leading climate researchers are suppressing scientific data that shows that climate change is not occurring. The truth is that the hacked e-mails offer no proof of the suppression of scientific data, the mainstream media has given undue credibility to the story, and the science behind global warming is as undeniable as ever.
Added 12/8/09: The Consequences Of Global Warming From A To Z Think Progress 12/8/09.
Added 12/7/09: "For the last decade the climate has been cooling." That's what "conservatives" say."
|Global Land Ocean Temp Index cropped to show only last 10 years ... see original below.This illustrates how deniers purport to show there's been "global cooling". Obvious subterfuge because to see through the scatter in the data, one must look at the trend over a much longer period of time.|
I created the graph at right by deleting data before 1998 from the Global Land-Ocean Temp Index graph below. Doing this shows that since 1998, most of the temperature points are down from then ... an obvious downward trend (well, maybe not so obvious, but one could make that case based on this limited data).
PolitiFact.com confirms the obvious: It's false that there's been "cooling". See the graphs below.
Conservative pundit Mary Matalin on CNN 10/22/09:
"Climate change is fake issue anyway. ... There is not consensus science on what is causing global climate change. There is climate change, but for the last decade the climate has been cooling. There is the science. There is the data on that. They want to do this because they like to have all these programs being controlled by the government."
NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt recently told the Associated Press:
"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," he said. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."
If 1998 is the starting point, a year many climate skeptics tend to cite, everything looks cooler in comparison, said Raymond Bradley, a climate scientist at the University of Massachusetts. He also pointed out that, when evaluating the impact of climate change on temperature, it's misleading to look at only the last 10 years.
A decade is such a small period of time that "it's like saying, 'It was cold here last week. What happened to climate change?'" Bradley said.
This is a prime example of how to lie using selective data. As a scientist, I find this despicable.
The really big lie: It's all about "government control." Many "conservatives" even go so far as to say that when the communist movement failed they all fled to the environmental movement; that's the way they plot to take government control of the economy. It matters not to "conservatives" that the science confirms that the long term trend is warming, it's human caused, and it's a big problem.
Naomi Klein on Climate Debt: Why Rich Countries Should Pay Reparations To Poor Countries For The Climate Crisis.. Naomi Klein examines the grass-roots movement behind the climate debate proposal that argues all the costs associated with adapting to a more hostile ecologyeverything from building stronger sea walls to switching to cleaner, more expensive technologiesare the responsibility of the countries that created the crisis.
I am aware of the hacked e-mails (Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute By ANDREW C. REVKIN 11/20/09) and why the deniers have it wrong: Phil Jones and Ben Santer respond to CEI and Pat Michaels attack on temperature data record. The deniers are distorting reality. See "Climategate" exposed: Conservative media distort stolen emails in latest attack on global warming consensus. 12/01/09.
Deniers are creating a propaganda campaign to fabricate A Climate of Conspiracy. As Nicholas Stern, chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said, those who doubt the science of global warming are "muddled and confused."
Based on what I know (thanks to a Ph.D. in physics, an MBA, and studying system dynamics), both the data (see the charts below) and the physics of the system make it clear that the planet is warming and anthropogenic in origin (human caused).
This attack on science perpetrates a crime of planetary proportions ... privatize the enormous profits from ologopoly control of oil, coal, and gas resources and externalizing the costs onto all other creatures on earth. This is a monstrous evil.
Added 11/1/09: For those who don't believe the earth is warming, these are from GISS Surface Temperature Analysis - Analysis Graphs and Plots:
|GISS traditional analysis using only meteorological station data is a lin e plot of global annual-mean surface air temperature change derived from the meteorological station network [This is an update of Figure 6(b) in Hansen et al. (2001).] Uncertainty bars (95% confidence limits) are shown for both the annual and five-year means, account only for incomplete spatial sampling of data. January-September (9 months) mean is used for 2009 data.|
|Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change: Line plot of global mean land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present. The dotted black line is the annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year mean. The green bars show uncertainty estimates.|
"Climate Change -- Super Freaking Wrong", 10/21/09. On the "global cooling" lie ... really now, just see the graphs above. For example: Bill OReilly and his Weatherman, Joe Bastardi, purvey the lie that over at least the last 10 years the globe is actually cooling.
"Global Warming -- Business Backlash Against Deniers", 10/1/09. On the "intense lobbying effort by various industry groups that have adopted extreme right-wing positions on the issue. These organizations include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) ... the many U.S. businesses that ... have started to revolt" against the global-warming deniers.
News Story: Global warming 'underestimated': BBC News, 15 February 2009. Global warming will be much worse than previously thought, a leading climate scientist has warned. Professor Chris Field says the earth's temperatures will change beyond anything currently predicted. [Note: what's described in this story should be "setting off positive feedback" that has negative effects, not "negative feedback." ... negative feedback is stabilizing.]
Article: The Greenhouse Effect and the Bathtub Effect By Andrew C. Revkin, 1/28/09 on
Dr. Sterman, a prominent analyst of risk perception and management at the Sloan School, has devised various tools akin to flight simulators to help corporate leaders understand the nature of a variety of problems and choose among various remedies. He recently turned this approach to climate, which he says bears much more resemblance to deficit spending and the national debt than it does to 20th-century-style pollution problems like acid rain.
Stopping the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions ... will that reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere or stop global temperature increases? What do you think?
See the MIT System Dynamics Group Greenhouse Gas Emissions Simulator that explains "Bathtub Dynamics and Climate Change." It provides a personal examination of the dynamics of bathtubs and atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses. You'd think we'd know about bathtub dynamics .. but we don't because our mental models are deficient ... that is, WRONG.
Global Warming: An Inconvenient-to-Understand Truth
This article is based on Cloudy Skies: Assessing Public Understanding of Global Warming by John D. Sterman & Linda Booth Sweeney, System Dynamics Review, 18(2) 2002 (138K). Read it for a more complete understanding.
Note1: Humans are also really bad at Estimating Exponentials.
Note2. I suspect that Al Gore did not go far enough: A Really Inconvenient Truth
- The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World? Which will it be?
We humans are mentally impaired when it comes to thinking about problems such as this.
An Inconvenient-to-Understand Truth
Though some cast Al Gore as a global warming alarmist, his message isn't just "An Inconvenient Truth;" it's an inconvenient-to-understand truth.
Here's why, but first some inconvenient facts:
1: The earths surface temperature is mainly determined by the difference in energy between incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiation into space.
2. Higher atmospheric green house gas (GHG) concentrations absorb more of the energy radiated by the earth, allowing less energy to be radiated back into space. Therefore, increasing atmospheric GHGs, like CO2, cause greater warming.
3. At current GHG concentrations, incoming solar radiation exceeds outgoing radiation.
4. Human-generated GHG emissions have been growing exponentially since the beginning of the industrial age. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that the current CO2 concentration is greater than anytime over the past 420,000 years (likely 20 million years). The current rate of increase is greater than over at least the past 20,000 years.
5. IPCC: Plants and the ocean absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, but the "net removal of atmospheric CO2 by natural processes is about half of the anthropogenic [human-generated] CO2 emissions." That is, the planet can absorb CO2 at only half the human-emission rate.
6. IPCC: Most of the [global] warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
Why is the issue so hotly debated and confused?
First, because of well-financed disinformation campaigns that give a few dozen skeptics about the same attention as the scientific consensus of thousands of independent researchers.
Second, our intuition in "dynamically complex" situations, like global warming, with feedbacks and long delays is really bad. Research shows humans can no more figure out what will happen than they're able to memorize the Denver phone book (an example of a different kind of problem: "detail complexity").
The MIT System Dynamics Group tested student understanding of the dynamics of global warming (google "Cloudy Skies: Assessing Public Understanding of Global Warming"). They're no dummies, but didn't do well.
They were asked: If human CO2 emissions fell to zero in the year 2000, what would happen to atmospheric CO2 and global mean temperature from 2000 to 2050?
No one knows exactly, but the structure of the global climate system and basic laws of physics severely constrain possibilities.
First: If human CO2 emissions fell instantly to zero in the year 2000, what would happen to atmospheric CO2?
- 1. Go up?
- 2. Level off?
- 3. Slow decline at a diminishing rate?
- 4. Decline precipitously like CO2 emissions?
Do the thought experiment. Guess before reading on. There's enough information to answer correctly.
Answer. An atmosphere containing CO2 is like a bathtub of water. When inflow is greater than outflow, the tub keeps filling. When inflow stops and outflow continues, the level doesn't continue up, level off, or drop precipitously; it declines slowly at a fairly constant rate. Atmospheric CO2 would decline, too, but more slowly over time because the absorption rate into land and water falls as the atmospheric CO2 falls and some previously-absorbed CO2 is released back into the atmosphere. Simulations show it takes about 25 years for CO2 to get back down to the 1990 level. Only 26 percent of the students correctly chose #3.
What would happen to global mean temperature if human CO2 emissions fell instantly to zero in the year 2000?
- 1. Continue up? Flat, then up?
- 2. Flat and then down?
- 3. Slow rise and later slow decline?
- 4. Slow decline at a diminishing rate?
- 5. Decline precipitously like CO2 emissions?
Answer. Because incoming solar radiation exceeds outgoing radiation at current CO2 concentrations, some atmospheric CO2 must be removed for outgoing radiation to begin to equal incoming solar radiation. So temperature will rise (for about 30 years) until enough CO2 is absorbed by the earth to allow temperature to begin to fall. Only 31 percent correctly chose #3.
If this is difficult to follow, if your eyes glazed over just thinking about it, that's a clue as to why the reality of global warming caused by humans is difficult to understand. And that's why the issue is so easily obfuscated by those pushing a "don't worry, be happy" message.
It's a real and urgent problem. Don't believe the skeptics.
Bob Powell, Ph.D. in physics, is owner of exponentialimprovement.com and a Magellan Center Senior Fellow
To fully understand why this issue evades public understanding read this paper on the dynamics of global warming at the M.I.T. web site: "Cloudy Skies: Assessing Public Understanding of Global Warming" by Sterman and Sweeney (2002).
Here are some graphs from the referenced paper. Coincidence? No.
|Figure 1. Global CO2 emissions resulting from human activity (billion tons of carbon per year)|
Figure 1. Global CO2 emissions resulting from human activity (billion tons of carbon per year)
|Figure 2. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations, parts per million. In Apr 2015 the level was well above that shown here: 404 ppm.|
Figure 2. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations, parts per million.
|Figure 3. Average global surface temperatures, *C. The zero line is set to the average for the period 1961-1990.|
Figure 3. Average global surface temperatures, degrees C. The zero line is set to the average for the period 1961-1990.
|Figure 4. Zero Emissions Task - Emissions to Zero InputWith emissions falling to zero, those unaware of the physics of the system expect a similar abrupt fall in CO2 levels.|
Figure 4. Zero Emissions Task - Emissions to Zero Input
|Figure 5. Simulation of the Zero Emissions Task - Atmospheric CO2But that is not the case ... levels slowly fall to a level much higher than before.|
Figure 5. Simulation of the Zero Emissions Task - Atmospheric CO2
|Figure 6. Simulation of the Zero Emissions Task - Global Mean TemperatureAnd temperature continues rise and takes decades to level off.|
Figure 6. Simulation of the Zero Emissions Task - Global Mean Temperature
IPCC cites: a rising mean global surface temperature, glacier retreat, a decline in winter snow cover, a 40% decline in arctic summer sea-ice thickness, an increase in extreme weather events, and a rise of 0.1 - 0.2 meters in sea level.
Though mean global temperatures only rose in the 20th century by a seemingly-small 0.6 +/- 0.2 degrees C, reinforcing feedbacks produce exponential changes, which start small but can quickly and irreversibly get out of hand.
More on this:
Global Warming: Bush's "Clear Skies" Means "Cloudy Skies"
Global warming is a major problem that we must address. The paper below from MIT explains the flawed nature of public understanding of the problem, and why George Bush's "Clear Skies" program is more aptly titled, "Cloudy Skies." Again, this references Cloudy Skies: Assessing Public Understanding of Global Warming by John D. Sterman & Linda Booth Sweeney, System Dynamics Review, 18(2) 2002 (138K).
The column by a libertarian extremist to which this responds is included below.
On Global Warming by Bob Powell
A libertarian stated that the "environmental radicals" and the "social responsibility set," who are concerned about global warming, are "fools" carrying on another "environmentalist scare campaign." The perverse assertion is that environmentalists "want power" and are "red within" communists using "junk science to close down legitimate businesses." This Orwellian distortion and shortsightedness is frightening. Ostrich-like behavior is comforting for a time, but in the long run it's disastrous.
The concern of economic "conservatives" for the alleged "expropriation of stockholder profits" is touching, but it's the public that bears the burden. Corporations act as capitalists as they privatize business profits, but they act as socialists as they externalize costs. Because the climate is a shared global resource, it's vulnerable to the tragedy of the commons dynamic. In this case, corporations and nations benefit in the short-run from high greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but the costs are (1) borne by all, (2) shifted from the rich to the poor and (3) shifted from current to future generations.
We humans don't deal well with systems in which delays between action and effect are months, much less decades as in the case of global warming. In fact, humans cannot deal effectively with delays of even seconds when driving, which is why there are laws against driving while intoxicated. What economic "conservatives" promote is the equivalent of drunk driving where the stake is the fate of the global environment and life on earth as we know it. Extremist? Not at all; what's extreme is not taking precautionary action now, before it's too late.
Well-financed industry campaigns discount the science to protect profits, regardless of the future impacts. Most of us have little appreciation of the extent to which humans affect the climate. Studies have shown that aerosol pollution from autos and industry along the eastern seaboard of the United States builds up throughout the workweek and dissipates over the weekend. Data show that the chance of rain is highest on the weekend, while on average the nicest day is Monday, when few are free to enjoy the out of doors. Few of us understand that driving that SUV to work helps spoil our weekend plans.
Conservatives justify inaction by exaggerating the uncertainty that's inherent in any scientific study where delays are measured in decades. But despite uncertainty, the scientific consensus is that global warming is real.
What's more, the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded: "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." It noted that, while natural processes gradually remove CO2 from the atmosphere (for example, plants absorb and ocean dissolve), the current "net removal of atmospheric CO2 by natural processes is about half of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions."
So human-caused (anthropogenic) emissions must be cut at least in half to stabilize CO2 at its present record levels. Such cuts greatly exceed Kyoto targets, which would reduce emissions to about 95% of 1990 rates by 2012. Reducing CO2 concentrations will require even deeper cuts.
Mr. Bush's masterfully misnamed "Clear Skies Initiative" calls for continued emissions growth. He stated:
"My administration is committed to cutting our nation's greenhouse gas intensity -- how much we emit per unit of economic activity -- by 18 percent over the next 10 years. This will set America on a path to slow the growth of our greenhouse gas emissions and, as science justifies, to stop and then reverse the growth of emissions."
This misleading statement allows Mr. Bush to use words like "cutting" and "slow," even though his plan increases emissions because increased economic activity brings increased emissions. In fact, projected emissions in 2012 would rise by 17% assuming his 2002 budget economic growth assumptions. His carefully worded target is contrived to seem large, but it's very close to the 17.4% drop in emissions intensity that occurred over the economic boom from 1990 to 2000. Mr. Bush's "Clear Skies" is a continuation of business as usual.
His obfuscation works. A 1/21/03 NPR news segment reported on administration efforts to get voluntary pledges to meet Mr. Bush's "goal of an 18% reduction in emissions of GHG by 2012." In fact, Bush's goal is continued increases.
Many believe that, if CO2 emissions drop, then global temperature will drop. But at current CO2 concentrations, incoming solar radiation exceeds outgoing radiation. The accumulation of CO2 concentrations must fall to halt warming. This warming has brought retreating glaciers, less winter snow cover, a 40% decline in summer arctic sea-ice thickness, an increased number of extreme weather events and a rise of 4 - 7 inches in sea level, among other effects.
In the 40 scenarios the IPCC considered, CO2 concentrations continue to rise through 2100 with rising temperatures over the next century of between 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F. This is a significant change when one considers that, when thousand foot thick ice sheets covered much of the northern hemisphere, mean global temperature during the last ice age was only about 9 degrees F colder than today.
For more on this see the paper at the M.I.T. web site: "Cloudy Skies: Assessing Public Understanding of Global Warming" by Sterman and Sweeney (2002). They observe that a more accurate statement of Bush's policy is:
"My administration is committed to further growth in our nation's greenhouse gas emissions, ensuring higher greenhouse gas concentrations and continued global warming. If it turns out that sound science justifies further action, it will be too late."
That's the truth about Orwellian George's "Clear Skies" policies.
The libertarian idealogue's column to which this responds:
Published: Denver Post, Tues., April 22, 2003
Earth Day 2003: Are we better off than last year?
Global warming and little green monsters By Linda Gorman, Golden
It's April, and fools are out in force.
The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, a bellweather for the latest fashion trends in morally smug investing, reports that gadfly shareholder resolutions on global warming showed the most growth in the environmental activism category. Judging from the ICCR report, the social responsibility set thinks that other shareholders ought to be required to finance research for environmental radicals. If passed, the resolutions would require companies to report on economic risks caused by their greenhouse gas and mercury emissions. They also require describing the "operating, financial and reputational risks" derived from "past, present and future greenhouse gas emissions" from their "operations and products."
Problem is, discussing such risks is a waste of time. Nobody knows if greenhouse gases pose any risk or what those risks might be. Even though media outlets and activist propaganda campaigns have succeeded in portraying industry emissions and SUV drivers as the sole source of global warming, on balance the facts we have suggest otherwise.
Currently, carbon dioxide makes up about 0.037 percent of the Earth's atmosphere. Estimates put it at 0.027 percent 150 years ago, and environmental activists assume that industrialization is responsible for the increase. They claim that unless energy use in the developed world is drastically curtailed, rising carbon dioxide levels will trap more and more heat in the atmosphere. Temperatures will rise, triggering disasters of biblical proportions including sea level increases of 4 to 40 inches, floods, hurricanes, Antarctic glacier surges, the demise of the Gulf Stream, the death of coral reefs, drought and marauding icebergs off Portugal.
Fortunately, such predictions come from mathematical climate models, not real data. Though constructing models is a worthy scientific undertaking, modeling climate is a difficult problem. At their present stage of development, climate models are better suited to producing scare headlines than to guiding environmental policy.
Even the most advanced models cannot accurately reproduce such basic phenomena as El Nino, cloud cover, regional rainfall and the variations in the Earth's energy budget. Furthermore, the historical record does not show a consistent relationship between carbon dioxide levels and temperature, possibly because plants respond to higher carbon dioxide levels by growing faster and taking more out of the atmosphere. One group of researchers calculated that the broadleaf forest in North America is capable of removing all of the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuel use in the United States and Canada. If correct, this means that human activity in those two countries has nothing to do with the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Then there's the sun. A number of solar cycles have been observed. The best known is the 10-to-11-year sunspot cycle, which is accompanied by changes in magnetic activity that produce dramatic changes in ultraviolet and soft X-ray emissions. These may have important consequences for the Earth's upper atmosphere, ocean temperatures and atmospheric water vapor. Analyses of tree rings, ocean sediment cores and stalagmite deposits suggest that biological processes are correlated with solar activity. During the Maunder minimum, a period from the mid-1650s to the early 1700s, both sunspot numbers and temperatures in Europe reached record lows.
Should environmental radicals succeed in parleying their mathematical fantasies into the expropriation of stockholder profits, a ban on fossil fuels and the ability to regulate modern industry into extinction, the rest of us can take comfort from the fact that global warming will likely continue. Evidence from a variety of sources - including ice cores, glaciers, tree growth, peat, pollen and sea- floor sediments - suggests that the Earth has been warming in fits and starts since the Little Ice Age (1300-1900). In time, we may even return to the balmy temperatures that characterized the Medieval Warm Period (800-1300). Environmentalists have few scruples about inflicting vast discomfort on other humans. If they get their way, retreating glaciers, more arable land and the kind of climate that let the Vikings settle Greenland will no doubt be welcome events.
Like Lenin, whose birthday is celebrated on Earth Day, modern environmentalists want power. Green on the outside and red within, they'll do anything to get it, including burning buildings they don't like, planting lynx hair to get control of other people's land and using junk science to close down legitimate businesses. We haven't run out of food or raw materials as they predicted in the 1970s, or forests and space to put garbage as they predicted in the 1980s.
Legally used pesticides don't turn children into little green monsters, either. For that, one needs environmentalist scare campaigns like the one on global warming.
Linda Gorman is a senior fellow at the Independence Institute, a free market think tank in Golden.